The URL can be used to link to this page

DRC Summary 01-17-2013 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N O (408) 777-3308• FAX(408) 777-3333• planning�a cupertino.org To: Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commissioners From: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Date: January 22, 2013 Subj: REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FINAL DECISIONS MADE January 17, 2013 Chapter 19.12.170 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for A eal of decisions made b the Desi n Review Committee 1. Application EXC-2012-03, RM-2012-41,Jahan Faridnia (Tsuri residence), 10630 Gascoigne Dr Description R1 Exception to allow an existing detached structure with legal non-confarming front and side setbacks to be attached to the principle dwelling; Minor Residential Permit to allow a portion of a 12' 3" extension of a legal non- conforming wall line and to allow a portion of a 246 square foot addition to encroach approximately 11" into the required 20' rear yard setback Action The Design Review Committee approved the application on a 2-0-0 vote. This is effective January 17, 2013. The fourteen-calendar day appeal will expire on February 5, 2013. Enclosures: Design Review Committee Report of January 17, 2013 Resolution No(s). 312 & 313 Plan set COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408)777-3308•FAX(408)777-3333 CUPERTINO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date: Tanuary 17, 2013 Application: EXC-2012-03 and RM-2012-41 Applicant: Jahan Faridnia (Amir Tsuri) Project Location: 10630 Gascoigne Drive (APN 375-22-022) Application Summary: 1. R1 Exception (EXC-2012-03) to allow an existing detached structure with legal non- conforming front and side setbacks to be attached to the principal dwelling. 2. Minor Residential Permit (RM-2012-41) to allow a 12 foot, 3 inch extension of a legal non- conforming wall line and to allow a portion of a 246 square foot addition to encroach approximately 11 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the R1 Exception (EXC-2012-03) and Minor Residential Permit (RM-2012-41) per the draft resolutions. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Desi nation Low Densi (1-6 DU/Gross Acre)Rancho Rinconada Zonin Designation R1-5 (Sin le-Famil Residential,5,000 s uare foot minimum lot size) Existin Proposed Land Use One-stor sin le-famil residence Net Lot Size 5,508 s uare feet Allowed/Required Proposed Lot coverage 50%of the net lot area 48% Floor area ratio 45% of the net lot area 45% Height Two stories,not exceedin 28' One stor , 15' First floor minimum building Front-20' Front-15' (Existing,R1 Exception req.) setbacks Side-5' on each side Side-5';4'6" (Existing,R1 Exception Rear-20' requested) Rear-19'1" (Existing,MRP requested) Pro'ect Consistenc with: General Plan Yes Zonin Yes, exce t for the setback exce tion re uests Environmental Review Categorically Exempt per Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities- Additions to Existing Structures) of CEQA EXG2012-03 10630 Gascoigne Drive January 17,2013 RM-2012-41 Page 2 BACKGROUND: Site Description � , � , The subject single-family residential '��:L, �. `',�� `�`�`�- ,;._- 4' ��'�'" p� � . s*�,� ro er is located on the easterl side R�� 4 `�.;Y ��.� � aµr � �rf �' ��'` p p �' Y �' � �� `�. °� �..a of Gascoi ne Drive between w��`� " � '� � °� ' �'` .��'� i�`r g � . .� � � ,s.�* :•. ' f,� °� �.� ..� �"� r� ��'; "�a Y��,�„ �.. h�s:.�� w�Y�.. � � F�"+w,q� �,,.�....51�� '� '� -A.� e� Wunderlich Drive and Cynthia Avenue. '��;� �f��,;;� �-..� �. ��,r�...,-''�,, `�y,��.� •; , " z;�`.w� n,� ,,��+ 'w. {,%�� ° The ro ert is surrounded on all sides , ``� `��s �� e � �� :�' ,,�,��`� ` :f' � '� p p Y �� '► ��,, � � ,� ,�. f • � �,. .�„ ��, �, r�,. by single-family residences. ��: :��°"� ' ` �''� �1[' '"�' �� :. � '� fx �,: ' .w�: .,�Qi ._ro �m � T� ��°, �,y�, }... � .^.� �� `t9 .y�,«�.: r� � � ', r..,�'�. ��r�;�. � r �� P. «.� ,4r "^� r�'�`,� :7 .,,, -..„. ,.: The existing one-story home and .�� ,°��,� 4to� , ��,� '�* ��,"�-'.�°�'f `.�� " � , ..,. .; . . ,.j�� ; �^9�'' J1 :, /�,�. • • �xZ � �'A .M�� ! ~� � �.;. ' . �'��'r" j{� .�AMCy. I ��*� 9' _�� \' �� Jt � *„� � <�./ �/Y .,F�S��C. detached garage were originally built ' � �� \ `+�`v�'��`' l f�' + � i^.�; �. around 1955 under the County of Santa -'� �'' �� \��y �'�� ` � �� {�w "�� 'i°�'�' .� � /"�.. � �F��'� � �,..� Clara's jurisdiction. The property and `� �'� � ��"��,'� �'`� �s�: rtr� �°.� `� �': ""r�l . "�� . ,�;� the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood .� � ��` � ��`�"��:�"� � ".•. ��»�°�� ° '��,� ��.