16. Petition for reconsideration Vergasov
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
Communiry- Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No./0
Agenda Date: November 5, 2007
SUBJECT
Consider a petition for reconsideration of the City Council's decision to deny an appeal
of a Minor Residential Permit application for a second story rear deck on a l1ew 1,794
square foot residence, Resolution No. 6485 Application No. RM-2007-14, Reza Raffi,
10484 Byrne Ave,'APN 357-14-013. The petitioner is Fatekh Vergasov.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council can take either of the following actions:
1) Grant the request for reconsideration by making required findings outlined
by the City Attorney (reconsideration could either be heard at this or a future
meeting);
Or
2) Deny the request reconsideration by making required findings outlined by
the City Attorney.
Environmental Assessment:
Categorically' Exemp't
BACKGROUND:
On June 21, 2007, the Design Review Committee (DRC) approved a new tvvo-story,
1,794 square foot residence located along the east side of Byrne Avenue close to the
corner of Bynle Avenue and McClellan Road. Due to the extraordinary physieal
constraints of the site, the Committee also approved several except~on (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 filed an appeal of the DRC's decision citing
concen1S on privacy impacts from the proposed second story balcony. On August 28,
2007, the Planning Commission considered Mr. Vergasov's request and upheld DRC's
decision and denied the appeal. Mr. Vergasov appealed the Plalming Cormnission's
16 - 1
RM-29007-14
Page 2
November 5, 2007
decision and on October 2, 2007, the City Council considered the appeal and upheld the
Planning Commission's decision and denied the appeal. The appellant is now
requesting for a reconsideration of the City Council's decision.
DISCUSSION:
Applicants' Appeal:
Specific grounds for reconsideration are provided in the Cupertino Municipal Code.
The appellants' reasons for the reconsideration request are outlined in the appeal letters
attached to the staff report (Exhibit D). The grounds for reconsideration are discussed
in the attached matrix, Exhibit B, as prepared by the City Attonley. The City Attorney
recommends that the City Council deny the request for reconsideration, for the reasons
stated in Exhibit B. A resolution for denial is enclosed (Exhibit A).
ENCLOSURES
Exhibit A: City Council Resolution
Exhibit B: City Council Findings in Response to Petition for Reconsideration
Exhibit C: City Council Staff Report (w / attachments), October 2, 2007
Exhibit D: Petition of Reconsideration
Exhibit E: City Council Meeting Minutes, October 2, 2007
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
(J~~.
David W. Knapp ~
City Manager
G: \Planning \PD REPO R T\ CC\ 2007\RM-2007 -141'econsideratio71..doc
16 - 2
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE
PETmON OF FATEKH VERGASOV SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF
APPLICATION RM-2007-14, A :MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
SECOND-STORY REAR YARD BALCONY
Whereas, applicationRM-2007-14, a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new second-story
rear yard balcony was approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on June 21,2007; and
Whereas, the DRC decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by Fatekh Vergasov on
August 28, 2007, where the decision of the DRC was upheld; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission decision was appeal~d by Fatekh Vergasov to the City
Council on October 2, 2007 where the appeal was denied; and
Whereas, petitioner Fatekh Vergas6v has requested that the City Council reconsider its decision
under the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and
Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all
hearings, including evidence presented at the November 5,2007 reconsideration hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
l. The petitioner's Reconsideration Petitio~ is defective on its face in that it does not offer
proof of facts as required by Municipal Code section 2.08.096.
2. The petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of
reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal
Code g 2.08.096B(1).)
3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior
city hearing. (See Municipal Code g 2.08.096B(2).)
4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application
for a use permit. (See Municipal Code g 2.08.096B(3).)
5. The petitioner has failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a
fair hearing. (See Municipal Code g 2.08.096B(4).)
t
6. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion
regarding the application. (See Municipal Code g 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council
determines that:
a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law.
b. The City Council's decision is supported by fmdings of fact.
c. The fmdings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
16 - 3
7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by
specific City Council findings, as follows:
PETITION FINDING
"In particular there was insufficient Petitioner makes no offer of facts to
evidence before the Council that either the support the allegation, but goes on to cite
Design Review Committee or the Planning CMC ~ 19.28.060(H) as the code section
Commission or the council itself had allegedly "read out of the relevant
applied the appropriate standards as set Municipal ordinance." In fact, that code
forth in the relevant Municipal ordinance section was included both in the written
sections, in approving the Balcony Permit and oral staff report for the Council's
Application, as the DRC, PC and Council consideration and was emphasized again by
itself appear to have read out of the petitioner's attorney in his oral comments.
relevant Municipal ordinance, the core Assessment of privacy impacts was the
requirement that an assessment be central topic of discussion by the City
undertaken regarding privacy impact Council.
mitigation when considering a Balcony
Permit application."
"The Balcony Permit Ordinance explicitly This is a misinterpretation of the Municipal
sets forth an assessment regarding privacy Code. The privacy planting ordinance is a
that must be undertaken upon consideration mitigation ordinance. This ordinance
of a minor permit application, namely governs one of the main methods used by
confIrming that privacy protection has been the city to mitigate privacy intrusion
assessed "to .the greatest extent." This caused by new construction,.inc1uding
requirement ...is separate and distinct from balconies. It does not require a "separate
the requirements explicitly set forth in the and distinct" analysis from the balcony
Municipal Code at Section 19.28.070 (the permit ordinance, but rather, it contains
"Privacy Planting Ordinance"). . mitigation measures to be employed to
reasonably protect privacy.
"Unfortunately only the Privacy Planting As a result of the Balcony Permit
Ordinance requirements were met. The Ordinance, the balcony impacts were
requirement of the Balcony Permit assessed. It was determined by the DRC,
Ordinance that an independent assessment the Planning Commission and the City
of whether privacy was being protected "to Council that privacy could be protected, to
the greatest e~tent" was not met or the the greatest extent, by privacy planting.
subject matter even considered."
". . . there are two privacy analyses that must Petitioner again misinterprets the meaning
be concluded - one assessing the Privacy of the ordinances. Privacy planting is a
Planting Ordinance, the other assessing mitigation of impacts on privacy. In this
whether privacy concerns overall, not just case "privacy concerns overall" were given
by way of the Privacy Planting Ordinance, careful consideration. Given that
have been addressed "to the greatest petitioner's driveway, but not his house, is
extent." The record from the DRC and the directly behind the subject property, given
PC and the Council consideration of the the great distance from the balcony to
16 - 4
appeal is bereft pf any indication that the
. second consideration was undertaken."
petitioner's house and other neighboring
houses, and given the mature privacy
planting already in place, the City Council
determined that additional privacy planting
was sufficient mitigation to protect the
privacy of neighboring properties "to the
greatest extent."
8. The petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of
October 2,2007 is DENlED
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this _ day of , 2007, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAlN:
ATTEST
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDREPOR1\CC\2007\RM- 2007 -14CCdenialreso.doc
16 - 5
Exhibit B
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION RM-2007-14
Reconsideration is a two-step process. First the Council must make one or more fmdings
that the petition has sufficiently specified grounds that justify the reconsideration of a
previous City Council decision. Secondly, once such findings are made by the Council,
the Council proceeds with a reconsideration hearing, where, in light of the evidence
presented in the Petition and at the reconsideration hearing, the Council makes fmdings
specific to the original application. .
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states:
"A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in ~etail, each and every ground for
reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particu~ar ground or grounds for
consideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or
litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding.
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following:
1. An offer of new relevant evidense which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city
hearing.
3. Pl;oof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in
excess of its jurisdiction.
4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City the City Council abused its discretion
by:
a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or
b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supporte~ by the
evidence. "
One or more of the foregoing grounds for reconsideration must be found for
granting a rehearing. A hearing may be held concurrently or set for a later date. If none
of the grounds for reconsideration apply, the request for reconsideration will be denied.
The present request for reconsideration is submitted by Fatekb Vergasov
following the denici1 by the City Council of the appeal of Fatekh Vergasov regarding
application RM-2007-14, a Minor Residential Permit application, to construct a second-
story balcony on a new residence at 10484 Byrne Avenue, Cupertino, owned by Reza
Rafri. The appeal submitted by Fatekh Vergasov, objecting to privacy invasion by the.
balcony, was heard by the City Council on October 2,2007. The Council denied the
appeal and approved the minor residential permit to allow construction of the second-
story balcony.
16 -7
1
Fatekh Vergasov now requests reconsideration of the denial of his appeal and the
approval of the minor residential permit allowing the second-story balcony.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR GRANTING A MINOR
RESIDENTIAL PERMIT
Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code seCtion 19.28.090 a Minor Residential Permit,
which is required for all new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring
residential side or rear yards, may be granted where the decisionmaker makes all of the
following [mdings:
1) The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of the Cupertino zoning ordinance Title
19;
2) 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;
3) The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood; and,
4) Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
In granting the minor residential permit the City Council must make all of the foregoing
[mdings.
PETITION AND FINDINGS
Petitioners have timely submitted a petition for reconsideration based on the following
grounds.
1. Proof of Facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a. Not proceeding in a manner required by lay.'; and/or
b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by [mdings of fact; and/or
c. Rendeling a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.
PETITION
"In particular there was insufficient
evidence before the Council that either the
Design Review Committee or the Planning
Commission or the council itself had
applied the appropriate standards as set
forth in the relevant Municipal ordinance
sections, in approving the Balcony Permit
A lication, as the DRC, PC and Council
FINDING
Petitioner makes no offer of facts to
support the allegation, but goes on to cite
CMC S 19.28.060(H) as the code section
allegedly "read out of the relevant
Municipal ordinance." In fact, that code
section was included both in the written
and oral staff report for the Council's
consideration and was em hasized a ain b
16 - 8
2
itself appear to have read out of the petitioner's attorney in his oral comments.
relevant Municipal ordinance, the core Assessment of privacy impacts was the
requirement that an assessment be central topic of discussion by the City
undertaken regarding privacy impact Council.
mitigation when considering a Balcony
Permit application."
"The Balcony Permit Ordinance explicitly This is a misinterpretation of the Municipal
sets forth an assessment regarding privacy Code. The privacy planting ordinance is a
that must be undertaken upon consideration mitigation ordinance. This ordinance
of a minor permit application, namely governs one of the main methods used by
confIrming that privacy protection has been the city to mitigate privacy intrusion
assessed "to the greatest extent." This caused by new construction, including
requirement ...is separate and distinct from balconies. It does not require a "separate
the requirements explicitly set forth in the and distinct" analysis from the balcony
Municipal Code at Section 19.28.070 (the permit ordinance, but rather, it contains
"Privacy Planting Ordinance"). mitigation measures to be employed to
reasonably protect privacy.
"Unfortunately only the Privacy Planting As a result of the Balcony Permit
Ordinance requirements were met. The Ordinance, the balcony impacts were
requirement of the Balcony Permit assessed. It was determined by the DRC,
Ordinance that an independent assessment the Planning Commission and the City
of whether privacy was being protected "to Council that privacy could be protected, to
the greatest extent" was not met or the the greatest extent, by privacy planting.
subject matter even considered."
". . . there are two privacy analyses that must Petitioner again misinterprets the meaning
be concluded - one assessing the Privacy of the ordinances. Privacy planting is a
Planting Ordinance, the other assessing mitigation of impacts on privacy. In this
whether privacy concerns overall, not just case "privacy concerns overall" were given
by way of the Privacy Planting Ordinance, careful consideration. Given that
have been addressed "to the greatest petitioner's driveway, but not his house, is
extent." The record from the DRC and the directly behind the subject property, given
PC and the Council consideration of the the great distance from the balcony to
appeal is bereft pf any indication that the petitioner's house and other neighboring
second consideration was undertaken." houses, and given the mature privacy
planting already in place, the City Council
determined that additional privacy planting
was sufficient mitigation to protect the
privacy of neighboring properties "to the
greatest extent."
16 - 9
3
CONCLUSION
In reviewing the Petition fIled by Fatekh Vergasov to reconsider the Council's decision to
grant, a Minor Residential Permit application, to construct a second-story balcony on a
new residence at 10484 B yme Avenue, Cupertino, owned by Reza Rafii, the appeal of
Fatekh Vergasov objecting to privacy invasion by the balcony contains no relevant
evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required
by Cupertino Municipal Code. More specifically, Petitioner has offered no proof of facts
that demonstrate that the City the City Council abused its discretion by:
a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or
b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence. "
In granting the Minor Residential Permit application, the Council made all of the .
following findings:
1) The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of the Cupertino zoning ordinance Title
19;
2) 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;
3) The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood; and,
4) Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properti~s have been reasonably mitigated:
Petitioner's petition for reconsideration is recommended to be denied.
G:\Planning\PDREPOR1\CC\2007\RM -2007 -14findings.doc
16 - 10
4
,
"
~
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
City
10300 l-orre f\.venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) m-3308
Fax: (408) m-3333
Exhibit C
Community Development
Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ~
Application: RM-2007-14
Applicant:. Reza Rafii
Location: Byrne Avenue
Agenda Date: October 2, 2007
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 th~ 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 (DRC) approved a residential design review
for a new, two-story 1,794 square foot residence located along the east side of Byrne Avenue
dose to the corner 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 surchargE7 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 ~ommission'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.
16-12
June 21, 2007
R-2007-23, RM-2007-14
Page 2 of 2
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 windows should be raised to be higher than five feet in sill height and be
obscured from any views.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this matter and found that the proposed
balcony vvill 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 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 pennit requirement is not to require complete visual
protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while s~ill allowing the
construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies,
or any other similar unen.closed 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 Rl 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 Plan.n.mg 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)
. Approved by:
Da~P~#
City Manager
16 -13
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
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 :M1NOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT 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 Permit approval (RM-2007-14), as described in Sectio'n II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and '
WHEREAS, the appellants have not met the burden of proof required to support said
appeals; and have not demo:DSuated that the Minor Residential Permit approval meets tb
following findings for denial:
1) The proposed use, at 'the proposed location, will be deuirnental or injurious to property or
improvem~ts 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, the applica:tion 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 subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
. , ,
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. RM-2007-14
as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Conunission Meeting of August 28,2007 and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
16-14
Resolution No. 6485
Page 2
RM-2007-14
August 28, 2007
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No;:
Applicant:
Location:
RM-2007-14
Reza Raffii
10484 Byrne Avenue
SECTION III: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE coJ\.1MUNtry DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
Th1s approval is based on a plan set entitled, IlProposed two story wfbasement
dwelling unit, Reza R~, 10484 Byrne Avehue, Cupertino Ca. 95014," 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
oVvners of th~ privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent
with the R-l Ordinance for all 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
COITu;nm:rity 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 Col11ITlissiori
tl1.at shall include a site plan of the project, the 30...;degree cones of vision from each
second story window jamb and balconies, and the 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 Community Development DepartI:rlents.
