The URL can be used to link to this page

DRC packet City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,California 95014 (408) 777-3308 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Conference Room C Thursday,June 19,2014,5:00 p.m. ORDER OF BUSINESS: ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 6, 2014 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business) CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC MEETING 1. Application No.(s): EXC-2014-01 Applicant: Sal Pablo (Valero Service Station) Location: 10002 N. De Anza Bouelvard Sign Exception to allow LED signage on two existing fuel price ground signs Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Approve or deny EXC-2014-01 2. Application No.(s): EXC-2014-05 Applicant: Seems Shenvi(Telang residence) Location: 10445 Byrne Ave R1 Exception to allow a 10' combined first floor side yard setback where a 15' combined setback is required Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Approve or deny EXC-2014-05 OLD BUSINESS None Page 2 Design Review Committee June 19,2014 NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Design Review Committee in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public meeting. Please note that Design Review Committee policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the City Clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON February 6,2014 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Winnie Lee, Chairperson Don Sun, Commissioner Committee Members absent Alan Takahashi, Commissioner Staff present: Stephen Rose, Staff Planner Gary Chao,Assist.Dir. of Community Development Colleen Winchester, Assist. City Attorney Winnie Pagan, Associate Civil Engineer Staff absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 18, 2013 Minutes of the July 18, 2013 Design Review Committee meeting were deferred to another meeting for approval after being able to confer with the prior Committee members WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Staff received a presentation from Kenneth Rodrigues&Partners (applicant) POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): ASA-2012-15 Applicant: Ken Rodrigues (500 Forbes,LLC) Location: Main Street—southeast corner of Vallco Pkwy and Finch Ave Architectural and Site approval for final refinements to the previously approved Shops 1-5, 7&8, Pads 1 — 3 & 6, Town Square, incubator flex space, park & street system, Office space 1 & 2 and the parking garage for the Main Street project Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. 2 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Staff Member Rose explained that the application for the Main Street project was originally approved by the City Council in January 2009 and has gone through several site and design revisions during the last three years. In September 2012, in Condition #35 of the approved Resolution, the City Council deferred the final approval decision for the overall Architectural and Site elements of the project to the Design Review Committee. The applicants were asked to make revisions to the final design; Revise the Town Square; enhance the architectural and site features for the Office buildings; revise the design of Pads 1 and 2 and make enhancements to the parking garage and overall site. The Design Review Committee will be evaluating and reviewing these revisions at this meeting per Council's direction. It should be noted that the design of Building Pad 6, the public art and tree removals will be discussed at future meetings. The applicant has a presentation for the Committee outlining the changes they made to the design of the project in order to satisfy the Council's requests. They have created unique Comtnercial Districts with greater storefront glazing to promote a more active and vibrant downtown, modernized the feel of the buildings, created tenant spaces with more floor area and flow to make it easier for prospective businesses and they have varied the architectural and material elements to vary in theme. Additionally, Staff has requested that the applicant revise some of the roofing materials and add decorative elements to the parking garage and stair towers. With these revisions, Staff supports the application. Commissioner Sun asked for clarification of the Design Review Committee's approval role per Condition #35 of the Resolution. Staff Member Chao explained that the Council's Resolution had been included in the informational agenda packet, but that the Design Review Committee was to make sure that the project revisions meet the specific directives of the Council's approval from 2012. Commissioner Sun reiterated that some of the design changes were because the applicant studied the market demand and trends. Staff Member Chao said that one of the delays in getting this project through the approval process was that the applicant was researching what kinds of building changes they would need to make in order to accommodate the needs of their future tenants and the current market trends. The applicant,Kevin Dare (Sandhill Properties) addressed the Committee. He said that the plan changes from the original 2012 approval were done to incorporate the comments they have received from the Council, the public, marketplace studies and from the Planning Staff. He addressed Commissioner Suri s comment regarding the market research they had done. He said that there were two main comments they heard from the public, tenant groups and the Council. People wanted a project that created a "downtown" feel —that is different kinds of uses. So they have the retail, office, resident lofts and open space. Additionally, the "downtown" needed to have a variation on design and architectural style to make it feel as though the downtown had grown and evolved over time even though the construction will all be happening at the same time. Also the agrarian history of Cupertino should be reflected in the design of the site through the use of natural materials. With these ideas in mind, the applicant has designed the space to include several different architectural styles and landscaping elements to provide unique experiences and opportunities for the future tenants and their patrons. Kevin Jones with Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners Architects and Gary Layman with Guzzardo Partnership gave a Power Point presentation to the Committee. Kevin Jones let the Committee know that they have been working diligently on the re-design of the project over the past year to incorporate all of the design elements and features. He went over each of the distinctive Commercial Districts, explaining the different architectural features and proposed building material finishes. Gary Layman 3 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 explained the different landscaping plans and scope for each of the building sites/districts. The overall landscape site plan allows for lots of outdoor seating, gathering areas, open space areas with