� �� ,�� , �, ��'� were annexed into the City in 1999. The ��'��"��' - ��: ��'�'� `� ' :.�► � "`�'�'� 4�� # . r� ` ��^dq, x-! � � � y � , lot is substandard in width at 49.5 feet ��,:,�` �''�A � � . � ` :� �' • .�y ,,r �0.5 feet less than the R1-5 zonin �� '�'`��`'"�`� 8�`�"'� �� g �w� . , � district minimum lot width of 50 feet) Site aerial with varying depths of 105 feet on the northerly side and 103 feet on the southerly side of the lot. DISCUSSION: Application requests The applicant, Jahan Faridnia, representing the property owner, Amir Tsuri, is proposing to add 419 square feet to an existing one-story single-family residence in order to attach the principal dwelling to the existing detached one-car garage. The project also involves formally legalizing a previous addition on the rear (246 square feet) and southerly side (308 square feet) of the house. The project requires an R1 Exception to maintain the existing non-conforming front and side yard setbacks. A Minor Residential Permit is also requested to extend an existing legal non- conforming wall line and to facilitate a rear yard setback less than 20 feet. Typically, Minor Residential Permit projects are approved by the Director of Community Development. The Design Review Committee is reviewing both applications concurrently since an R1 Exception is requested. Front and Side Yard Setback Exception The majority of the residences in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood (including the project home in question) were built under the County of Santa Clara's jurisdiction with varying building setbacks and development parameters that are considered non-conforming under the City of Cupertino's requirements. There is also a predominant neighborhood pattern of existing residences in the neighborhood with front-loading attached and detached one-car garages and EXC-2012-03 10630 Gascoigne Drive January 17,2013 RM-2012-41 Page 3 carports with front setbacks less than 20 feet, many of which have similar or identical site plans as the subject property. These residences were originally constructed in the 1950s, and are shown on Attachment 1. Per Section 19.28.070 (E)(1) and (E)(2) of the Cupertino R1 Ordinance, principal dwellings in the R1-5 zoning district are required to be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and 5 feet from each side property line. These requirements are intended to ensure adequate light and air access from the street and separation/privacy between residential properties. The project proposes to add onto the existing principal residence and connect to the rear of an existing detached one-car garage. Generally, detached structures are allowed to have lesser setbacks. However, when the garage is proposed to be attached, technically it must meet the required setbacks of the principal structure. Consequently, an exception is required for this project. It should be noted that all of the proposed addition areas meet the City's setback requirements. The existing undersized (11' by 20') one-car garage is positioned in the front of the house with a legal non-conforming setback of 15 feet from the front property line and 4'6" from the southerly side property line. The proposed addition and the connection from the principal dwelling to the garage will not encroach further into the required setbacks. The proposed addition also will not exacerbate the perceptive size, height, and location of the existing one-car garage. In accordance with the Parking Ordinance, the applicant has set aside the square footage necessary from the buildable area as a credit to facilitate a future two-car garage conversion, if deemed desirable. Staff supports the front and side yard setback exceptions given the reasons described above. Minor Residential Permit The project is also requesting to legalize a 246 square foot area at the rear of the existing house with a Minor Residential Permit to allow for a reduced rear yard setback of 19'1", and to continue an existing legal non-conforming building line for a distance of 12'3". Another 308 square foot of building area along the southerly side of the residence is also being legalized as part of this consideration. Staff supports the Minor Residential Permit request and the proposed additions since they comply with the R1 Ordinance. See the proposed site plan below showing the areas that are subject to a Minor Residential Permit: EXC-2012-03 10630 Gascoigne Drive January 17,2013 RM-2012-41 Page 4 --- - ��-� - .� ......... ..... ,...,��..�.. �FI.OiERS I ___________ ________"_�'_'_________ -� _ _ !_ _ _._ �__ _._ _ _ . -'{1(\'..CI"1 P! t ...... _'�� "' • sr y . . . -. .�, ..."""