5. BALCONY SIDEY ARD SETBACK
The balcony shall be revised to 11.ave at least 15 feet of setback from the right property
line. Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Deparhnent prior
to issuance of any building permits.
16 - 15
Resolution No. 6485 lU1-2007-l4 August 28,2007
Page 30
6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEP ART1v1ENTS 0
The applicant is responsible to consult vvith other departments and/ or agencies witl
regard to the proposed project for additi~nal conditions and requirementso~ Any
misrepresentation of any" submitted data may invalidate an approval by the
Comm.unity Development Department.
7. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain feeslo
dedication requirementsl reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1)1 tp.ese Conditions constitute written notice of a
statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedicationsl
reservationsl and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approv?l period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other 0 exactio11B1 pursuant to Goverru;nent Code Section 66020(a)1 has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 660201 you \Iv-ill be legally barred fromolater challengm.g such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August 20071 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
o Commission of the City of Cupertinol State of Californlal by the following roll call vote:
CO:M::M:rsSIO~RS: Chairperson Gieferl Millerl Wong, Kaneda
C01\1J\.1ISSIONERS: none 0
COJv.IMISSIONERS: none
CO:MMISSIONERS: none
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: 0
ATIEST:
APPROVED:
I s I Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Conununity Development
Is/Lisa Giefer
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Plam1ing Corrunission
g: j planningj pdreportj res jRM-2007 -14
16-16
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
'"""t>'-~ f:"""":;: J~.i i' ': 1.;':;-"
. (,. .'J ... \..., -.
';-Jsf; f<;.. ki~- L
August 28, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
Suggested adding "The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with a construction
agement plan prior to construction to address the issues that have been rais e public
ony and in the letter".
. arate minute action regarding the replacement of the two tr
(Vote: 4-0-0)
approve Application
ations: (Condition No.2, modify
cant is allowed to phase the project
Motion:
Steve Piasecki:
. Suggested that when the E . g Commission
indicated that the last bu on Condition 5 will be agen
action on the project, it should be
for the next meeting.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for consideration of an appeal of a Design Review Committee
approval of a Minor Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on a i,794 square foot
residence as outlineQ 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 cIearlywritten 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.
16-17
Cupertino Planning Commission
n. r=.. "'.~ r~~.
"; l::;--~l~l~ ~~":'. ~'~.. f.'"
- ,1> f'. .,.,
~-:::j,: {'~~~. 1:-"::'~' f:.- L
August 28, 2007
25
· Said that standing on a balcony widens the angle of view of neighbor's homes more than a
window.
· Said that there will be unhappy neighbors if the balcony exists.
Reza Rafii, Applicant:
· Saj,d 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. 'Vong, 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.
None
None
No report.
MISC:
· Chair Giefer f Vice Chairperson of the Planning
Commissio d Chairperson of the Design Review Co 'ttee needed to be scheduled.
· Ciddy W. dell asked for a representative to attend the next
that h ould work with staff regarding his schedule.
REP T OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPME
o additional report.
OURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the September 11,
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
16-18
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014 .
(408) 777-3223
~~s~p ~7U :7~ ~
.CiTYOF
CUPEIUINO
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
APPEAL
Phone Number
&1-200::; -/C(
1?i:2A RAt"; . C' .
FAi~k~ VE~GAS~,V.
Cflo' Rf-lltttleAlIlf/e'j Pdo t2!to,C4 Ql.{3o I
6~O'- .'-ItS-:-71i~
F/ljtl'lbGJs6~bL ,,,{/eC
1.
Application No.
2.
Applicalit( s) Name:
Appellant(s) Name: c
3.
Address
Email
4.
Please check one:.
Appeal a dec~s~on o;Direc~r ofCom:nunity Development
>< Appeal a deGl.SIOn 01 Planmng COIDmlssion
5.
Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
6. Basisofappeal: i w.,fd to ?,eife,ev e)Cls!r'1! jel/eL
fll ~ Lor }/,0YriccY. ~~ //efr~~ S?IO~z
u,/j '/Hr?-deR.. So U/e clOA/'t ;/eecl M/piIJdcoYJ
PAl' 'ltfe .e~ J~,.e.fio# c;/;1;e j/6W' ~fe j>,ero~ec;
. I.e., we c/otf/If [4/,11/1 StJ/He 1I{//,qtM~f//e,ell/ ~C4 u//~
'. . Ct>//tetJl ~ It/is -fo-z!aP!/.
Slgliature( s) . V
i1ieLJ if/:::
. .
Please cor orm~ include appeal fee of $l56.00 pursuant to Resolution No 07-056
($l50.00 for massage application a~peals), and return to the attention of the Ci~ Clerk,
l0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223.' . .
16 - 19
h -e a. r { M q J cJ:re OCIO be (2, e. ,-if C!o u f1~ 11
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. Up~old 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 al<;mg the east side of Byrne Avenue close to
the corner of Byrne Avenue and McClellan Road. Due to.the extraordin.aIY 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, 11 All new or e:xpanded 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 tIre permit
16 - 20
June 21, 2007
R-2007-23, 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 sim.ilar unenclosed features. 11 .
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 least15 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. V ergasov' 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 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 taller trees at the time of planting.
It should be noted that the site line analysis provided by appellant (exhibit 1) that attempts 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 /Ii... .
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ~/.il/ />. 'L/;"'~
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 Comri:rittee staff report (with attachments).
2
16 - 21
CITY OF
_ CUPEIUINO
f5) [E' tC re ~ WI [E. fRI1
lnl JUL 1 0 2007 lW
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
CUPERTINO CITY CLEBK
1.
APPEAL
'€-ZBO::r-25'} ,eU- 2(;)-0 '77" I Y
,
)?e?=-A R~$/
Applicati-on No.
2.
Applicant(s) Name:
3.
::~(S)Name: -:/:://t/::Z::,?/ vlo e,,~t/~~
~v ~t-t:> CA'ff'3t
Phone Number
m; v~S:-5713 ~.
I'"v N969~j~~~
Email
4.'
Pleas'e check one:
Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
V ge.r~ P-vJeK/ ~~~
Date of determination of Director or mailing of I;1.otice of City decision:
5.
6.
ck.-ve 2.,f/~ ..dYI f,,~
/ # jl/e/a4J[)/2S. ~ ~ ~7Tcr
Basis of appeal: ~ ~ '1"" \ L;/, ~
.' (( L'J~/ t;t>,e(v62..~ ~.Je
~ L? _ p-u,t'. eAC I {; n ,;V'........ / ..(/'.
'vP LAP-r95e '"J~ ~kC
~#'/ 77~~ RJ4t!-lc~~/ .4'd P ~o ..
t:J1/~ pM S~ .
Signature(s)
. ~ ..
Please pret fonn, include appeal f~e of$ . .00 ($l50.00 for massage application.
appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, l0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,
(408) 777-3223.
16 - 22
Page 1 of2
10484 Byrne Ave. Cupertino CA 95014
Dc we want Walchtower hllre7
-''*<fbfj-
.:c ',-:? ,,-;,~ :<... ....,_:!'l " r - .~ \~ BP't~E:;I '5"',~~~ ///..:. ~ O=>t""(f;r"H) -~,~_'!~~~+ Q.~ll!.-"-!:;l1~rr."
"..r:--~"~-""" ~;;. ~ ; T1....~ ~'<S~. t-tlJ:i!1i ~Illl$ A'::'f'fi-.=.I"', 1& ~f.i; Ci fii l! "" 'f< ,1<..~
I"x 'I'~"::::"'"
_.._, -I'r--~u..
:r.'lOir"'"
~<f'Rl"
~::
~s::~:. ~
""'"
D_
o
-e~
. :..flIiDU
--
6"
l;...~
~saie
-
~"""""
"C-;'-i;:':
-
i.-::=
.-
t;;.. ~'1.:;'
:'7C'';;.:.;J:.!E'
}:! ':o~.:t. .es-
I:.J:?,-c-:n U:
;,:~ ;C' .'>r<>~ .on
~ ~l~ ~;..:s.-
~
i!
~
o
:'
I.~
is
.,ttH WoJ\
.
]rm......oti~ QI~d~.
'\:--..<<,
=1!-E'~"'.l!'-1""-:''lT' lSNAP GAItllllnHO POIAAjDSl''''' oT.Wx IYITj..ooEl.
s~
l-H
A~k ;.~_
If Planning Department of the City wants to place another Watchtower here, they will approve balcony at this project
We don't want to loose our existing privacy
,.1;ft:!r"~~""~~"'= =,' -~. .-=.~=~~--~
:I /www.pseudology.org/design/l0484_BymeProblem_01.htm ')
16 - 23
7/1 0/2007
Page 2 of2
Observation from
unnecessary balcony
c
."
'r"
.....
29'
10454 Brme
6' 6'
"
l'
I 21S211lkC1e1llm
!
In my AutoCAD Art:hlteclural desktop 1 made situation model of the Mule project with balCOM)'
It became clear enough, that all four nearest neighbors will loose they existing privacy, because of said baIcorry
When person will step to said baloony he will get more then 180 degree observation angel both horizontally and vertically
That's why we don't want this balcony now and in future too
To protect our existing privacy aU second fioor windows of said project should be placed 5' from second floor level
and have blur glazing
21 B:n fAcCt'Sl:ar, Rea:2
www,psau:loIogy.Dlll
F~ i~th
FV ,Q46 G)
Vef'.!~SO J
5bcJLo pd. yer
rfO Aef-e
(Ulj ~ I
http://www.pseudology.org/design/l0484_BymeProblem._01.htm
16 - 24
7/10/2007
CITY OF
CUPEIUINO
June 28, 2007
Reza Rafii
1729 Marich Way
Mountain View, Ca. 94040
10300 Torre Avenue
Cuperti.7w, Califom.ia 95014 '
TeJ.ephone: (408) 777-3308
FAX: (408) 777-3333
LUMMUlV1TY UJj VJjLUPM1::iN'1'
. ,
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW~O:MMITrEE ACTION LETTER '- Application R-2007-23,
R11-2007-14
1bis letter confirms the decision of the Design Revie'w' C<?rnmittee, given at the mee~g
of June 21, 2007; approving a residential design review for a new two-stOry
(approximately) 1,794 square fOl?t resid~nce,an~ 'a minor residential permit for a second
story rear yard deck 9n the new residence and exceptions to allow five foot side yard
setbacks ii1Stead 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 )1.ave ,over six feet of expose~ wall heights, located at
10484 Byrne A v~, according to Resolution No. 257.
, Please be aware that if thiS permit is not use,d within onE7 year, it'sliall expire on
June 2i, 2007. .
Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made 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,
, 7 Chao
Senior Planner
Enclosures:
Resolution No. 257
Approve
Cc:F
16 - 25
Design Review Committee
June 21,2007
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308 .
ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF IRE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE HE~D ON June 21, 2007
ROLL CALL
Committee Members present:
Marty Miller, Commissiner
David Kaneda, Commissioner
Committee Members absent:
Cary Chien
Gilbert Wong
Staff absent:
none
p
f1
Staff present!
Gary Chao
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
None
WRIlTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.
Application No.(s):
Applic~t:
Location:
R-2007-23,~-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 and 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 dedsionfi11al unless appealed.
16 - 26
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 lO' 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 applicpnt, Reza Rafii, addressed the committee. He will be living in the
proposed house vvith 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 call 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.
Commissioner 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: COI;runissioner Kaneda moved to approve R-2007-23 and RM-2007-14 with the above
mentioned conditions
SECOND: Commissioner Miller
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-0
NEW BUSINESS:
None
OLD BUSINESS:
None
Respectfully submitted:
/ s /Beth Ebben
Beth Ebben
Administrative Clerk
16 - 27
g:p la71.71.ing/D RC C0111.mittee/Mi71.utes062107
CITY OF CUPERUNO
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:
~. 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 corner 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 surcharge and the
second floor exposed wall rule). ill 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.
· l11e 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 R1 Ordinance Section 19.28.090(H) states, "All new or e:xpanded second story decks with
views into neighboring residential side 01' rear yal'ds sha.ll file fOl' a Minor Residential Permit, subject to
Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the pl'ivacy of adjoining propel'ties. The goal of the pel'mit
16 - 28
June 21, 2007
R-2007-23, RM-2007-14
Page 2 of2
1'equiremen.t is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest
extent while still allowing the consb'uction and use of an outdoo1" deck. TI1is section applies to second-
story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unen.closed features."
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 ~d 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 R1 Ordinance.
It is not uncommon for newer tvvo story homes to have second story balconies: It is also not
othe intent of the R1 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 anaiysis 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.
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.
16 - 29
2
R-2007-23
RM-2007-14
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 257
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING
A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY APPROXTh1A TEL Y
1,794 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AND A NtlNOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A
SECOND STORY REAR YARD DECK ON THE NEW RESIDENCE AND EXCEPTIONS
TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS lNSTEAD 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 II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Applicatioi"l No.: R-2007-23
Applicant/Owner: Reza Rafti
Location: 10484 Byrne Avenue
SECTION II: FINDlNGS
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, with 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 19.28.060D2 (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
16 - 30
Resolution No. 257
Page 2
R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14
June 21,2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
wall offsets are provided on the second story wa11$ from the ground floor walls
and the visual mass of the second story perimeter wa11$ are minimized. TIle
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 tlle 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 bene#cial 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 perinit 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 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.
16 - 31
Resolution No. 257
Page 3
R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14
June 21, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted i? 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 TIfE 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, CA95014" 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 PLANJNG
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.