..._.._. � , . .f'. '� '- . i � 12'3"extension of �= � - � , .o.,�...,; . � � ' �r„r:�� %' a legal non- °� - ,..::...�..,�. � .�� _ , � � Q o • � � ��'� � conforming wall � . _ � ., ; . ;� ` _ ��.�. '�t . � `' ' r / c� w�,�,m�T;� i ,��, �.,, e,. -i�[ _ � � . � � �.ir i �' ' .,. rJ -, � i . /��. �.( . �gi � . _..., . � � . ; � ... �n...Y.... "��-" ._.. V .. , � ' �.. s��g . ._--- --�- � � I _ I ... / x _ � �- . ..--- ; . � �— y, ; r - �«� n�.ca� - � i 0' i . ��6 ' `�fi �� 11"encroachment Iv .1°ii{U�I.lRl� ° � -"" � � into the 20'rear �� ..�.q_... . .._. "� ' ' "` �''" " " , yard setback Proposed site plan showing the areas requiring a Minor Residential Permit Approval Findings Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project based on the following R1 Exception and Minor Residential Permit findings (Section 19.28.140 E and A, respectively): R1 Exce�tion: The literal enforcement of the R1 Ordinance will result in restrictions inconsistent zvith the spirit and intent o f this chapter; The project is consistent with the intent of the R1 Ordinance in that it minimizes visual impacts to adjacent residential properties and that it is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health, and welfare; The project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welf are. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose; and The existing one-car garage was originally permitted by the County of Santa Clara almost 60 years ago. The existing 15 foot front yard setback is consistent with other residences that were constructed at the time. Under current City zoning requirements, the garage would need to meet the minimum setbacks of the principal residence in order to be attached to the principal residence. Other than the proposed attachment to the principal residence, the existing legal non- conforming one-car garage is not proposed to be intensified in terms of height, size, or location. Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the strict application of the prescribed side yard setback requirement creates a situation where a portion of the existing one-car garage encroaches a minimal distance into the required setback; however, the majority of the structure is setback the code-required distance. The intent of the ordinance is met since the exceptions will result in a house that is comparable in siting, scale, and massing as others in the neighborhood. EXC-2012-03 10630 Gascoigne Drive January 17,2013 RM-2012-41 Page 5 The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties The proposed project is consistent with other existing homes in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood. No adverse visual impacts from abutting properties are anticipated with the project, primarily since it is a one-story project and does not further encroach into required setbacks, other than those areas requested with a Minor Residential Permit, which are consistent with the requirements of the R1 Ordinance. Minor Residential Permit: The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning ordinance, except for the R1 Exception requested. The project is not located in a specific plan area. 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 project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The project's building form, height, roof pitches, materials, and setbacks are consistent with the predominant neighborhood pattern in Rancho Rinconada. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. The project proposes to improve the existing home and address other "clean-up" items, such as legalizing past unpermitted work, removing an interior garage wall to allow for proper parking depth, and modifying existing roof eaves to be setback the required distance from the side property line. No adverse privacy impacts are anticipated with the one-story project. Outreach/Noticing The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice Agenda Legal Ad • Site Signage • Posted on the City's official notice (14 days prior to the hearing) bulletin board (one week prior to the • Legal ad placed in newspaper hearing) (at least 10 days prior to the hearing) • Posted on the City of Cupertino's • 7 notices mailed to property owners Web site (one week prior to the ad'acent to the ro'ect site (300 foot) hearin ) EXC-2012-03 10630 Gascoigne Drive January 17,2013 RM-2012-41 Page 6 (10 days prior to the hearing) The City sent out notices to adjacent property owners. No public comments were received at the time of staff report production. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 — 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act. Project Received: November 14, 2012 Deemed Incomplete: December 14, 2012 Deemed Complete:January 4, 2013 The City has 60 days (until March 4, 2013) to make a decision on the project since this project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. The Design Review Committee's decision on this project is final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days of the decision. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the project since the project and conditions of approval address all concerns related to the proposed project and all of the findings for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Plann Approved by: Gary Chao, City Planner � � � �� G,�� Attachments Draft Resolutions Attachment 1:Neighborhood Residences with Reduced Setback,One-Car Garages Plan Set EXC-2012-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 312 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN Rl EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EXISTING DETACHED STRUCTURE WITH LEGAL NON-CONFORMING FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING LOCATED AT 10630 GASCOIGNE DRIVE (APN 375-22-022) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2012-03 Applicant: Jahan Faridnia (Amir Tsuri) Location: 10630 Gascoigne Drive (APN 375-22-022) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN R1 EXCEPTION: WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an application for an R1 Exception as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee finds as follows with regard to this application: a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The project is consistent with the intent of the R1 Ordinance in that it minimizes visual impacts to adjacent residential properties and that it is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. b. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. The development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. c. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modif ication of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. The existing one-car garage was originally permitted by the County of Santa Clara almost 60 years ago. The existing 15 foot front yard setback is consistent with other residences that were constructed at the time. Under current City zoning requirements, the garage would need to meet the minimum setbacks of the principal residence in order to be attached to the principal residence. Other than the proposed attachment to the principal residence, the existing legal non-conforming one-car garage is not proposed to be intensified in terms of height, size, or location. Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the strict application of the prescribed side yard setback requirement creates a situation where a portion of the existing one-car garage encroaches a minimal distance into the required Resolution No.312 EXC-2012-03 January 17,2013 Page-2- setback; however, the majority of the structure is setback the code-required distance. The intent of the ordinance is met since the exceptions will result in a house that is comparable in siting, scale, and massing as others in the neighborhood. d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. The proposed project is consistent with other existing homes in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood. No adverse visual impacts from abutting properties are anticipated with the project, primarily since it is a one-story project and does not further encroach into required setbacks, other than those areas requested with a Minor Residential Permit, which are consistent with the requirements of the R1 Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: T'hat after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof, the application for an R1 Exception, Application no. EXC-2012-03, is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record conceming Application no. EXG2012-03 as set forth in the Minutes of Design Review Committee Meeting of January 17, 2013, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled, "10630 Gascoigne Dr., Cupertino, CA," drawn by jahan Construction dated November 9, 2012 and December 19, 2012 consisting of seven sheets labeled A-1, A- 2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, and C-1;" except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROLECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. RM-2012-41 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. EXCEPTION APPROVAL An R1 Exception is granted to allow an existing legal non-conforming one-car garage with reduced front and southerly side yard setbacks (15 feet and 4 feet, 6 inches, respectively) to attach to the principal residence. 5. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. Resolution No.312 EXC-2012-03 January 17,2013 Page-3- 6. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attomeys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 7. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 2013, at a regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California,by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Sun, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONEIZS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Don Sun Gary Chao Don Sun, Chair City Planner Design Review Committee RM-2012-41 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 313 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT, 3 INCH EXTENSION OF A LEGAL NON- CONFORMING WALL LINE AND TO ALLOW A PORTION OF A 246 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 11 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK LOCATED AT 10630 GASCOIGNE DRIVE (APN 375-22-022) SECTION I: PROLECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: RM-2012-41 Applicant: Jahan Faridnia (Amir Tsuri) Location: 10630 Gascoigne Drive (APN 375-22-022) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Minor Residential Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee finds as follows with regard to this application: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. b. 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. c. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. d. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof, the application for a Minor Residential Permit, Application no. RM-2012-41, is hereby approved; 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-2012-41 as set forth in the Minutes of Design Review Committee Meeting of January 17, 2013, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 313 RM-2012-41 January 17, 2013 Page-2- SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled, "10630 Gascoigne Dr., Cupertino, CA," drawn by Jahan Construction dated November 9, 2012 and December 19, 2012 consisting of seven sheets labeled A-1, A- 2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, and C-1;" except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROjECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. EXC-2012-03 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. BUILDING PERMIT The applicant shall consult with the City Building Division to obtain the necessary building permits for the previously unpermitted additions on the house. 5. RESTRICTION ON FUTURE EXTENSIONS OF LEGAL NON-CONFORMING WALL LINES Per the Rl Ordinance, no future extensions of legal non-conforming wall lines within the required side yard setbacks are permitted for the life of the house. The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the restriction against the future extension of non- conforming wall lines. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 6. ROOF EAVE CLEARANCE TO SIDE PROPERTY LINES Roof eaves shall have a minimum three foot clearance to the side property lines. Prior to building permit issuance, the construction plans shall demonstrate the minimum three-foot clearance and include the necessary modifications to comply. 7. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS The final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval with neighborhood input. 8. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 9. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, Resolution No. 313 RM-2012-41 January 17,2013 Page-3- action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attomeys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 2013, at a regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Sun, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONEIZS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Garv Chao /s/Don Sun Gary Chao = Don Sun, Chair City Planner Design Review Committee � F� � A F-I � F�I � � � � � a e � W Q f!] � a o►� W B 0 a G4 iF L O W E R S -----t--r-----7$__'T-- I I � � f--------------------------------------- ---- I I � �: I tl I + I I a % 6EADE OPS I a i o ADDIT[0 � a � :: '� I � � � I � � � � a i I I I � I � I I I I I I I �I � B-7 7/E' I � � � I � I I � i � 'i�'� 9 I ------------------e� i ------------- I b: �i ��Tl` �' �l�..-9_ r _��:�f'�a��I �'r -�?� �;k°,t� ....!`,w=, f i"` pR� �-1 7—l� ��;��t�r� 'v YIN �� i b Yw MO � (��' I I 4 f p L. S Sl f9' 0�• S lOS.00' ��wa� ------------- -------- -�--�-�',y$^�--�--�--�--�--�- � --�--�- --�--�--�- - - --------r----------1 � I � — „ � I (E)t'��11 te re BEDft00AQ M4STER BEDROOM � L � � I I 6ARA6E I i �auroQti �SETBACK LII�E jrertnve fEl eal� �PJ wal i � i � �� . I , -----1------------- �m fence wil be re�roved 4o here ------ � � SET�ACK LINE i ___ � � ---- �ali (a)•'.nll to reul� ----- ----------- a'------------------------ (E)t'vJl n ce�at� (E)�il"�l2O^�� I I : i�.• i � � �� I I - I I j I j (!)O�NtNG 1lTWEEN � � I !A IL!lOOY �% %S G A�E SLOPE YIIf � v I i � I I 1 I M FAMLY � ,a�a ai �� i� y°'d aelb°9k I e, KITCFfN 8 S0.PEET J I �a � I DII�R16 (E)�'�dl ee re�� j I� y.�-�• I I I (E)t•w�ll n rs�a1� � ��' � I � ■�rae m � I rr�w�J Q'3� I I � I� I I= I w �� I �. I I� � �� I ° PLAY ROOM S I� I �� , �v I �� I (N)Ixtqe�e �• I � �E�a � � i i I I I j � , ��:is�:��•ti�i i �", �-�• .e...� i � i ----��------------ i i -------------------------°------------------------�----------------------------- I I � ; r �4 ---�------------ � a a I � %S Ga�D=9LOP=11II1 � P.L. a I � ----- I I ------ � "----------- I --------- 9 N 17• 00 E 302.81' � I ------- ------- —r----------� SITE PLAN SCALE : 3/8 ' - 1' � � � 0 � .,� -+--� Q� U � � � � � � -�-' �--' r-�-�i � � � ("� `y �r-I �� O �-�-I U �.., �, �{ � �V (� � � r�'1 O � it"t O O � � � �I N � � � � T � CS] C O � � � �� Q � � �� oo � � H W W � � � � � W �--� � � o � �--� � o � � � W � � � � � H w � � F-� � � I� V L O � � � � Page � � � C ONE HOUR EIRE WALL:GA FILE NO.WP 8109 EXTERIOA SIDE: ■ue Iqee S/t'preperletar�qpe JC`7p�na�leetlts or�lu��at pp�aa��b�te�te�pplfed p�r�llel to 2 z 4 wsed�t�d�16'e.e.wlt6 1 3/�'phulzed reoEla�adl 4•o.e.ac�cede�!)otaa nd 7'o.e.u I�teealdLu�ad� ud top ud lottoa pl�te�.Jol�a e[�leeNt�aq be le[t utre�ted.F�ee la�ee U{'propdeuq Hbee-ce�cat ddL�[ucesed chro��Y�keeN��to�wd�.3 1/2'ai[�eed �lu�fibee[riecios Ht/a u�d�p�ee. INTERIOR SIDE: O�e Iqcr 3/t'propdetar�qpe E np�o�w�ll boaed, u��u qpna�abcntq w�tes«d�tut pph� �ekl�s bo�rd,or pp�u•aaeer bue applled paralld or at ri�ht u�le�to�t�d�wlti 6d eotted s�W 1 7/�•loa,0.0913'�Yuk,U4•head�,7'o.a(LOAD !lAt1NG�. � (N 6AS bETER � LOCATION� f�o�r�ns� 1201 requred side se4back exemption (5'require� /"�S f��`s,.�T��/�i� � �.� �..rrC� �• /��/_!��Kri /y/ p... r ( / „ :�� t�:�_.:. __.a:�� . .. ..A �� v.$_..r .._.., ,.t.� j �"1�3 . .... . ��: -�..�.._,.�� 17-0' 52'-8' proposed ex�ens�on of legal non conforming wal r DPE HOUR F1RE WALL `4 N —T IQidrg PROPOSED PLAN 1/4" = 1' encrahmenk inFo rear yard se�back � � � � � .r..� �--� Q� � � � � � � � -�-� �� —a--� �� (� � W_ � O � � o 0 � � � ^ N ii � � � � N � � � T � C� C � O g� Q, � 'cn p -+-. � '> (J� p p oL � � W � � � � � O ^ � O H � � W � �� U� � � O � � 0 W o � � � o � � � � Page � A 3 CONSTRUCTION NOTES A. All permenetly inetalled high efficancy lnminariee ehall be ewitched separately from low efficaacylnminsries. (150(k) (?)) B. permanently iastalled lighting in the kitcLan ehall be high efficaacy lmm�ai:es. Up to SO% of the wattagee of permanently iastalled lighting ia kitchen may be in lighte that are aot Ligh efficancy. (150 (g) (8)) C. Permaaently inetalled lnmanariee in bathroome, garage, lanndarp zoome snd ntility roomsshall be high efficiancy lnmaaaries or aze coatrolled by aa occnpant eeneor(s) certified to comply with section 119 that doee aot tnrn on antomaticly or Lave an alwaye oa optioa. (150 (k) (10)) D. Permanently iaetalled lnminariea located in other thaa kitchen, bathrooms,lanndary room, atility rooms ehall be high effency lnminaries (ezcept closeta lese than 70 eq. ft.: or are coatrolled by a dimmer or occnpeat sensor thst complies with sectioa 115 that doee not tnrn oa antomatically or have an alwaye on option. (150(g) (11)) E. lnminaries providiag ont door lightiag and permaaently monnted to a residaeatial bnildiag or to other bnildiage on the same lot ehall be high effency laminariee or arecontrooled by occnpant sensore with integral photo control certified to comply with eection 119. (150(g) (13) siaglal wall metal pipe ehall not be nsed as a vent in dwellinge and zeeidential occapeacieaper CMC 802.7.4.1.0 water cloeets ehall have aa avarage water coaenmption of no more thaa 1.28 gallone per flnsh. (cpc 402.2) ehower heads ehall have a water flow not to ezceed 2.5 galloae per minnie. (CPC402.1.1) Fancets ia kitcheas,wet bare ,lavatories,lanndary siaks,etc shall hsve awater flow not to ezceed 2.2 gallone per miantes (CPC 402.1.2) shower compartmente and walls above bath tubs with inetalled ahower heade shall be finiehed with a emooth nonabeorbant snrface to aheight not lesa than 72 inches. (CRC R 307.2) The maximnm hot water tempetnre diecharge from bath tub, whirlpool, baht tub filler ahall be limited to 120 degrees fahrenheit..The water heather thermostat ehall not be a conaiderd a cotrol for meeting this proviaion.