16 - 32
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 1~ 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. 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 (me~sured from the edge of an eaves). Bay
windows as referenced here shall be cantilevered off the growld 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 Govermnent Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90:-day period complying with all of the requirements
bf Section 66020, you will be legally 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:Ml\1ISSIONERS: Miller, Kaneda
CO:Ml\1ISSIONERS: none
CO:Ml\1ISSIONERS: none
CO:Ml\1ISSIONERS: Chairperson Chien, Wong
APPROVED:
Is/Ciddy Wordell
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
/sfMmty Miller
Marty Miller, Commissioner
Design Review Committee
16 - 33
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, tvvo-story 1,794 square foot residence 'with exceptions to
allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of acombmation 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 f,3 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 RI-7.5. The project site is surrounded by predqminately 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-l 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 19t5 with at
least 60 feet in width and larger than 6,000 square feet in size. In the J.{1-5 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 RI-5 zoning district. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of a
combination of 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.
16-34
June 21, 2007
R-2007-23,~-2007-14
Page 2 of4
Second floor side yard setback
Similar to the ground floor setback requirement, the R-l Ordinance (19.28.060E2) specifies that
the combination of the two second floor side yard setbacks shall equal ~5 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 past
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
than 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 surcharge
The R-l 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 carl. not provide asiditional 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.
Seco71.4 story exposed perimeter walls
According to Section 19.28.060 G3 of the R-l 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 structura~ 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.
16 - 35
2 .
June 21, 2007
R-2007-23, RM-2007-14
Page 3 of4
Portions of the proposed second story walls along the right and left eleva~ons have visible
walls less than 6 feet tall exposed; however they are overlapped by adjoiniitg 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 feet 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 fora
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-l 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 perimet-er 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 proj ct 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' t result in a condition that is materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, 0 welfare.
The exceptions should not cause any negat ve impacts to the neighbors or the public.
16 - 36
3
June 21, 2007
R-2007-23,~-2007-14
Page 4 of4.
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 modifica~ons to the
prescribed R-l 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 inlpacts 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-l 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 ~easonable location consistent with-
the general 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. -
Prepared by:
Approved b.y:
Gary Chao, Senior Planner
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Attachments:
1. Model Resolution
2. Letters of support from the neighborhood
3. Plan Set
16 - 37
4
R-2007 -23
RM-2007-14' ,
CUPERTINO
10300 orre Avenue
Cupertino California 95014
OF 1HE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTE OF THE OTY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING
A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FO A NEW TWO-STORY 1,794 SQUARE FOOT
RESIDENCE AND A :MINOR RESIDE L PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY REAR
, ,
YARD DECK ON THE NEW RESIDE CE AND EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW FIVE
FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS INSTE D OF A COMBINATION OF 15 FEET, AN
EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A COMBINE SECOND STORY SIDE YARD SETBACK OF
23 FEET INSTEAD OF 25FEET, AN E CEPTION FROM THE 10 FOOT SECOND
FLOOR SETBACK SURqIARGE REQ NT AND AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW
MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SE OND STORY PERIMETER WALLS TO HA VB
, OVER SIX FEET OSED WALL HEIGHTs.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: R-2007-23
Applicantj Owner: Reza Rafii ,
Location: i0484 Byrne Avenue
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Cornmitt e of the City of Cupertino received an
application fora new, two-story 1,794 sq are foot residence with exceptions to allow
five foot side yard setbacks instead of a c mbination of 15'feet, exception to allow a
combined'second story side yard setback f 23 feet instead of 25 feet, exception from the
10 foot second floor setback surcharge re irement and exception to allow more than 50
percent of the second story perimeter w to have over six fee exposed wall heights.
Also, a minor residential permit for a sec d story rear balcony, as'described in this
Resolution; and '
WHEREAS, the Design Review Commi ee finds that th~ changes are beneficial and
compatible with the surrounding area an the following findings for the exceptions cap.
~~ ' ,
1. That the literal enforcement of th provisions of this title will result in
restrictions inconsistent with the irit and intent of this title..
The purpose of the sections 19. 8.060D2 (group.d floor side yard setback),
19.28.060E3 (second floor setback s charge) and 19.28.060G3 (exposed perimeter
second story perimeter wall rule) e to ensure sufficient building separation are
provided to the adjacent neighbo s (ground floor and second floor), sufficient
16 - 38
Resolution No.
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 mentioneq 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-l 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.
l'he proposeq. balcony is consistent with the General Plan and the'R-l 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 rea~onably
mitigated.
Privacy impacts will be reasonably mitigated by the requirements of' privacy
screening trees or shrubs.
16 - 39
Resolution No.
Page 3
R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14
June 21, 2007
================================================================
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, 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 J':ll1e 21,2007, and are incorporated by reference'
herein.
SECTION III: CONDmONS' ADMINISTERED BY 1HE COM1\illNITY
DEVELOPl\1ENT 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" ConsistIDg 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 :fjve 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 witll the privacy planting requirements specified by
the R-1 Ordinance. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
, Commission for approval indicating appropriate privacy screening trees or shrubs
prior to issuan,ce 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 ~pplicant shall record a covenant running Witll the land tllat precludes the new
basement from being used or converted into a second dwelling unit.
16 - 40
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, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Goyernment Code Section 66020(d) (I), 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 ;;lIe 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 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:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
APPROVED:
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
Cary Chien, 01airperson
Design Review Committee
16-41
TO: City Consul of Cupertino .
Name: /?O beJe. T' SeJeJ 6
Address: jD C/ G C, ,6 r /eN e.. ;4-(, E
I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino Ca 95014
I approve and support the plan.
'LA )w.
3/~,h17
.. + Sincerely,
CotntrleA :
Stvl-eN"tJ ,-0~n, rCM-t"i..' Vlstt( h~~i.lt; eNteL~~
f:l2t;/'t!'~ ~t J.-'h"~~ i:/~;:.. ~ /;4,/ )) A .{:/.:..~.
h-1 LA-;fL..;( ANA s4't'J.J i..~1 .b."'<. c-Iern" L,(0 . /I..... ~(j'ON
It J po sSll!..~ .
/f:,l .
16 - 42
TO: City Consul.ofCupertino
Name: ~{\t\ {DO...f\ {A.M U N\CJv !t,\.,} OJVvt'rVtJAAI1
Address:.1\)4% B\1YN-- ~ L~+UQ; CA-qSVI~
-
I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino Ca 95014 .
I approve and support the plan.
Co ty\ YV\ e.rt1-'
. It
/)MPAV {t Itl:J)C!A~-vV
Sincerely,
,
W<- 3Uffvv+ 'i--A-L "{vOrfle! rANi rMlU Ofre.uo..k-
. if J-U ~. ~OYlSMcf.Wt i0 ~lv.J s.rron ao
f~th/-e . I ~ .LeJL/V Mr"'-.kM6( du/rhu1 IvOn/L
.^1crAkA. liLAJet-. ..4fk.y ~<fiy;de- aNi kL~ du~
LlAAC J,- fvvvJ-
'--tU;{A~ ~ -I:l-(
,. - {lJ ~A-.-
16 - 43
TO: City Consul of Cupertino
Name: \:SC"-0\.d...:r Tt)~l'S
. 0 ^ 'r" ",~.Q,....\l\l'O Co.. a..S-OL--\
Address: I t-.~l:\5" o',~v'\t v~..,-t.. '-' 'l .
I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino Ca 95014
I approve and support the plan.
Co m m e.-i1T '
~
Sincerely, .
M-t-~
'3/~/D 7 . .
\..0"- a.. ~ \.l "-~'{ ~l"'''H ifli' eJ. a.,lbc".A- 4. \.... t t' I>- ~ ...""h a.: I .(\ oJ" :e
""az:~..& +k-\- ~'t-\.s.\- ~ \.~ -\\kf e.'t'rs~~{.\ ujDCloeV\ ~'\'IJc.~'-'te.
't\-.eu:>e. I\~\>~~'~ C\.~ 5ov~' ~-5 .~,,~~\b\f
~GH. \L. '\(x,.
~c~~.
16-44
TO: City Consul of Cupertino .
Name: :'II,j}/2Le_5 '-Il1?rJ Nj C ftl2-L c-
Address: /0 '17 ~_ i3yf!-Ne 'fl ~ ~
. Cufef!-( rAd)CA q~ o/y
I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino Ca 95014
I approve and support the plan.
Com meA-/-'
. ,
Sincerely,
[l/{;lr?/
.' ~ ;;Cv_S
It..4 ~ 1(1 .L",,'.A --:. c 6 ~;; ~
-rW v.>d.L .4- ~ -- ,;-v-<-" '{1<--" . '1 /il.
< t1It~.
16 - 45
Pursuant to Municipa,1 Code Section 2.08.096, Fatekh Vergasov ("Petitioner") see
reconsideration ofllie decision of the Cupertino City Council (the "Council"), roo
on October 2, 2007, denying the appeal of Petitioner. That appeal challenged the
Plannine Commission's decision to approve a Minor Residential Permit applicaUo
second story rear deck, a balcony on the back of the ho-use, on a new resic;lence at 1
Byrne Ave (the "Balcony Permit Application"). A copy of the Council's denial 0
appeal is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Petition.
rn
::0 0
:::! 0
Z -I
0
N
t:5
E3
~
m'
~
ffi
Exhibit 0
Petition for Reconsideration of City Council Adjudicatory Action
=
~
ffi
~
The grounds for this Petition for ReConsideration are as set forth i,n 2.08.096 subsection
5. The Petitioner need only show one of the following in order to prevail in its Petition
. .
for Reconsideration;
"that the Council abused its discretion by
(a) not proceeding in a manner required by law; or
(b) rendering a decision which was not supported by finings offact, or
(cc) rendering a decision in which ~ finrlmg8 of fact were not su:ppo.rted by the
~~oo. .
.
In particular there was insufficient l?vidence before the Council that either the Design
Review Committee ("DRC") or the\Pl:mning Commission ("PC") or the Council itself
had applied the appropriate standards as set forth. in the relevant Municipal orrlin::lnc-..e
sections, in approving the Balcony Permit Application, as the DRC, PC and Council itself
appear to have read out of the relevant Municipal ordinance, the core requirement that an
assessment be und~en regarding privacy impact mitigation when considering a
Balcony Pepnit application. .
The Rl Ordinance Sectio~ 19.28.060(H) (the "Balcony Permit Ordinance") states,
All new or e>..pcmded second story decks with views into neighboring residential
side or reaJ~yards shallfilefor a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section
19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the
permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection hILt to aildress
l1rivacv l1rotect.Wn to the f!Tetdest extmt while. still allawing the construction and
use of an outdoor deck This section applies to second-story decks, patios,
balconies, or other similar unenclosed features. [emphasis added]
The Balcony Permit Ordinance explicitly sets forth an assessment regarding privacy that
must be undertaken upon consideration of a minor permit application, namely confirming
that privacy protection has been assessed "to the greatest extenf'. This requirement is
explicitly set forth in the Balcony Permit Orrljn::roce and is separate and. distinct from the .
requirements explicitly set forth. in the Municipal Code at Section 19.28.070 (the
''Privacy Planting Ordinance"). Thus two separate and distinct requirements set forth
in two distinct Municipal Ordinance sections regarding privacy impact mitigation must be
met before a permit is issued. Unfortunately ~mly the Privacy Planting Ordinance
requirements were met The requirement of the Balcony Permit Ordinance that an
FV IqYb(CiJg/)(!:_JiDbal.A/et
g~
1/,'
g
\Q'
-independent assesSment of whether privacy was being protected "to the greatest extenf'
was not met or the subject matter even considered. Rather the assumption appears to
have been that by adhering to the Privacy Planting Ordinance's privacy planting
requirements, no further consideration of the kind required by the Balcony Permit
Drdinance was necessary - in effect if the applicant complied with the requirements of
the Privacy p1arrting Ordinance, no further requirements were imposed by the Balcony
Permit Ordinance which Balcony Permit Ordinance was thereby rendered superfluous
and fP.{innnRnt
The Privacy Planting Ordinance Is attached as Exhibit 2. For purposes relevant here, it
sets forth specific privacy planting reqtiliements related to second story balconies. The
Ordinance is specifically limited to the role of trees, shrubs and other plantings in the
mitigation of privacy impacts. Trees, shrubs and other plantings are but one means of
mitigating privacy impacts. The Privacy Planting Ordinance is thus limited on its face to
but one methodology for mitigating privacy impacts. The Balcony Permit Ordinance is
not so limited but rather expansively indicates an overarching interest in assuring privacy
mitigation to the greatest extent. In the face of the narrow reach of the Privacy Planting
Ordinance, 'the Balcony Permit Ordinance's comprehensive concern regarding privacy
cannot be seen as merely co-extensive with the scope of the Privacy Planting Ordinance..
These separate and distinct Ordinance's share only a common broad subject IIlai."ter
related. to privacy, but, unless the Ordinance's are to be read as duplicative, set forth
different standards and variables for consideration in determining whether a permit
should be granted and if so, the conditions to its grant The merely assuring that a
Privacy Planting Ordinance privacy planting plan is in place, while necessary, is not
sufficient to meeting the requirement imposed by the Balcony Permit Ordinance that
consideration be given to assuring that privacy is protected '~ the greatest extenf'. The
Balcony Permit Ordinance explicitly requires the need to consider precisely what, if any, -
additional means~ other than a Privacy Planting Ordinance privacy planting plan, are
necessary to assure that privacy is protected to the greatest extent Stated differently,
there are two privacy analyses that must be concluded - one asse~sing the P1ivacy .
PJanting Ordinance, the other assessing whether privacy concerns overall, not just by Vt78.y
of the Privacy Planting Ordinance, have been addressed "to the greatest ex1enf'. The
record from the DRC and the PC and the Council consideration of the appeal is bereft of
any indication that the second consideration was undertaken; namely whether privacy
protection '~ the greatest exte!lr'. Rather it is apparent that all such parties undertook no
further assessment of privacy mitigation methodologies once such parties understood that
the Privacy Planting Ordinance was being followed. Therefore there was no
consideration of whether and to what extent alternative methodologies would have been
effective or even necessary to assure privacy b~ protected "to the greatest extenf' as
required by the Balcony Permit Ordinance. It is the failure to undertake this analysis that
pro~des the basis for this Petition for Reconsideration.