(CPC 414.5 8t 418.0) A miaimnm of two 20 amp small appliance branch circnite ehall be provided for all receptical ont lete in the kitchea, dinning room, pantry, or other similar areas.(CEC 210.11(C)(1)) At leser one 20 amp branch circnit ahall be provided to anpply laundary receptical out leta. auch recepticals shall have ao other ont lets.(CEC 210(C)(2)) At leaat oae 20 amp branch circnit ahall be provided to snpply the bath room receptical ont leta. Such ont let ahall have no othar circnits. (CEC 210.11(C)(3)) In every dwelliag nnit, fiaed appliancee snch as food wast grinders, dish washere, washing machines, dryere, bnilt ia refrigeratore, lanndary tray locationa, fnraacea, AC nnita,built in heatere with motorof M-<hp. or larger shallbe on a eeperate 20 amp circuit. All branch circnits that enpplyreceptacles in rooms hall waye , cloaets, dens, and aimilar shall be protected by a liated arc-fanit circnit internpter(AFCI). (CEC 210.12(B)) All recepticala in the bath rooma, garage, acceaory bnildiags ont doors, crowl space, nnfiniahed baeameats, kitchens countere, lanndary, ntilirp , wet bar ainke(with in 6' of siak) shall have gronnd fanit circnit internpter (GFCI) protection. (CEC210.8) In all areae apecified in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15 and 20 amp recepticlea ehall be lieted as tamper resiatant. (CEC 406.11) 6�e'~ya .•.i��a�0'�L ' r ��L�.e-�3 �t�c��-�-I F`ati��d_��r;:.._.:ti_%i1 ,�'�::r'._,:t'��.�o � Y y�k�v� �_vas-,.. .....a«._.... .a..,.__„�.i-.'� �...... ��.�.,_�.�.�....s...u,.s_i a' , ,. ,.. . ..<�.....r over 15/fek paper RIGHT ELEYATION $CALB: 1/4• = 1' finish grade� ""'�.''��' '""'... �g PaP� ews4i over 15t felF LEFT ELEVATION scsLS• ii4•=i� � � .� �--� U � � -�--� � � � U � �V � `V � � � � W � � � � '�""� r—� �--� r--� (j, •r—I � � � � � � � �-�-I � � � � O � � = N ii � _ � �' � � N N �-. a T � cfl c c ° � �, � 'u� a -+. � '> cn o o � w H W � � W H H � W w W � `..J I� � � � � �J H F-�-� � � � � � � O � � Q � ►--� � w W w � � Page # � � : � :� �..��a�� -�r�., ��su�� CONSTRUCTION NOTES A. All permenetly installed high efficaacy lnmiaariee eLall be switched eeparately from low efficancylnminaries. (150(k) (7)) B. permanently inetalled lighting ia the kitchaa shall be high efficaacy lmm�airee. Up to 50'/• of the wattages of permanently installed lightiag in kitchen may be in lighta that are aot high efficancy. (150 (g) (8)) C. Permanently installed Inmanaries in bathroome, garage,lanndary rooms and ntility=oomeshall be high efficisncy lnmanariee or are controlled by aa occnpant aeneor(e) certified to comply with eection 119 that doee not tnra on antomaticly or have an always on option. (150 (k) (10)) D. Permanentlq inetalled lnmiaaries located in other than kitchen, bathrooms,lanadarp room,ntility rooms ehall be higL effency lnmiaariee (ezcept closete lees than 70 sq. ft.: or are controlled by a dimmer or occnpent seaeor that complies with eection 115 thst does aot tnrn oa sntomatically or have sa alwaye on option. (150(g) (11)) E. lnminariea providing ont door ligLtiag aad permanently monated to a reeidneatial bnildiag or to other buildinge oa the eame lot ehall be high effency lnminariee or arecontrooled by occnpsnt eensore with integral photo control certified to comply with sectioa 119. (150(B) (13) siaglal wsll metal pipe shall aot be need as a veat in dwellings and residential occnpeaciasper C�C 802.7.4.1.0 water closete ehall have an avarage water coasnmptioa of ao more than 1.28 gallons per flneh. (cpc 402.2) ehower heads ehall have a wster flow aot to ezceed 2.5 galloas per miante. (CPC402.1.1) Fancete in kitchens,wet bare ,lavatories,lanndary sinke, etc shall have awater flow not to ezceed 2.2 gallons per minntes(CPC 402.1.2) ahower compartmenta and walls above bath tnba with inetalled shower heads ahall be finiahed with a emooth noaabeorbant eurface to aheight not leas than 72 inchea. (CRC R 307.2) The maximum hot water tempeture diacharge from bath tnb, whirlpool, baht tub filler ahall be limited to 120 degreea fahrenheit..The water heather thermostat ahall not be a coaeiderd a cotrol for meeting this provieion.(CPC 414.5 & 418.0) A minimum of two 20 amp emall appliance branch circnita ahall be provided for all receptical ont lets ia the kitchen, dinning room, pantry, or other similar areas.(CEC 210.11(C)(1)) At leasr one 20 amp branch circnit shall be provided to anpply lanndary receptical ont leta. snch recepticals shall have no other ont leta.(CEC 210(C)(2)) At least one 20 amp branch circnit ehall ba provided to anpply the bath room receptical out leta. Such ont let ehall have no other circnits. (CEC 210.11(C)(3)) In every dwelling nnit, fiaed appliancee ench as food waet grindera, dish washere, waehing machines, drpers, bnilt in refrigerators, lanndary tray locations, fnrnacea, AC uaita,bnilt in heatera with motorof M-<hp. or larger ahallbe on a eeperate 20 amp circnit. All branch circnita that anpplyreceptacles in rooma hall ways , cloaets, dena, aad similar shall be protected bp a liated arc-fanit circnit interupter(AFCI). (CEC 210.12(B)) All recepticals in the bath rooms, garage, acceeory bnildings ont doors, crowl space, nnfinished basementa, kitchens countere, lanndary, ntiliry , wet bar sinka(with in 6' of sink) ehall hava gronnd fanit circnit internpter (GFCI) protection. . (CEC210.8) G��G/,�—��`��/L�— �,� :��s epecified ia 210.52, all 125-volt, 15 and 20 amp --_�-�-�•��--� � -� � • ''fe�le`�tie�eb ahall be listed as tamper reeistant. (CEC 406.11) (— i � -13 r.. � �.. ..._i.. .n ..._.i ..i �� ti �� r � � � � � � � � � � � � , �BUILDIN6 ENVELOP FRONT LEVATION scsL$: ii�• = i� � ' ` �BUD�ING ENVEIAP '�, � � � � � � � � � � � � ,� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4'-1' �--I O .� � U � � -1--� � � � U ?-� �U � �U � � � � W � � � � �"� �—� �--� r-� r1\ •r-I VJ � � � � � � �--�-I � � � 0 O C� � =— N ii � � � � N � -�-. � T � cfl c 0 a� a, � '� � �- � �� cn o o � W � � W H F--� � W w � � W � �..J H � � � � �J �� w O � � � � � o � � � � H � � W w � � Page # A 5 1 / � / � � "..\ .. � ... . � \ \ \ \ \ /. � �K i � r� . . .��.��:,� �C� a0/�,?�.oL?.��f�1,_`� U/�-�f/ E.:.r .. .� ._.:.. � .,... , . � '�� 7 — 1� ._ .�,. .�.....:�-�a ,�.._ :�:_,. �,� __ ._.---- --.-- _____._ _____... ---- __ __._ ___ _._._--_. .__.__.- ---___.. __._____ REVISIONS ' wrM i ,... �_., � I r,i � � �.� �-. ;.. � :.. i ' � i �i v� __........_..._..._....__.._._........._......... : :...................................................................:. Wta � , a`�e�4`,`,eL0`,4�070 ''. # l.L1.i�M * '�, ♦ t7?.//7G/70 * . # ♦ C1 �.��., i `��'�► � P� Jamie&Teresa Wang 18425 Chelmsford Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. George Schroeder Project Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Noise Issue of the Following Subiect Matter Application No.: EXC-2012-03,RM-2012-41 Applicant: Jahan Faridnia Location: 10630 Gascoigne Dr. APN: 375-22-022 Subject: Exception and Modification to a SFR Hearing Date: January 17,2013 January 17, 2013 Dear Mr. Schroeder, Thank you for your kind assistance of bringing my letter to the Committee's attention. First of all, I strongly urge the Committee NOT to ignore our Constitutional right to enjoy our home and live in peace w�hile asserting Mr. Tsuri's right to alter his house plan. I understand the City of Cupertino has adopted a comprehensive noise ordinance. Unfortunately, it is not the cure for the Tsuris' extreme nuisance behavior. Even with the police were involved to quiet them down at times; that still don't make them improve and be a considerate neighbor. They not only often play loud music into midnight with unbearable deep bass beats, also frequently hold Karaoke parties in the backyard and let kids run wild and screaming. There is only less than 40 feet apart between our family room and theirs. And our family room is facing their backyard and the planned enlarge living room, which will definitely even more jeopardize our quality of lives since there is no way for us to escape the habitual noise they make. It is our belief that the only proper solution to the Tsuri's noise problems is that the Committee demands the Tsuri's put up an eight-foot tall sound wall at their costs for acoustic reason. If the Committee has other suggestions,please inform us. Please DO NOT do nothing about this damaging issue which was a deep rooted problem ever since the Tsuris moved in. We have been owner/residents of our current property for over twenty three years, and have been enjoying very nice and friendly relationships with all other neighbors. I wish I didn't have to write this letter. Your understanding and assistance in this matter would be most appreciated. Yours truly, Teresa Wang �c��ti 1 George Schroeder 11 E 7�/..3 (�/�-�, From: Siva [nIr2000@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:12 PM To: Amir Tsuri; George Schroeder Cc: Avital Tsuri Subject: Re: Neighbor Letter for 10630 Gascoigne Amir, Good to hear from you. We don't think there is excess noise from your property. We all have kids and they will have fun and the noise levels are within normal range that we expect from any family around this neighborhood. We really enjoy having you as our neighbors. Th�c On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Amir Tsuri <amir.tsuri(a��mail.com> wrote: Geor�S(a�cupertino.or� �; �9�� (�N `j 'v� (�as r-°;5�nt� �r �o G3� � � 5�` 4 ��k` G��} ��7�y��, � i