The record of the actions of the DRC and PC are apart of the Council's record. Several
pages from that record are most instructive. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the 4 page DRC
doctiment prepared by Gary Chao regarding the subject property ("DRC DQcumenf').
The DRC Document is well written and comp1;'ehensive. But at page 3 in the paragraph
J
16 -
of
1:
o
\ Qr
entitled "Second stoiy balcony', there is no evidence that the author did any assessment
regarding assuring privacy protection to the greatest extent The author writes that '<the
size and general location of the deck is appropriate and will not cause'significant privacy
concerns for the neighbors to the rear . . .". There is no suggestion that the author
considered wh~er privaCy impact (even though seen as not "significant) could be
mitigated at all let alone to the greatest extent. Rather it appears from the last sentence of
the paragraph that such analysis was not seen as necessary given the imposition of a
privacy planting requirement. And the requirement of consideration of protection of
privacy to the greatest extent appears to have been no less ignored at the Pl::mnine
Commission level. Attacbed as Exhibit 4 is the 4 page Resolution No. 257 regarding the
subject property (the "PC Documenf'). At page 2, paragraph numbered 8 appears the.
statement that "Privacy impacts will be reasonably mitigated by the requirements of
privacy screening trees or shrubs." Again reasonable mitigation is not the standard set by
the Balcony Permit Ordinance. The Balcony Permit Ordinance requires that even if the
privacy planting mitigated the privacy impacts on adjoining properties, the PC was
required to go farther and consider what if any other alternatives wer~ available to attend
to the privacy issues created "to the greatest extenf'. That issue must be considered in
order that the permit process be undertaken in compliance with the Municipal
Ordinances.
Petitioner requests that the C01mcil itselfundertake the assessment required by the
Balcony Permit Ordinance or refer this matter to the Pl~mnine Commission or the Design
Review Committee for reconsideration in light of the requirements ofllie Balcony Permit
Ordinance and with the requirement that the PC or DRC as may be the case, specifically
evidence their consideration of alternatives relating to providing privacy protections to .
the gr~test extent. Not wishing to burden the Council with specific alternatives that may
be appropriate for consideration or imposition at this juncture, but should the Council
prelimimrrily undertake such an assessment and mindful of the fact that the balcony is
being proposed not for the front of the hoUse but rather the rear of the house, examples of
alternatives for ~onsideration to achieve not only the level of prot~tion afforded by
compliance with privacy planting requirements but also to achieve the greatest extent of
privacy protection would be a faux balcony, frosted or otherwise obscured glass, louvered '
win~ows, sky-lights, non-openable v;indows or balcony doors.
. 01'
pI(,'
/0-
16 - 49
Law- Offices of Dati Price
banieJ It. Price, Es~.
Direct Une: 650.330.3656
E-mail: dan@dprlceJaw.ccm
Court House Plaza
2(?D Sheridan Ave., Suite 450
Palo Alto, California ~'D6
Telephone: 650.32.1.1440
Facsimile: ~50.~21.4746
FACSIMILE
COVER
SHEET
OATE=
October 12, 2007
TiME:
12:30 PM
'1'0:
MS. GRACE SCHMIDT
FAX:
408.771.3366
FROM:
RE: .
. DANIEL R. PRICE
PETITION OF FATEKH VE~GASOV RE 104.84 BYRNS AVE
Number of pages including cOver sheet 21
Message: See accompanying letter of even date.
DORIGlNAL WILL NOT FOu.ow
~ORl~NAL W!ll FOLLOW,BY:
[8]REG MAIL
DFEDEAAL EXPRESS
DCJ:RllF1ED MAIl.
Do rHER
If there are any questions regarding this FAX transmittal, please contact sender at
(650) 321.-1440.
CONFIDENTiALiTY NonCE
The documents fnc/uded in this faesimile transmittal sheet cDntain Information from the Law Offices of
Dan. Price which may be confidential, privileged and/or e>=empt iTom disclosure under applicable law.
The doc:uments and information are intended only for the USe of the indMduaI(s) or entity(ies) to whIch it
is addrassed. tf the reader Is not the addressee(s), or the emplo)reB or agent responsible for delIvering
the document to the addressee(s), not that any disclosure, oopying or distribution of the documents or
use of the contents of the documents fa strictly prohibited. If YDU have received this communication In .
error, please notify US by telephone (ool/ect) immediately so th6lt we can arrange fQr retrieval of the
original documents at no cost to you.
16 - 50
Law Offices of Dan Price
Daniel R.. Prioe, Esq.
Direct Une: 650.330.3656
E-mail: dan@dpricelaw.oom
Court House P~a
250 Sheridan Ave., SUite 4SQ
Pasto Alto, California ~306
Telephone: 650.321.1440
facsimile: 650,321.4745
October 12,.2007
Via U.S. IVlail and FaesimiIe: 40B. 777 .3366
Office of the City Clerk
City Hall
.10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Attn: Grace Schmidt
. .
. Re: Petition for Reconsideration of Fatekh Vergasov (the "PetitionU) following the denial by the
City Council of appeal of Fatekh Vergasov regarding Minor Residential Pennit appncation for a
~nd story rear deck at 10484 Byrne Ave (owner Reza Rafd)
11:5. Schmidt:
Mr. Vergasov filed the above-referenced Petition this mornitlg and paid the requisite fee.
Vnfortunately, the Petition th.at he flIed did not include 4 exhibits that were referenced in the
Petitioil. Enclosed please find the Petition along with the previously omitted 4 exhibits.
I am sorry for any inconvenience we have caused.
Sincerely,
~-
Daniel R. Price
Attorney'for Pe1itloner Fatekhyergasov
DRP/cd
Encls
. 16 - 51
~
Petition for Reconsideration of City Council Adjudicatory Action
Pursuant to Mwrlcipal Code Section 2.08.096, Fatekh Vergasov e'Petitioner") seeks
reconsideration of the decision of the Cupertino City Council (the "Councll)'), rendered
on October 2~ 2007, denying the appeal of Petitioner. That appeal ch1illenged the
Pl~rtn1ng Commission's decision to approve a Minor Re."idential Permit application fur a
second story rear deck, a balcony on the back of the hom;e, on a. new residence at 10484
Byrne Ave (the "Balcony Permit Applica.tion"). A'copy ofllie Council's denial ofilie
appeal is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Petition.
The grounds for this Petition for Reconsideration are as E-et forth in 2.08.096 subsectioD
5. The Petitioner need only show one of the following in order to prevail in its Petition
for Reconsideration:
"that the Council abused its discreti.c>n by
(a) not proceeding in a manner required by law; (II'
(b) rendering a decision which was not supported by finings of fact, or
(cc) rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.
In particular th~e was insufficient evidence before the COWlcil that either the Design
Review Committee ('~RC") or the Planning Commission ("PC~ or the Council itself
had applied the appropriate standards as set forth In the relevant Municipal ordinance
sootions) in approving the Balcony Permit Application, as the DRC~ PC and Co1incil itself
appear to have read. out of the relevant Municipal ordinance, the core requh-e.ment that an
assessment be undertaken regarding privacy impact mitigation when considering a
Balcony Permit application.
Tho Rl Ord~ce Section 19.28.060(H) (the "Balcony l'ermit Ord~ance'') stateS,
All new or expanded second story declcr 'Yvith vie1 liS 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 adjo;ning properties. The goal of the
perm.it requirement is not to require complete vlSu.al protectIon but tD addre$s.
l1ril'ac:v l1rotectUm to the HTelZte$t exten.t while st;; U allcnving the construction and '
use of an outdoor deck. T1'tls section applies to s{'cond-story declcs, patios, ' '
balconies, or other similar fP'Le.11;r::losed features. [emphasis, added]
The Balcony Permit Ordinance explicitly sets forth an assessment regarding privacy tha.t
must be undertaken upon consideraticn of a minor penni t a.pplication) namely confirming
that privacy protection has been assessed "to the greatest extent". This requirement is
explicitly set forth in the Balcony Permit Ordinance and is separate and distinct from the
requirements explicitly set forth in the Municipal Code at Section 19.28.070 (the
''Priva.cy Planting Ordinance"). Thus two separate and distinct requirements set forth
in two distinct Municipal Ordinance sections regarding privacy impact mitigation must
be met before a pennit is issued. Unfortunately only the Privacy Planting Ordinance
requirements were met. The requ4'ement ofllie Balce!l)' Pennit Ordinance' that an
16 - 52
in.dcpc:nd.cnt assess.ment of 'Whether privacy was: her-ing protected. "to the gres.te~t extent"
was not met or the subject matter even considered. Rather the assumption appears to
. have been that by adhering to the Privacy Planting Ordinance's privacy planting
requirements, no further consideration of the kind requi.rt."li by the Balcony Fenmt
Orr1i"::Jl1~ was necessary - in effect if the applicant complied with the requirements of
the PrivaCy Planting Ordinance, no furtlier requirements were imposed by the Balcony
Permit Ordinance 'which Balcony Pennit Ordinance was thereby rendered superfluous
and redundant. .
The Privacy Planting Ord.inance is. attached as Exhibit 2. For purposes relevant here, it
sets forth specific privacy planting requirements rela.ted 10 second story balconies. The
Ordinance is specifically limited to the role of trees, shrubs and otherplan.ti.ngs in the
mitigation of privacy impacts. Trees, shrnhs and (}ther p lantings are but one means of
mitigatin.g privacy impacts. The Privacy Planting ordinance is thus limited on i~s face to
but onEl methodology for mitigating privacy impacts. The Balcony Permit OrdinancEl is
not so limited but rather ex.pansively indicates an overarching interest in assu$g privacy
mitigation to the greatest extent. In the face ofllie narrow reach of the Privacy Planting ,
orclli1ance, the Balcony Pormit OI'd.il1;ance's comprehensl'vc concern regarding privacy
cannot be seen as merely co-extensive with the scope of the- Privacy Planting Ordinance.
.ThElSe soparate and distinct Ordinance's share only a common broad subject matter
related to privacy, but. unless the Ordinance's are to be read as duplicative, set forth.
.differentstmdards and variables for consideration in dettmnining whether a permit .
should be granted aJ.id if so, the conditions to its grant. 1 be merely assuring that a
Prl vacy Planting Ordinance privacy planting plan is in pI ace, while necessary, is not
sufficient to meeting the requirement imposed by the Balcony Pennit Ordinance that
cOllsideration be given to assuring that privacy is protected ''to the greatest extenf'. The
Balcony Permit Ordinance explicitly requires the need to consider precisely what, if any,
additi.onal means, other than a Privacy Planting Ordinance privacy planting plan, are
necessary to assure that privacy is protected to the greatest extent. Stated differently,
there are two pdva.cy analyses that must be concluded - one assessing the Privacy
Planting Ordinance, the other assessing whether privacy concerns overall, net just by way
of the Privacy.Planting OrdiD.ance, have been addressed "to the greatest extent", The
record from the DRe and the PC and the Council consideration of the a.ppeal is bereft of
any indication that the second consideration was tmdertaken; namely whether privacy
protection ''to the greatest e>..'tentn. Rather"it is apparent !.hat aU such parties undertook 110
further assessment of privaCy mitigation methodologies once such parties understood that
the Privacy Planting Ordinance was being followed. Thurefore there was no
oonsideration ofwbether and to what extent alternative m.ethodologies would have been
effective or even necessary to assure privacy be protected "to the greatest extenf' as
required by the Balcony Pennit Ordinance. It is the failure to undertake this analysis that
provides the basis for this Petition for Reconsideration.
The record oftha actions of the DRC and PC are apart ofilie Council's record. Several
pages from that recc>ro are most instructive, Attached as Exhibit 3 is the 4 page DRC
document prElpared by Gary Chao regarding the subject property ('1>RC Document").
The DRC Document is well written and comprehensive; But a.t page 3 in the paragraph
16 - 53
cn.ntIod '~Seqond story haloony.. there is no evidence th(d the tmthot' did. :my a..sse!:G!:m.en.t
regarding assuring privacy protection to the greatest extont. The author writes that "the
~ize and gencrallocation oitbe deck is appropriate and will not ca.us~ significant privacy
concerns for the neighbors to the rear ~ . .". There is no ~uggestion tha.t the author
considered wheth~ privacy impact (even though seen aE- not '''significant'') could be
mitigated at a111et alone to the greatest extent. Rather it appears from the last sentence of
the paragraph that such analysis was not scen as necessary given the imposition of a .
privacy planting requirement. And the requirement of C()nsideration of protection of
privacy to the greatest extent appears to have been no l~ ignored at the Planning
Commission level Attached. as :&hibit 4 is the 4 page Resolution No. 257 regarding the
subject property (the."PC Documenf'). At page 2. paragraph numbered 8 appears the
statement that "Privacy impacts will be reascnably mitigated by the requirements of
privacy screening tees C?r 'shrubs." Again reasonable mi1 igation is not the standard set by
the Balcony Pemlit Ordinance, The Balceny Pennit Ordinance requires that ~ven if the
privacy planting mitigated the privacy impacts on adjoinfng properties, the PC was
required to go farther and censider what if any ether alte-rnatives were avauable to attend
to the privacy issues created "to the greatest extent'~. That issue must be considered in
qrder that the permit process be undertaken ill complianee with the Municipal
Ordinances.
Petitioner requests that the Council itself undertake the a ssessment required by the
Balcony Permit Ordinance or refer this matter to the Planning Commission or the Design
Review Committeo for reconsideration in light ofllie requirements of the Balcony Permit
Ordinance and with the requirement that the PC or DRC as may be the case, specifically
evidence their considoration of alternatives relaling to providing privacy protections to
the greatest extent. Not wishi.1ig to burden the Co.~i1 with specific alternatives that may
be appropriate for consideration or imposition at this juncture, bu.t. Sl10uId the Council
preliminarily undertake such an assessment 211d mindful of the fact that the balcony is
being proposed not for tbefront oitha house but rather the re'".:.1' .ofthe house, examples of
alternatives for coIisideration to achieve not only the level of protection afforded by .
compliance with privacy planting requirements but also to achieve the greatest extent of
privacy protection would be a fa~ balcony, frosted or otherwise obscured glass, louvered
windows" sky-lights) non-openable windows or balcony doors.
...
16 - 54
m
. OFFice OF THE CITY CLERK
"
, .
" .'1
CI1i' HALL .
'0300 TORRI! AveNue . c(jf>E~nNO. CA 95014-3255
TEL-SPHONE.: (408) 777-3223.' AX: (408) 777-3366
CUPERTINO
October 3. :2007
P"aie:kh Vergasov
470 Ruthven Ave.
Palo Alto. C~' 94301
.
.
.
l. :
, r
t
! '.
j
I
I
,
,
i
i
I
:
I
!
i'
I
!
,
Re: . Consider an appeal of the Planning Commi5sion.~ decision to a.pprove a Minor Resi~cn.tia1
Permit application fot a second story rear deck on a ne\Y 1.794 square foot residence,
Resolution No. 6485 Application No. RM~2007.14, Rcu. Rafii, 10484 Byrne Ave, APN
357-14-013. The appellant is Patek:h Vergasov. .
Dear Fatekh Vergasc.n:
At its October 2 meeting, the Cupertino City Counc:il denied your appeal. lfyou have any questions
please contact the community 4eveJopment department aH408) 777-3308. "
A.ft)' . interested person, includf.11g' the applicattt., prior tv seeking ftulicia.l review of t1te city
cOlmcil's declsionul tltis nurttfm J1l.PStflrstfue (l petitieJrl.for reconsidertttion wi1.h the clly clerk
within ten days after dte COEUtcil'$ decision. -:Alr,Y petlttmt so rued lftl($t comply witll mtLItldpal
ortf/.n.a.1u;e c~tk g2.08.()9~.
Sincerely,
~J~>it
Grace Sch1nidt
Deputy City Clerk
"
I
i
I
".-
I
I
I
oe: COInmt,l.u.ity Develop-mc.o.t
r
16 - 56
19.28.070 Landscape Requirements.
To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk afnew two-story homes and
additions) tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide
substantial screening within three years ofllie plan.ting.
A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to !Jew two-story homes, second-
story decks) two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story docks or
existing windows on existing two-story ho-mes that increase privacy impacts on
neighbOring residents. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the
finished second floor) windows with. permanent, cxten()r louvers up to six feet above the
:finished second floor. and obscured, non- openable \Vindows are not requiroci to provide
privacy protection planning.
B. Privacy Planting Pl~ Proposals for a new two-story house or a second story
addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting pLm which identifies the location,
species and canopy diameter of ~sting and proposed frees or shrubs."
1. New trees or sbru.bs shall be required. on tho applicant's property to screen views
from second-story windows. The area where planting in required is bounded by a thirty-
degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to
issuance of a final occupancy permit.
a. New tree or shrubs are not required "to replace e'.xisting trees or shrub~ if an.
Internationally Certified AThorist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the
existiilg tI'ees/sbmbs have the characteristics ofprivaey planting species, subject to
approval by the Director or Community Developu1ent.
b. Affected property ownor(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own
property. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of
a building permit
2. Waiver. Th~e privacy mitigation measures may be modified in any way with a
signed waiver statement frOnt the affected property owner. Modifications can include
changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species (l);'looatiori..
C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-story homes and two-story
additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. "
The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger) with a Inin.in+um height of six feet. The Director
of Community Development can. waiver this fr01it~yard tree if there is a conflict with.
existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-.of-way.
D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy
planting trees and shrubs. The list shall include allowed plant spC?cies, mini-mum size of
trees and sbmbs. expected canopy or spread size, and pJantin$ distance between trees.
16 - 58
E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a{~ven.ant with the Santa Clara
County Recorders Office that requires the retention of all pri'vQCY plrmting~ or use of
existing vegetation as privacy plantirig, prior to receivJng a final building'inspection from
the Building Division. This regu.1.ation does not apply 10 situations,de:scribed in
subsection B(l}(b) of this section.
F. Maint~ce. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting
maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and prunin.g as necessary to yield a growth
rate expected for a particular species.
G. Repl~ement. Where required planting is reI11IWec! or dies it must be replaced
within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size at: the tree(s) being replaced, unless
it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Ccnununity Development. (Ord. 1954,
(part),2005)
19.28.090 MinOl" Residential Permits.
Projects that require a Minor Residential Pem.1it shall be reviewed in accordan.c~ \vith
this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an
opportunity to comment on nev,f development that couJd have significant impacts on their
property or the neighborhood as a whol,e, .
A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a 90mplete applicatio~ a notice shall be
sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real. pl'Operty (as shown in the last tax
assessment toll) that ate adjacent to the subject property, including prc;perties across a
public or private street The nDtice shall invite pu.blic Ct)mment by a determined action
da.te ~d shall include a copy ofllie development plans. eleven inches by seventeen'
inches in ,size.
B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public ~omntents. the Director of
Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, Of deny the application.
The permit can be approved only upon making all oftbe following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Cttpertino General Plan; any applicable specific
plans. zoning ordinances and the purpo.ses of this title.
2. . The granting of the pen:i:1it will not result i.D. a ccmdition that is detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and win not he detrimental to the
public health) safety ot welfare. .
3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood.
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
16 - 59
C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any
member of the public that commented On the project shall be notified of the action by
:first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to
Chapter 19.136; except that the Planning Commission will tt1alce the final action on the
appeal.
D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit Unless a building permit is filed and
accepted by the City (fees paid and control number lss11ed) within one yecrr of tho Minor
Residential Permit approval, said approval shall becoDle null and void unless a longer '
time period was specifically prescribed by the conditje,ng of approval. In the event that
the building ~ermit expires for any reason. the MinOT Residential Permit shall become
null and void. The Director of Community Developmf~nt tnay grant a one-year extension
without a pu'blic notice if an application for' a Minor Modification to the :Minor ' .
Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date aJ 1d substantive justification fer the
extension is provided.
E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community
Development a Minor Residential Permit can be procegsed. concurrently 'With other
discretionary applications.(Ord. ] 954, (part), 2005)
16 - 60
To:
From:
. Su.bject:
Lotfltion:
Design Review Committee
Gary Chao, Senior Planner
App1ir-ation: R"2007-23, RM-2007-14
10484 Byrne Avenue
.
Date: June 21, 2005
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:. . .
Residential design review' for a. new, two-story 1..79~ sql1are foot residence v.-ith exceptions to
allow five foot side yard setbacks instead 6f a combinaticm of 15 feet, e>:cepW?n to allow a
combined second story side yatd setback or 23 feet instead of 25 feet, exception from the 10
foot second floor setback surcharge requirement and exceptiol\ to allo~ more than 50 percent
of the s...acond story perimeter walls to have over six fee l~ wall heights. Also, a miner
residential permit for a seco~ story rear balc:ony.
~CO.MMENDAnON:
. Staff recommends tha.t the Design Review Committee a.pprove the project (R-2007-23 and RM-
2007-14) subject to the tnodel resolution and deny the following requests:
" 1. Exception to allow a combined second story side yard setback of:23 feet L..iStead of 2S ~;
and
2. Exception from the 10 foot second floor setback surcharge req1rlmment.
BACE<GROUND
The project is located on a substandard parcel appro)dmate1y 44 feet in width and 3..987 square
foot in size zoned Rl~7.5. The project site is surrounded by predQmina.tely larger and wider
residential parcels. The proposed new house is a.pprbxirnately 1,794 square feet (45% FAR)
and is within the required building envelope. The applil:ant is :requesting several exceptions" .
relating to side yard setbacks and second floor wall heights due to the c.onstrainfs of the
~ubsf:andard width and. size of the parc~
DISCUSSION
Ground floor side yard set~ok '.
According to the R-l Ordinance (19.28.060D2), the combination of the two side yard setbacks
shall be 15 feetl except that no side yard setback shall be Jess than five reet. The p.urpose of this
regulation is to ~ure sufRl"iE'nt side yard setbackS.from adjacent buildings on lpts with at
least 60 feet in width .and larger than 6,000 square feet In size. Tn the R1-5 zoning district, the
side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides because the ot~ recognizes the physical
constraints on narrow and small lots, and therefore provides more f1exi.billty with less ground
floor side yard setbacks to .fadJitate reasonable floor plan.~. The propOsed project site is .
extremely narrow and small, but it is not located in a Rl-;; zoning district. Therefore, the
applkant is requesting an excepf;ion to allow five foot side yard setbacl:s instead of a .
combination ~f 15 feet. Staff supp,orts this exception sinoo it is consistent with the intent of the
ordinance, and the Design Review Committee 1'l.aS approved s~ requests in the past.
16 - 62
1~ - 23
June 2.1, 2007
R.2007-23, IlM-2007.14
Pi:ge 2 of 4
Second floar side yard setback .
Similar to the ground floor setback requirement, the R-l Ordinanca (19.28.06DB2)spec:i.fies that
the combination of the two second floor side yard setbacks shall equal ~ feet, except that no
second floor aide yard setback shall be less than 10 feet. ~ the rationale behind this
requirement is to ensure sufnclent separation from the a4jacent properties and that proper
recess is given to the second floor from the ground floor to tniIilini.ze the visual mass of the
second floor.
The applicant is requesting an ex~ption to allow a coml'med second story side getback of 23
feet (10 .feet and 13 feet) instead of a combined 25 foot sethac..1<. The City has not in the pa,st
approved exceptions :frOm the second fle>or setback req,uirements because of the sensitivity
level of the second floor mass and scale. Also, there are usually other development options
thari to ent:r'oa.ch. into the required second flC10r side yard. areas. It" this ease, staff does not
support the two foot exception request for the serond flool: setba~ based on the following
reasons:
1. The secorid story master bedcoom (19'...{)" by-IS' -0 r') could simply be reduced ~ 17'..0"
by 13'-0" in order fur the project to 'meet the :required combined second story side yard
setback of 25 feet. . .
2. Altern.atively,the appli~ has the ability to locate 01'l..e of the seoond floor bedrooms on
the ground floor toward. the rear of the house. Th{~ applicant chooses not to.
In light of the available development options, staff recomm.~"-t.ds that the plans be revised to
meet the 25 foot combined second story side~ requirement. .
Secon.a floor setback surcharge-
The R~1 Ordinance (19.28.060E3) requires all new second sfonesto provide 10 feet or
addi~ second story setback (along the sides and/or front, or a combination thereof) in
addition to the base requirement. Since the proposed holne 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 root surcharge requirement..
Due to width of the project lot, the applicant can not pro" ide additional second floor ~etbBcl:s
in additi~n to the base requirement while designing a rea.<JOna.ble floor plan. Staff supports
this exCeption provided that the minimutn requiremen.ts are m.et.. .
Seco# story exposed perimeter walls
,Accorclliig to Section 19.28.060 G3 of the R-l Ordinance, 50% of the total perimeter length of
second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights grc~a.ter than six.feet, and shall have a
minimum tw-o-foot high overlap of the adjoi1:dng first story roof a.gainst the second story wall
The overlap shall be stru.ctliral, and shall be offset a minim um of four feet from the first story
exterior wall plane. The intent of this .rt1Ie is to provide S'U ffident visual seCond story offsets
from the ground floor wall planes and to help nrlnimize the visible wail mass of the second
story peritneter walls. .
2
....~
rune ~ 2007
R-~-23, RM-2007-14
Page :h
Pomons of the proposed second story walls along the rlgl:tt and left elevations have $"ble ,
walls lesS than 6 ~et taIl exposed; however they are overlapped by adjoining first story rton-
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 stoxy perimeter walls ne well offset from
the ground floor 1'O€?fs and the exposed s~ story visible walls are not overly massive. Staff
supports this eyaeeption.
Entry Featu.re
Given the narroVt"IleBS of the project pa..rcel, all or the 'Vertical features on the project will he
al:Ce1i.tuated and appear taller. Tn addition; there is an ahmpt change in plate height between
the garage and the entry feature (approximately 2 feet of diffexential). Staff recommends that
the entry feature and the 'adjacent porch roof be lowered in ~ight 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-20D7-14) to allow for a
second s~ry rear facing balcony. Theme' and general location of the decl: is appropriate and
'wiII not cause significant privacy concerns for.the nelghrors to the rear and right (south) side.
However, a.ccording to the ;R-l Ordinanc.e, the side yard 9etback for tl1e second story balcony i~
15 feet. The: right side Yard setback of the proposed balcony appears to be approx:fma.te1.y 14
feet to the property line. Staff recommends that the plans be revised so that at least 15 feet of
setback is provided.. A det~d privacy protection plaxtting plan shan be p~vided by the .
applicant prior to issuance ofbuild1ng permits indicating app'ropriate landsca.piog screening
within the cone of vision from the app1ica.ble new second story windows and the h.a1cony. .
FINDINGS
Staff believes the project satisfies the required approval findings:
Exceptions
1. That the literal enforcement 'of the provisions of thi,fI title will .result in restrictions
inconsistent willi the spirit and intent or this fif:1e. .
TIle purpose of the $e~ons 19.28.06002 (ground iloor side yard setback), 19.28.060B3
(second' floor setback surcharge) and 192B.D60Ga (exposed perimeter secc>nd story
perimeter wall rule) are to ensure sufficient bullding separation .are provided to the.
adjacent neighbors (ground floor and second floor), sufficient wall offsets are provided oI;l
the second story 'twlIB from the ground floor walls and the visual mass of the second .story
perimeter walls a:re minimized, The project as proposed 'with the changes suggested by
staff will suffident1y'~dd:ess the spirit and mtent of the above ~tioned ordinances.
. 2. Tfutt the approval of t:lt.e exceptions will not result in a. condition that is materially
detrimental fa the public health, safety, ~r we1ful!. .
The exceptiOllS should:n,ot cause.any 11.egatiYe impacts to the neighbors Dr the public. .
3
16 - 64
1~-2S
~21.2007 R.2007-23/RM.2007.14 ~4of"
3. That the exceptions to be gtaltted are Qnes th.a..t 'will require the least modification of ilia
presCribed. re~Qns and the minimum varlmce that w:pl accomplish the pu1pose.
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 ~ the .
prescnbed R-l regulation.
4. The proposed exQepnon will not result in sign~-a~ant visual impact as viewed from
abtt1iin.g properties. .
The exceptions should not caUSe any. significant visual impacts to any neighbor.
. .
Secor1fl story ba.lamy
5. The project is; consistent with the Cupertino General Pla.n., ttt.y appliCable specific plam,
zoning ordinances and the purpose of this title. .
.The proposed bakony is consistent with the General Plan and the R-l Ordinance.
. .
. .
5.. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detciInenta1 or injurlottS
to 'properly or improvem.en.ts in the viclnityl and 'Will not be defrimentaI to the public
health, safety or welfne. .'
. The proposed balcony 'will not be detrimental to the public healthJ' safety 01; welfare.
7. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general n.eigh'bttrhood.
The proposed balcony is modest in Size and lOcated ac a reasonable location consistent with:
. the general pattern of the neighborhood.
8. Adverse visual impacts on a.djoinL."'lg p~opert:ies have been reasonably mitigated. :
Privacy impacts will be :reasonably mitigated by the requirements of pmacy screening
. trees or slu.-ubs.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Gaty Olaol Senior Planner
Ciddy Worde.ll;City Planner
Attacltmentsj. .
1. Model Resolution
2: Letters of support from the neighbOrhood
3. Plan'Set
4
~-:.ie
R-2007-23
Rlv!-4007-14 .
CITY OF CuPBRTJNO
10300 Torre Avenue .
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 257
OF THE DBSIGNREV!E'W" CO:MMITTEE OF THE tTIY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING
A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEw FORA NEW TWD-S1ORY APPROXIMATELY
1,794 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AND A MJN'()1{RESroENTIAI.?ERMIT FOR A
SECOND STORY REAR YARD DECK O!,! THE mW REsIDENCB AND EXCBPnONS
TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS INSTEAD OF A COMBINATION OF
15 FEET, AN ID(C1(p'l10N FlIDM THE 10 FOOT SECO:NL> FLOOR. SBTBACIC
SURCH.ARGB.REQUlREMENT AND AN EXCEPnON TO AI:LOW MORE THAN 50
PEl{CENT OF TIm SECOND SIORY PBRlMBTER WALLs TO HA VB OVER SIX FEET
EXPOSED wALt. HEIGHTS.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRlP'TION
. .
AppHca.tion No.: ~-2007-23
Applicant/Owner: Reza. Rafii
Location: 10481: BymeAvenue
SECTION II: FIN"DlNGS
'WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino ~cei\red an
application for a new, two-StoIY approximately 1,794: square foot residence iYiih
exceptions to allQw .five foot side yard setbacks instead of a combination of lS feet,
exception to allow a oonibined second story side yan i setback of 23 feet instead of 25
feet, exception froin the 10 ~~t second floor setback Du:rcharge teC{Wrement and .
e>:oeptlon to allow more than SO percent or the .second story perimeter walls to have
over ~ fee exposed wall heights. Also, a minor residential permit for a second story
. rear balcony, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, with the eXceptiOn or the request for a ~econd story combined side ~~
setback of 23 feet, the Design Review Committee finds that that aU other requests are
beneficial ~"'ld compatible with the surrounding area and the following findings fur the
exceptions can be met;
L . Tfud the literal ~nforcemettt of the pto~i8ion&> or. this title will result In
. restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and infent ox.fhis title. .
The purpose of the sectiOns 19.28.06002 (ground floor side yard setback),
19.28.060E3 (second floor setback surCharge) and 19.28.D50G3 (exposed perimeter
. second story ~.eter wall rule) are to ensun~ sufficient building 'separation are
prov:ided to the adjaeent neighbors (grolli"\d floor and second floor), sufficient
16'f.f] 19
Resolution No. '257
P~ao 2
R-2007-23 &. lU.{..20D7-14
June 21, 2007
-=- :-:-
::
wall offsets are provided on' the second story walls fmm the grmmd floor walls
a.nd the visu.al mass of the second stoIY puritneter V{.alls- are minimized.. The
project as.propoSed with the ~i.geS sugg~ted by staff will sufficiently address
the spirit and intent of the above mentio.ned urdinaru:es.
2. That the a.pproval of the exceptions will not result in a condition that is
mate:tWly detrimental to the public health, ~afety, or welfare.. _
Tho exceptions should not canso any negative impacts to the neighbors or the publl.c.
. ,
3. That the exceptions to be granted.are- ones that will require the least
,modiflcaHon of t:b.e presc.rlbed regulations find the 1'n;T111Uum vuiance tlut'Prill
accomplish tha pUtpDse. '
. . Due to the constraints of the ...~th 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-l regulation,
4.. The proposed exception will not result in sigttifican.t visu.al im.pact as "rlewec1
from abutting properties.
'The exceptions shculd l\Ot cause any significant visual impacts to any neighbor.
'WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee finds that the changes CtI.--e benefi;cial and
compatible with the surrounding area and the following finclinga can be met to approve
the minor resid.e1\tial permit for-the second story balcony;
. .
5. The project !s consistent with the Cupertino General Plm" anya.ppliCable
speclffc: plans, zoning ord4u.nces and the purpose of thiS title.
The proposed balcony is consistent ,vith the General p~ and the R-l Ordinance,
6, 'The granting of the peri:oit will not result in a conditiCJn ~t is d.ef:ri:o;tental 01'
inJui:iou.s to property or improvements in the Vicinily, and will not be
detrimenfal to.the public health, safety or welfare. .
The proposed balcony will not be dettiInental to the public health,. safety or
,welfare. .
7. The proposed. project 19 harmonIous in scale and design With the general
neighborhood.
'!he proposed balcony is modest in size and located at a reasonable loca.ti~n
consistent with the general pattern. of the neighborhood.
S', Adverse visual impa.Cts on a.djoining properties .have been reasonably
mitiga.fed.. .
Privacy impacts will be reasonably mitigated by the requirements or privacy
screening trees or shrubs. . .'
16 ~ 68
14-20
Resolution No. 257
Pa~3
R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14
June 21,2007
=--===---~~--
== --
'.
~~~o~~rr~LW~ .
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other e'9idence
submitted in this matter, application no. R-2007...23 and RM..2.007-24, are hereby
approved; and that the su.b conclusions ttpo;t 'v,rhich the tindings and conditions
specified in this Resoltttion are based and coritl1.ined in the public hearing !,'eCQrd
conceIning' 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 h'lCOIporated by reference
herein.
SECTION ITh CONDmONS AD:Ml'NIST.HRBD BY THE- COt.-iMtJNITY
DBYELOfMENT DEPT. '
1. APPROVED BXHIBrrs
, Approval is based. Dn a plan 'set enti~d: "Proposed 'I'vv"O S~ry W /. Basement.
Dwelling U1)it,Reza Rafii" 1~ Byrne Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014N Consisting of
five sheets received April 20,2007, exCept as may be amended by conditions
contained in this reso1u.tion. '.
2. SECOND'STORY SIDB YARD SETBACK
The comhin.atio~ of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second.
stOlY side setback may be less than then feet. The project shall he revised
accordingly. Revised plans' shall be submitted tq the Planning Department for
approval prior to issuance of any huilding permi ts.
3. PRJ.-V ACY PLANING
The pt'ojed: ~ be consistent 'With the privacy planting reA,uirementa specified by
the R-l Ordinance. A detailed landscaplllg plarl shall be submitted to the Planning
CommisSion for approval indicating a.ppropriate privacy screening tJ:ees 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 a.djacent front 'pooch roof el!;me!.l.i.t shall be lowered in
height by 1 foot. Re\rised plans'shall be submitl;ed to the Planning Department for
approval prior to issuance or building permits.
5. BASEMENT COVRNAl'IT
The applicant shall recor-d a ~ovenant running with the land that precludes the new
basement frC?m being used or converted. into a setOnd dwelling unit
.16 -'f~21
Resolution No. 2.57
Pa.ce 4
~2007-23 &R.M:-2007-14
June 21" 2007
=- --=====--~~=======-- ===--
-----
~--
6. SECOND STORY' BALCONY
The required side yard setback of second. story balcony is I? feet. A revised balcony.
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Depa.rtm.ent for approval confirming
compliance to the 15 foot.side yard setback requirement.
7. ARCIDTECI'tJ.R.A.L PROmcrrON'S
All architectural projections i:nclu?ing 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 andJ or do no~ have
any foundations. .
8. NOTICE OF FEESI DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees"
dedication requirements, resetVanon requiremen [:s/ eum 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 dedi.catiqns,
reservations, and other exactions. You are here-by further notified that the 9O-day
approval p~od in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
Other exactions, pursuant. to GoveI:t'l111eU.t Code Uection 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail toBle a protest 'Within this.90-day period contplying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020; you will be legally barred from later challengIng suc:b. exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day or June 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Design
Review Committee of the City of Cl1perfiiLo.. State of California,. by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN":
ABSENT:
COMA1ISSIONERS: Miller, Kaneda
COMMISSIONERS: none
CONtMISSrONERS: none
COMMISsIONERS: Ch.a.iIperson Chien, W?ILg
APPROVED:
.
ATT.EsT:
I&lCidJlv W orde.ll
CiddyWord~
City Planner
-LsfMMty.MilIer
:Marty Miller, Commissioner
Design Review Committee
16 -14~22
Cupertino City Council
Exhibit E
'Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a :Minor
Residential Permit application for a second story rear deck on a new l, 794 square foot
residence, Resolution No. 6485 Application No. R.M:-200?-14, Reza Rafii. l0484 Byrne
Ave. APN 357-14-013. The appellant is Fatekh Vergasov.
Dan Price, counsel for the applicant, questioned whether the Planning Co1I1Ii:1ission had
considered protecting his client's privacy to the greatest extent possible. He noted that
Mr. Rafii's property was extremely constrained with a two-story house o~ a substandard
lot, and many exceptions had been granted to Mr. Rafii. The deck was one of these
exceptions and the deck loomed over his client's property and negatively impacted his
privacy. They were "asking that tp.e existing level of privacy be maintained and if this
balcony was approved then additional conditions be imposed to attain this privacy level.
Reza Rafii, applicant, explained the landscaping both in place and planned "\vhich would
screen the balcony from his neighbor.
Council discussed the landscaping and placement of this balcony and agreed that it did
not negatively impact the neighbor. Staff noted that the landscaping requirements were
covered by c;n existing ordinance.
SandovalJ.Mahoney moved and seconded to de~y the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the application for a second story rear .deck. The
motion carried unanimously.
l5.
LowenthaVSand moved and secon vard the contract to JJR Construction, Inc.,
. The motion carried unanirn.o
l6.
a resolution authorizing the Director of Public "\V orkS
le design contract with Winzler & Kelly for thereeonstruction 0
rove an amendment of
'dge on Bollinger
16 - 72
GENERAL NOTES CDNT_
I-All flnl.h ,_lfIg ,,/71111 "I"pe .W'l)' from In41JlfIg to
pr"v1Je. p""ltIve Jrllin_ to the _ "I"pe ,,/7111{ Pe
2% m1n. ~ structure ."" 1% m1n. tD puPlle W'!Y.
2~ Provlde cross CDl7nectlDn tlevJce lit hD6e bibb per UPC.
3- SmokeJtfteett1rs ,,/71111 Pe h.r"wlre & I_nn~ &
t:qulppeJ w/ b_ry bllCKup.
4- The roof ./71111 Pe fli-e - 5tt1ppeJ~" preeluJe entry of
fl.me Dr emberti wer roM cD1Imng.
5-U"" uI~r.l"w flU5h (TOO gAl / fI.U5h) tDJIets.
6-Exh._ f"" ,,/711/1 prevMe: min. 5 llir e/7llnge per h"ur with
b..ek"r.rt ".mper" & p"lnt of "1"eJuure ,,/71111 Pe 1Tt l""tIt
31 cr from.ny Dptlf7lfJ6f/.
.,- 205 g.l/mln. f.;"'"" ..n" "h"wer heMi./f t:qulppeJ with
fl"w restrl"""r must Pe mee/7llnlelll/y retll/neJ.
S-ln5tll/lITt/"n of .utDlTlItUe ,,""bllCk ~
8-Wllter hellter unk In"ullTt/"n tD IneluJe 5 feet of het.""
""I" piping.
10-Fr"vtJe fI'ure5"ent I.mp f/xture5 In bllthre.m.. kltt;hen.
tnt:. .
ll-Fr"vMe _lfIg "uct "",,/ / "llImp .nJ up/ng.
12-Fr"v1"e ".u/ldng ,. ""Ie pllte."" top p/1ltc5.
13- In5tll1l~/"n of~" ""DflfIg ,,/711/1 be In lI&Ct1rt1.n= with
U5C 5tIInJ.r" 15-5.nJ uble 15-{)_11/J1J 2-
1+ V.lley fI."hlflg ,,/71111 be mln. IIt1. 2S e.s'I>I. 11" min.
-t:Xtenas from center 111ft:.
15- Fr"vMe.~ - "".1" vlll_ ~ ~ub flxtUi~
16. ~"of ",nJ vr:rtJ".1 w./I" ,,/7111/ be fI.."ht:J """ ""unter
fI",,,hell with n". 26 e.s'M. per 5eCtk1n 1509.
17~ FrDvl4it: Anti ~ 6c.14 vlIlves Jtt 'tuP fixtures.
IS. Water- r""lotJIInt gyp. b.",,,, ,,/711/1 Pe Ufiell .n ~ub '" willi.
20- Thershofds Jrop It extt:rlDr JDDr shllll nert Pe mDrt:
~h..n S" (f.r In ...lng/fIg """rll, .nJ 1" far. .ut - 5wlglng
"".rs) bel.w In"Me flnl"hell fl.",.
21. WJIIter heater tRnk to /7llve two se/timI" IItr"'p. IS"IIb"..
6",r_ fI"", ..nJ pipe prY "". to "ut5lJe.
"""
1- Typ1ul rDDf 61_ 5/12.
2-~:~::,.~'::;~ "'""
,ht:6t;Jng. cl.H -A-
". ,,_.. --.ry IIII5hhriIlttllll vllll..,-
MJJ rllM 'ttJ willi eDhflet;l;/lI'"
.f. All """, ~ngs .. be-12". <yplOll/
5-(rJ.5.)1N/IcItt<:S2""'~"r-yp.
6-1I_..ntIIIItItJn'
",the ",,(if wiiI ;; threu tM IJ6e IIf
~) 2". M/..ln fr1= bI.d/ne__
rllfkr IipIIU.
h
.'
i
~.
.... .~.'"'r..'!'!:.-:~:::-:.-..,"'...,--,....-..,,.;=:.,..,.,....,""'",O:,..'==::-!',,..~::-:;;:-~';;':~_.: ''')
i
~
f'
.
,.
i
\
fl
ti
t
DRe
-~~)";::-. .
.,-~ .~~ :::
J
I~~~,
1~,tHEi!~
.~ ::l~ I
I'~~ . cr.....:t':~ tot-
..;/ <....~....~ )11
(r.-m;,v \...= \ /J - - e ~
........-..-
, i.1,.
..W' ',,-:'
1: 11~~]
-~ '1-
_~i21 '"
r~"""
~
~~~
~X
o
Ie
o
II
o
~
o
II
~
"
+-1ro.
.
!a
~
ti
;, ~
II ;, "
!a ~
~
..
"
....
a
..
....
;, it
l> ~ t
f
'<---
V][CU..JI][TY MAP
I~'~
_ ~rrF~_ I ,- . Y~~rr R
i I Y r- - ~ .- \.
-~ 1--
. <.~~r. I
" ':=o:w ~ I
~ - ..,/_-
'[' ~~\
. ~
.. 1=1;' ~..:=
!Ji 5ElIR.t!~~
i~~H 0Lj!;f' ---.-
- '""-j E- · ~ .,-'
J .- i "1.-111
po~
- rr;;;;:r
!;, it
7"'~
;;;~)
- ... :.
.. ~
':i.. '"
-i
,.
ill"
4
~
I ~,.
-
l_
....
... -
i,
J_ _,",
._ , JiI:ll!-"
,
. '..\/Jff"c,,;-
prop~rt;y Ifnt!: 44. :30'
----'
LAWN
~..
,",0'
2"""'-
10'0'
o
:;
D.-.I n...
.MWtS. ~
.. He,,'" flMri ..
'~__~~'_'L,
1 I
: COYEUIIT10 I
~
~~
o
;.
~~
\
\ I
K
1\ '.
0t1tW IItJa J \
=-~
[;;0~ TWO 5T~Y
~ WI. :IAENr
~ U5IPENr
~~~)
I
c>:m I
""". I
. I~( 1
:...J /:1 J
-.... .~
,~
~a
;.~~~l/nftJ
~? ="Hr.
~;l
~~
~
ti
Z'O"~
~
~
..
"
....
a
..
....
~
II
StJctInJfltNlt":
(661.3 5F.)
....9'0.
.
~
~
0'0' 20""
.. 1,-
~ .
~ . '.
;,
!l
13'7"
0'0"
LAWN
Ne:w
prop",r'ty line: _. ~O'
----'~
/
ql
l> a;.
t
----' "
. \
Nw )
"""""""0/1:
~1G'1 T
mrit:uL~
~xl..~/ne
pro"",r'ty IIn", _. ~O'
10484 BYRNE AVENUE
SITE PLAN
5CAL~: 1/1~ n = 1'-0" I
- 1.'1' f.Ii;
CODES AND SAFETY
t AU. cONsllWCTlON AND INSrMlATlON SHAU- coNFOnol TO THE FOLL.OWlNG CODES:
2001 UNlFObI .UILDING CODE (U1lC)
2001 UN!FOtM WECHANlCi\1.. -CODE CU"'C)
2001 UNIFor.~ !"l.UIM5tNG CODE (UI"'C)
2001 UNlF""" FlU COPE (lJI'C)
20004 NA"ONAL ElEeTJie.IC CODE (NEe)
mu: 19 CAUFDItNlA ADMINISTtA'nVE CODE
nn.e 2.... CALtF02.NIA ADMINI5TlATIVE CODE
AND Nl'f OTHER c;oveRNlNG CODES. ORDINANCES AND AU. OTHEIt ItEGLIl.AWNS
OF LOC~ MENC1E5 AND/or. OTHEl GUVBNWENTAL AGENC1E5 H^VlNG JUIt1SDtcTlON.
THE CONtl:.ACTOl SHAU. FUfNl:5H N.L 1.A8Ol AND MATEt1AL5 AS NECE5Sn.Y TO COMn.Y
WrTH SUCH CODes AND ItEGULA"ONS. wHEfHEl ot NOT 5l-IOWN ON THE CONfVlCT'DOCUMENTS
wrTHOur ANY ADDnlONA\.. CIiAIWE TO THE cONnACT 'UW
IN lHE EVENT" OF C:ONFllCT. THe MOST 5fktNGENf itEQUlUMENfS 5H~ N"rLY.
SITE DATA
RP.N. 357-14-013
10484 BYRNE RVENUE CUPERTINO/ CR.
ZOl-lE : R1-7.5
GROSS LOT SIZE . 4,4~.oo Sll.FT.
NET LOT SIZE. :3.91>7.00 SQ.FT BY
MAXIMUM flOOR AREA. 1.794.15 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED
HE^lEl> UI'1IIG ill},
(INCLlllIINGWAllS) _[1.752 OQ,1'f.) --jFlIt5TFlOOR: 702.1 Sll.FT. _1.363.4 Sll.F1'.
[TO Df DEWOUSH) I SECOIolD FLOOR: 661.3 SQ.F1'.
!WO Ci'I. GIVOE 4:30.56 SQ.F1'. 4:50.56 SQ.F1'.
HEAlEl> UI'1IIG ill}, oASlolM
ONCUJIlINGWALI.S)
.A5MENT UGHTWEllS
(lNCUlDING WAllS)
cava: rDI:CII WI.5Ti>IID
cava: rAllO
(INCI.lIOINGWIJ.l.5)
F. ^-II:.:
1m Ctl\VIGE :
(INCUJDING 0VE~HANG5)
974.5 SQ.F1'.
10S,5 SQ.F1'.
56.S sa.F1'.
lS2.5 SQ.F1'.
(4-4.55 ~)
(4-4.34 ~)
SECOND F1.0011: PERIMETER W ^I.!. " 12S'tJ .
SECOND F1.00R VISI6LE W^LL OVEII: 6'D" HIC>HT: .....GZ'6.< 64'4"
INDlEX
SIHIElET
A-1- SITE PLAN, INDEX SHEET, VICINITYI'IRP, SITE ORTR
A- 2- PROPOSED FLOOR PLRN.
R-3- EXTERIOR ELEVRTIONS.
R-i- SECTIONS, ROOF PLAN, FLOORS ARER CRLCULRTION.
R-S- BUILDING DETAILS.
GENERAL
LEGEND
~ffg-~>EW
F=====t-INDlCRTEs HEW WALL
(E) -1tC)1CA'TES EXZSTINC:
(N) -II'CICATES NEW
GENERAL
NOTES
" ENERGY FORM CF-6R THE INSTALLA TlON AND INSULA TlON
CERTIFICATES SHALL BE POSTED ON THE JOB SITE DURIN13
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT." .
FrRE SPRINKLERS WILL BE INSTALLED PER MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
"ALL WO,RK AT PUBLIC AREA SHALL REQUIRED;
A SEPARATE PERM.if AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS CODES BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF
CUPERTINO CITY."
-
DC NO!' ""ALE 1HE PI:AW_
1"lIIIUM't.~ntif
~,.,..i5""'1"lIi.
n. ......_1 crOhtnlnor _t"lIl.
G'-k'" hr"fb aU I.......~
.hI:! .1nIt'l.... w PAIl ...,~
al'U ... an 1n"OI'. _ anUlilotl
'to1'iho_lfI*'~~.
Th1e .raIns r. 'to ~ rcU IrJ
""JlN'tkIrI wtth mUC'CU'al.
I!IlIGharfNl... a.rtriNl.fwlIttt
.,y IIltMr OONI~ 411,...
t.h.t NY h .",uu~.
';'".,:;:,:.. ........-=:";..
bWt Mt IH: ~cJ w1t.NIl..t
h1...r~ponnllNlJDn.
KECEIVE:C
APR 20 2007
OATe
DlAWlrIDY:
CHECKftlISl':
--
I-
~
::0
~
......
li:l
~
CI
I-
~
~
II)
~
~
~
)...
III
~
II)
~
~
II)
~
C)
~
~
\\I
~
....
oil
()
....
~
~
APPROVAL R~~(X)7-.i3.: Ri1-:loo7 ~V+
ApplicatiOn Number ;
't,":Z/~D1 l
~._ ~/ J
Signature ~ case Manager
..1n--: w_ .,
.. ;~ ;'~o-:_;;.~
~~\
'j\~I~:~~'.
574.5 SQ.F1'. :=0
~(!; ....
<C
IOS.5 SQ.F1'. E ....
~~ II)
'" lii
S6.!l SQ.F1'. ""<:) ~<
<'IS -l) \Sl
...s=: >~ 6
152.5 SQ.F1'. ~ E" lB
'" .:i>
C> -".<: x
E ,,- ..
0" u-
ti ::;~ ~
">t"
t _0 -.;
Ill::; r-
u
__ W~
u::: ::l ()
"'" ~tn
..... :"llj
~ "<c
N ~"
I.li ~~
~ 1Coi:::
~~
~::l
-"
\-. '.
~\-.
~~
~~
c,W
W~
11):..,
12C)
I:) III
\l(1L..
IL.~
lUrch -1007
MaE
r.v..lNjl
06-145
5HEET NO.
j_~ = In
\.... Of .... 5HEETS ./
:-~ OCALE1'HE U<JIN_ '\
l"IIlwG~~1I
.......cw, .. N111.1rN.
Tn. ....t mftruWr'.n.D
___mil',..u __,..wu".;
W .......Iltl5.. SMa ....:ID!"'t
'lQI.-.1dtr'!"GullltWam.-lotl
w'lh, lIidJ..- ~.
1'hI.........,.r.'toH~1I'l
IIlIIlInJ~ -"lot mUCW'.L
....' A mocMnlHI.-.l ..~I WlM
~ ~ ccnU'WIM "rftfftg.
1\-5 ihIltMYH'''''1c.&tIe.
~~,::~:~..
roo ,.... '0' U' 24''''- '0' I3U&t !KIt " ropr"~1I':ll WlthlM.t
h1.wtftI;at per-mi"kll"
~ ,.. '14'&. "0' 204'","- "0'
.... ,..y' 'f1' 1''1: "L .:5'0.
'0,: Ir.' Ir.' U' "0' .... 14".
l ~ '1 1 1
I
II I T I rr:::' ..... H b I
IM/,&OIf( I" I' [? '--' II r- .lJ1 <0 ~
.........",. ............., -..... I
..-1 r;;."'h",.J- ~ L.- Q
~ ..
;, ~s: /"-... f f1 ~
.. COI'O.I'AT10
.. '" r----------, 0 '''''''''''"" , ~ ~="I
i I WALXlNG I .. 'I ~ /JATH
I - , 1 ", I
CLOSET l: I I (3'17'_J 111f8Bl--- \ 1 1
, JI OW,. I , J. 1 ,
I I 6"tJ"x6'S"5/.. 3't7'x5'O"fJ<. , I..... JeE~""T10N , I.. Q
gc I il !l
I W1AS1E11 I Q ';;:1 I \ I \ij '::',./ ~OOM ~~
I /JED~OOWl I !l , I ~ ~ ~~ ;, , I . ~ il
~ I I \ I 1 \~ !> , I ~ '" I \ ~
PIMTH I I KrrCHEN .. ,
. "~l ;:1' I ~ , I..... I \
.. e I I I \ l>
~' I I , \ 1m I \
I .'i "0' JT ~~
I
I
.....
t
ft
1-1\
r
.....
Y/6IWt: WIlli we:r 6'0'" hIP'-
f,
~~---------------
"
t
o
~
fI~U!!!_
~ttIl!..."'!f!e_
o
~
fJu...!:lItJF_ __
~
1
'r
-7:5:
....,.
p.tl.
-$-
rn
~:;::~~
LEFT ELEVA770N
SCALE: V.f' ~ 1'-0'
~..
t
zr.'
YI.ov w.u IWe:r eo- ~
~~-----------------------
"
t
o
_ _ _ _ _ _ ,E.dI~!!.we
D
C~"'..u:r~
?PROVAL
R. ~0'1 ,. ~
.~~..;..~~..:~~_.:.:.r;;~,:"""!':";."'~~':'.s,"..::-~;.:&'..:..1.~:__-\.-:::t.~~.'"77:' ~.l_"';~' ~:-~~~'.~.~~;'"
\'i
7 ~;tR ELEV A nON
00 --/. 5CALE:V.f':r-o"
(
f.
"
.
-;J!"
ORe
Signatu re
r
t
f
.
,
-i
~
21'S'
t'O"
tD'..
V1~/irlt: wMJ IIW:I" 6'0" ~
+-+
..;;;
T.
~~:J'#~.
~'!l.U~
12
Pfl;c~5
fiflt!!..lltl!__ --
t;d!!!!I~__
:.
~
o 0
ill' i)
~~~~
c::=J I:::::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
;,
"
""'"
nI...
-.,~
_ _fl'!!!'"1!F
fI~r-1LM_ _ _
~
~
FRONi ELEVA770N
SCALE: V.f' = r-o'
.....
1
;,
~
f/urllM
~
!YS'
_ _ _~fht..lfM
2'0'
~'G' hfFa r.a/If#,
;,
~
:;r
ttdt11rellntl
_ _fJ!!P'"J!ne
_~d!!.",.!rre
"
t
"
o
~
"
"
;,
~
",,"
.....
......
!Jl1' h16ht ,..m1llJ.
Cmtl:fft"'~
~
fll!!!r!L"'_ _ _ _
RIGHi ELEVA770N .
SCALE: V.f': 1'-0"
--~
I'IeOJEcr NORTH
ELEVA770NS
5CIILE: 1/4": 1'-0"
I.JCJ NOI !:JC.ALE fHE ~to!t.
"'lw-t 1/III"ifr~'"
~lifpu,. I'IIIIJlIre&
ThG pI'Wl'at GDI$'aCltior_hIll
_...._aII_._
IIhri 41lW1t'l.tDtl. ...haII rr.rlll"t
al'lll'" a[ rr'lSr. aNI ___
t.o1!'iD-1Ina'~.
",...tr_",r.'toHf'Mllbt
~"JtNtkItl wtth IIW~&.
~h.nl:lll a\olIllII.~( MtiJu
8fXO'tJocroaan.u.~.r"".
1:k-"~koc..l"fI'l~
~=,~tho.:::~_
rnJIt Mt M rep:o.G.>>tllIi wlt.ho\..C:.
IU. wr~ pcr+nlNktn.
..
t
;,
~
f
;;;~ ....
d:l
E ';0 b;
\) ft~ O'i
-.;s ~< III
~ -l)
..s= ~~ 6
-'>L t\l
\) ,s; x
0 >=>=
~. .
E Il-
::;;~ o/S
'<1''' ~
O'i~
:;;;
"C
;;:
lu
~
~
~
III
....
i'G
~
~
"
~
)...
III
~
\I)
~
~
\I)
~
<::>
~
m
1\1
~
't
(\
o
't
~
~
?i
:".
~~
a: ~()
~ ~~
~ 't~
lti ~Il
III ~::J
_\.J
I- '.
<:\-
:i~
~<:
~Iu
Iu~
Ill:".
~Cl
Cl~
~~
OATS<
MAACH -2D07
.os
DkAW'N 5Y':
CHE!XEP lrt':
....
-
06-145
.....,....
j~=~
Of PM! ~.
lii~
~~
IV'\. :::J \
~\l Z _
~8\'
t'~~
~J
\
~
..J
~
o
a:
D-
o.
<(
~J
0/,\ lD
rl)
~ y
~
~~
o
c:
o
c
I
I
H--l :!f-:
I
I I
I I
I I
I ~ I
J I
I I
I I
I I
:: ~
f---:i\;:. ~!~m~-':":"m_____
J I I I
J I I-- ~ I
I 1,1'1...., / I
I I '\.r' I
I r rA I
!5"26liAG.LA. I I L...V' I
~r;~.. I I I
OI>.'IYI'. I I I
~:!"""""1 I I
I I I
I,~ ~l :
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ : ~ :-:!
I
I ---- ---------,
I I
I
I
I
~l ~ I
:! --' 0-: :
ro~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - J- - - - - - - - - ~
~ iJ} ~I c:y "!d
/'
~-
~........
j
~
.',
~
!i
~
\'
~
~
~
t
~ (Jottt:J /lilt:
r;hDW willi
l bel,,",.
I
~
~
-It
:{
'l
~
It
1
. -.I"
1
o
= II
a:-@-Er
I~
~~ -r~ ~ ,t1l1
-----m~-~v -------i
U- I; I I
~ :-:! :
I I
I rA I
I LV I
I I
I J
I I
I I
J
L
I
-----~
I
L
12" Typl.. I, I
DYtlf"Mhg. N
'0'
~
:!A.
--*
~ :!
r-'r""""l
I SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF PLAN
.---,
Q)--3'O'XgS' - 29.:35F
@-8'7'X7'O' - 6O.15F
0--'3'7'X~2'- 3f5.:35f
@--15'S'X17'2' - 270.'l5f
@--W S . X 20' S' - 430.56 SF
@-112'3' 0' ~2' O' +6' 0'}-27.0 SF
\ I
\ I
/~=;J
-
.".
~
o
@
Vl2"
1\.':11
III
III I
Iff
@)
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
"
, '
, '
, '
=, \
lrVl '
@
~
(j)-13'S'X13'\'-17a85F
@)- lS'S'X15'S'-24ll.25F
@- I4'S'Xgl' -133.975f
@-10'0'XfO'-10.0 SF
@-5'7'Xl3'4' -74.45F
@-3'7"X4'Z' -14.93 SF
5ECONO FLOOK.: 661.:3 + FIRST FLOOR: 11:32.66 SF.
I I
TOTAL FLOORS: 179:3.96/ :3.987.00 5a.FT.= (44.99 %)
8)
II
(1)
~
o
~ ~ ~ II IIH- +h
F===ti
~
o
o
o
FLOOR AREA CALCOLATlON
I SCALE: 1/S" = 1'-0"
8
~"
=
\ I
\ I
K
1\
\
9
y
W~:'~r
<<!!!."f.!!~ _ _ _ -1_ ..... \
\. ~ '--M"- I ~ ~/I
- 1MU'.-tI':~
12
pltchlS
"
~
~- - - - - - - - - _~/~_-
~."""-~-..............
117.u~ ~
o
l>EO ~OOM
/l"'rlm..~ r;:m I r;:m
~'!!~
"'"
~-",~ DO
C"'L: -
"
~ =
=-
FIIMILY
~OOM
.PPr!!Jl# - <l-
~ r;:m r;:m
i
r;:m _
~
Mrn~ ~ m
r:m:v m
~
F"'"
'1~~ FIIMIL Y 0 1==
UGHT [.; ~OOM
WELL ~C~EAT10N .~" 2~'O"'''',
su..r ,,"OOM ...
-."J
I l . . l ~
SECTION B-B
...., ,-~"fl1~ _ _ _ _ _
71 ~
- T IZ
/' "- pftchl5
""- \
~ Y
~ -- ~~ "-
\
f
...
DI::::af~;:::"
~~
-"""
-----~
..
!l
---'i'
~
"
~
""'""'
co _",ALE '!HE ""^"''''''''"
l"IIlloWt I'IrifrcatIDII II
"""PN.5 ~
~al=~~lc...
.hII.~If""'lfhd ",.,"
.1lJI....r """'rs....""...,
..ih.____.
ThI..I".......r.t.Il..,..In
al\llN'tklrl WIth ll'trLlCW'a.
mMharical__ d.llC't1'lcal W1a,.
.,y ~ CGrtaL~ ........,..,.
1:hn. UI N.pp~
::,~,:.c~~
nut Id; IN: l'qlIl"~tM wtt.Mlot.
kJa W!'~ pcrrtiRkm.
;;~ ~
E ';0 ...
>..;- ll)
~ "ll) ro
-.:s ;t...:
~ .l1U III
I ...s::: ~~ 6
6 ~ m
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ~:;: III
~
0 "" x
:J- ..
E 0" u.
~~ o!S
..,.:J ~
_0
ll)~
"
.,
1
S!!02 I I:'iO!1 S!!02 I S!!02 I 'l'll< S!!02 11:'iO!111:'iO!11 I:'iO!1 ~
LK-M ew:t
-."
g _rn
=llqm
9i1 I ~ I I I
'~='
-~
. :JRIIC
- ~GyJ:wtm~J.
: =:::_(I
MII51Cf!.l>EO~OOM HALL
IW ~ I Iw<;I ~IW
I I -===-
~.g ,. .....
kITCHEN
II
a
.,
n...."""
~ ~~ 'Mtm~lmlm
: ---,~~ lJD
"------IJ
1m 1m
N3"-
In_
L"oI'
wi. ~-"rn.uJlttltm
wI. 1/2" GyPIlIl1l &1.,...
FAMILY
~OOM
SECTION A-A
l.
u...
SCALE: 114' = 1'-0"
~
, "-
....l/~ \
;= I
/
-=
h~'O"'
-
....,..
""'-"L,
I 7
m
III
~
"
~
~
~ llJ:!
::>1:)
~ ~m
::..
~ -'::..c
llJ\.l
::;; if.: ~~
II)
~ ~ >-<:
'" llli::
"" ~ ~~
)... lti
~ I\{ ~:::s
~ _\.l
II)
~ I- '.
<:\-
fa ~~
II) 1:':<:
~ e:,lu
<::> ~~
~ ~C)
I:lt:
t:~
PAT!: WJ<<CH-'2tJ01
~ey: WOE
CHECI',Et)!lYt lEUkNI
- 06-145
.....,.110.
j~ - .;~
OF FIVE SHEET's
_-__1
.. ~",..... ._._-_.---_._~'"
.~
o
~
I
~
~
CD
..0
E
:;j
r()Z
'15
~ ~ \
c:a.~
~~
~
-I
~
o
0: 0
8: a:
<C 0
'-
'"
i<l
Optll1n.1 &.bltre:t
folia p.per hoMer
fotvd b.,.
--~-...
"..
~
JI
rl
~
N
b
i<l
FfYFlCAL BATH/I:OOM ACCESSORIES
1'}
~
~i
~
~
~
~
~
~. "l
n
:;.
io,
,
..
...
~
~
.~
t'
.;
'"
51
HI
D
.;
'"
D
Hi"",
9
PlCAL WINDOW & DOOR
SeII/,:: 112" =,'-0-
"
..:=':':"Y
SEE DETAlL'A'
~
SRAI' TIE
TOP VIEW
51&' . Z VZ'
AG EW
STurTIE
DETAlL'A"
NOTE: USE V-4' STOVE SOLTS
IF f'UJM!>E~ mAl'I5
USED. FOIt No. 5 GAUGE
WIItE. wur TIE THItOUGH
f"I<.EDltll.LED HOLES.
LATERAL SUPPORT FOR WATER HEATER
/..Jg/<tFl'''''Jr''''
(Set: DIIIMr)
o 0
,."IIfftlt:S.
518" 6Y~um 17DR,...
",""1-
"nld",
""""-
MII1.ItOIt
iyplcM/ nwiJfne
HZtnllhtJtfD"
finlll MlfIJlfdilHr
1/2" ffYp6/m 'nm'
,1yw.I.~ng
NHJf mfrwrtng
1.9
RIDGE DETAIL
CROWN MOWING DETAIL
lG
5CAJ..E:N.T.5.
13
5CAJ..E:N.T.5.
"""tit,.
UhoI<rl_
1/2" cox pfywJ
._""
mt:t.Ifl.s},
-
.."
7/B.WlmttIf;~
. - '-"
--
>>.~Ifl!V.
_I....
hAnJ/c &- i1olt6
""Mfrlllffine
'1"
~! :t::mff=
~,
~
~
2.0
i7
EXTERIOR
RAKE PETAIL
INTERIOR
DRYWALL CORNERBEAP
5CAJ..E: 3'~NJ"
14-
5CAJ..E: 3I4"=r'-(J"
Jt:61:16Ieevt:
~i fo{Je:r liver vent
b6ft//_ pfpt:'''trilf.
~ (2rl""","", rDM f1JIter~/
""''''''''''P'''" .Ieeve 6DIJt:rul
meYI fI_}, 'tD bAtIe sheet
1'fywJ "ha1:Ine It:IIJ ;1I$e
.... flA6hsMet
is ~ 2'O"tkfUIIN:
INSULATION [ij unJorllymetrt
!>ATTSA5 J:
ItEClUIEItED
SY CODE Gutter
f.n{.
NOT COMSU5TlSLE
rAN WITH
Al'f"I<.OMATE
DUlIN.
"'
5CALE: 314" ~ NJ"
.21
i8
15
ROOF PENETRATION
GUTTER DETAIL
5CAJ..E : 3"~f-(J"
SCALE: 3"~NJ"
~~ V2" CD f'lywli fTH1f tihahlne
,__ .-:li'trut:'WrlllplMJS.
l.3O 1M1i1U1HI.
S- 26 GA GJ.
....-
0/2-6flUiCl.1oC.
StlllJl1IlIctt".
~ 11/Z - a.m. vmfIfll'tl,;n
MIa (ueh bq)
Cdllng/lhe.
Dllublepl.u
51S-IlY".lIf1INMrJ
IM.3 RRr,i_s
/nslilttJlln,Ift;'t6.
2Jt'f WDDJ 6tu./s # 16- o.c.
V2"IlYP6lIrI;NrJ.
TYPICAL EAVE
SCALE:3"=f-(J"
. 2-4 !i-\ G5M VIIIley fI#lShf,.
R-=f'YI6ftl/a
wi: 3O"fdt balJ1hg p.pt:r
tnMI" plywrHNI shuU"..
~ftsltj,/4pllpt:rt.pMIl. 12"
ryp.zx~
1-- Jwo.)
2xllroi& .,..tltr)'11r/.
(5.S.0.)
Yf'. M!npHffjlJf6t!vthgt:r.
ROOF VALLEY DETAIL
SCALE: 3'~f'-(J"
11
Ooulr/e 2.
2X WON
6tUJ. " '6" O.C.
l-f3/htrIiIUIHI
I/Z- Gypsum bur"
2-LAYEJ:,5
win l.1E5H
EXTERIOR
INTERIOR
WINDOW SILL DETAIL
NOTT05CALE:
N01E..
t)O NOT 5CALE 1'HE DVlWJ'l105.
rc=tl\l.Rt V#l"Jfi~ of
.!i""'.lHI. .. ntqUreaL
Thlll,.".,.al Gotttranctr .I'ulU
Qt100t Ilhd verIfy..n ~.~
.hd "1Nh5olotl5' .tUI ...n ~D!"'t
.I'IJ .hlII aU ctT"Or" ttnA ~krtI
~thG"~ ~fatab-.
ThIIJ .....-me '- 'tG "If reM In
~"JLI'll:tI"" wtth .-trtll:'tU"al.
~hanI~1 awl aI.~ic.IIl arwaJ"r
...y lJ't.h!:r clHt.Ldwru .!rlMl"f.
thAIMy' ~ appllcalM.
~~~~:.c~=~
must I'lIIt .c 1'eptO~cc1 wtth6\.&.
hi. wrJtten pCl'1nlHIIII\.
10
:=0 ....
~~ d;)
E ....
>.q- 0)
~ -0)
'S fi< OJ
<1S -u \0
..<:: ~~ 6
.::.L III
~ ~> \0
C> rr x
E ~1i -
::;;~ "-
~ .q-:J o!S
lii~ c
.. I-
1
'-'
~
~
't
~
't
-
~
!I'i ~
<:
"<: <:
iC ~
\0- <l:"l':
iij 1IJ'-'
~ it <:
11(1;)
~ ~ >-<:
" Il\i-:
~ ~ 'l-II(
)... lI.\jt
II( I.1..i ~:::I
~ II<(
-'-'
III
~ I- ..
<:\-
fil ~~
III ~<:
~ c:.1IJ
<:) 1IJ~
~ \l)1IJ
\)~
r...Cl
Clt
~~
DATE: tf.rdt -200'1
DtAWN~: twlOE
CHECUDIJY; ~
-- 06-145
SHEEr NO.
j~ = ~);
OF ftllla 5HEfT&