gardens, pathways, lighting elements, trellises, trees and planter boxes. The presentation demonstrated how they have addressed the specific comments they've received throughout the evolution of the project. Commissioner Sun asked how the applicant was able to address all the different Community desires regarding architectural styles. He asked for an explanation of the comparisons between the original architectural concepts for Buildings 1, 3 and 4 with the current submittals. The Applicant explained that Building 1 was not part of the original submittal. A lot of things changed at that City Council meeting. The idea for the future inspiration for Building 1 was, in that design district, from the office buildings. This corner is the 'Gateway to the City'. People coming into the City see the Spanish-style architecture. They then created juxtaposition to the office spaces with the retail district. The same materials were used, but in a different style in keeping with the mass of the building. There will be different users to the site so the Applicant wanted to design the space so that different people (users to the site) would have different experiences within the same spaces. For Buildings 3 and 4, they received a lot of feedback. The original design was modified to allow for more indoor/outdoor feel, a more sophisticated style with less of a strip mall visual effect. So the new design has variations in roof elevations and materials, outdoor spaces and natural materials. The Planning Staff also asked for more glass transparency so that people can see the interior of the site from Stevens Creek Boulevard so to be able to draw people into the shops and restaurants. Commissioner Sun asked about the garage. He wanted to know what architectural features will be on the garage wall facing Stevens Creek Boulevard. The applicants said that the 'flex buildings' would be visually in the way of most of the garage face and from the ground in front of that space, you wouldn't be able to see over the building to see the exposed wall above. Commissioner Sun asked about the intended use of the flex space building. The Applicant said that they would prefer a farmer's market or some other similar open concept use, but it has not really been decided. The open concept look was in response to a request to simplify the space and tie it into the glass elements from the hotel. If there are other options available, changing the design of this building by extending the fa�ade, would not be that difficult. Chair Lee asked about the landscaping plan. Staff Member Chao explained that the landscape site plan was being presented to the Committee for the larger the site features; the walls, planters and plazas. The Director has the authority to approve the specific plant species. The Director will make sure the plantings are drought tolerant, pest resistant and meet the water efficiency usage requirements. Staff Member Chao said the Committee's focus should be on the larger features; such as the architectural features, decorative features, plaza designs, trellises and paving materials. From the packet, Chair Lee asked for clarification of page 14 of the model resolution to Council, Attachment 3, Number 37 (C), (D) and (E). Does the proposed landscaping along Stevens Creek Boulevard and N Tantau Avenue meet the streetscape design requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan? Staff Member Chao said it does. The trees proposed "orchard" inspired and are appropriate for the climate. She asked if (part D) the requirement to plant two specimen Oak trees flanking the driveway along Stevens Creek Boulevard was still included in the design. The Applicants said it was. They would be also doing similar plantings along the other site entrances as well. She asked if the existing Ash trees (part E) would be being saved as well, per the Resolution. The Applicant stated that they were saving a number of existing Ash tree and would be planting additional Ash trees per the 4 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Arborists recommendations. Staff inember Chao added that the site is currently being assessed for trenching and utility upgrades so some of the trees may be compromised. If that occurs, the applicant will be required to come back and obtain City approval to remove replace those trees. Chair Lee opened the floor for Public Comments: Lisa Warren, resident—She said her comments from last week are only a portion of her feelings and that there is more going on. She wanted there to be a spirit of compromise, to soften the look and to get it closer to the look of what people think the project should be and what she understood they were surprised about. Her list of suggestions does not represent everything she thinks could be improved. She appreciates that the latest design does reflect some of the changes she suggested,however, the comments on the flex space have not been met. She commented on the harsh look of the colonnades and that was addressed, but not the other things. She doesri t feel like the Art Deco design goes with anything else on the site. She is very concerned about the treatment of the tower element that houses the elevator and stairs on the garage along the south elevation . She also didn't see that much change occurred with the roof elevations. Something more is needed to break up the visual. Building 1 looks good. She thinks her comments regarding Building 6 were applied to Building 1. Shops 3 and 4 show an improvement, but the entryways need more variety. Shops 7 and 81ook more like what the Retaill and 2 should look like. The darker terra cotta color is a concern. She would like to see more color brought in, everything is too neutral in color. She thinks that Shops 3 and 4 should have more of a delineation to provide the interest and look like separate buildings since that's what tenants want. Ruby Elgen, resident- she feels like the applicant has been doing a great job. She would like for the project to be wrapped up. She said that people forget that this is a downtown,not a shopping center. In a downtown, the buildings are not supposed to be matchy-matchy. She said that the building should be different from each other and it looks like they are. She likes the plantings and feels that the applicants have done everything they have been asked to and more. She would like to see the project get moving along. Jennifer Griffin, resident- her concern was Building 6, so will be interested in seeing what that design looks like. She asked if canopies or trellises could be added to the flex buildings to break up their verticality and soften the look. She likes the improvements to 3 and 4 in terms of trying to break up the frontage along Stevens Creek. She asked if the signage and art could be elegant and refined, like a fountain. She didn't want a very large and ultra modern structure. Staff Member Chao said that a resident, Al, needed to leave the meeting early but wanted to express his support for the project. He also mentioned that A1 was concerned with revised Flex 1's glass design. He didn't like the lack of articulation with the glass on a blank wall. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Staff Member Chao said that the site signage requires the approval of a Master Sign Program. Any signs shown in the plan set were for conceptual purposes only. A Sign Program is a separate application, with a separate review and approval process. This application does not include any sign approvals. Any public art has to go through a separate approval process as well. The Fine Arts Commission will review any proposed art with final approval by the City Council. Chair Lee asked about the street system. She didri t see where it was in the presentation. Staff Member Chao said that the Design Review Committee should only be reviewing the aesthetics (color and material) of the site features for the project. The City Council had already decided on the circulation, street framework geometry of the project at their approval in September 2012. It would be 5 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 appropriate for the Committee wanted to discuss pedestrian circulation and crosswalk paving materials or enhancements. Staff Member Chao spoke about the flex building design. He understands from comments from the public that here is a desire is to soften the verticality of the building. The revised elevation provided by the applicant now for the Flex Building has enhanced siding material (from aluminum to a wood finish). He also acknowledged that the revised plans were only received today for the Flex building, and that there are other potential design options to address the concerns from the colonnades to the glass elements. For example, perhaps the plaster siding portion of the building could be changed to IPE to help soften the look. Or awnings may be introduced to break up the verticality of the building. The applicant pointed out that the elevation plan did not show the trees that would be in front of the building and that would help visually break up the mass of the building. He indicated where the trees would be. Staff Member Chao reiterated that the Design Review Committee was meeting at this time to approve the designs of Shops 1 including the architecture and treatments to Office 1 and 2, the refinements for Shops 3 and 4 including 6, the Clock Tower, 5 and Pads 1 and 2 within the Square as well as 7 and 8 adjacent to the park. Additionally, discussions on the materials and palettes of color, the site plaza and pavements of the street are within the purview of the Design Review Committee. The applicant is here to discuss options. The applicant would like a decision at this meeting, but if the Committee s not comfortable with making a decision, Staff inember Chao could provide them with other options as well. Commissioner Sun commented that in general he is okay with the project. He shared the original concerns about spaces 1 through 4, the garage, the flex buildings and the roof line. But with the changes to the plan, the street side along Stevens Creek Boulevard has improved. He still doesn't like the look of the Flex 1 building. He wanted to know if the applicant could do anything different with that space within their budget and timeline. He acknowledged that this was his opinion and that he was not asking the applicant to go over their construction budget for this building. Chair Lee thanks everyone for their time and work on the project. She said that architectural approval is very subjective to individual tastes. She would like to see stone veneer on Shop 1. It looks very different now that with the prior plan submittal. She is glad to see the slate back on Shops 3 and 4, but wondered if the stone veneers match the green tile. She asked if the board battens could be different colors so they wouldn't match—maybe paint them red. She thanked the applicant for providing the revised plan sets in such a short notice. She feels the revised plans sets are very different from the original submittal. She likes that Building 5 doesn't have a lot of plaster, but she prefers the pitch roof to the flat. She also prefers the original stone veneers from the original plan set as opposed to the current examples. She likes the Newport Cobblestone and Roman Travertine. She would like to see less plaster and more stone veneer. On Pads 1 and 2, Chair Lee again mentioned stone veneers. That it was hard to really see the detail in the exhibits. One of the pad buildings had a lot of plaster painted red. She would like to see more warm colors rather than the proposed taupe palette. Office 1 and 2 she liked the curved window treatments that were on the prior plan set as well as the Roman Travertine siding features. The flex 1 and 2 spaces have been talked about a lot,but she thinks it has a very linear look. She would like to see more curved features and stone veneer. She didn't care for the revised plans for these spaces at all. She isn't an architect, so she doesn't know what to suggest. As for the parking garage, the previous plan set showed 4 different wall areas for artwork or decorative features. She was disappointed that the revised plan shows only two areas for such features. She doesn't know if the open air requirement has something to do with it, but she would like to see more screening options. The most difficult thing for the Committee is that the design plans in front of them today are very different from what was approved by the City 6 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Council. The model resolution asks for the Design Review Committee to approve the final refinements. She said she was very uncomfortable with approving something that is so very different from the approved plans. She asked Staff Member Winchester for clarification regarding Condition 35 of the City Council's approved resolution: ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL A. T'he buildings, site development and architecture shall substantially conform to the site plan, elevations and details as shown in the approved exhibits, unless otherwise noted below. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to obtain approval of a separate Architectural and Site Approval application for each of the buildings by the Design Review Committee; each Architectural and Site Approval application shall provide a detailed site plan, full elevations (all four sides), floor plans and any other details as required for Architectural and Site Approval applications. Building colors and materials shall be reviewed and approved in conjunction with the Architectural and Site Approval. Minor amendments to approved Architectural and Site Approvals for buildings and/or the site plan, including minor changes to the layout of the site plan, building forms and building sizes, may be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. Staff Member Winchester explained what options were available for the Design Review Committee. She reminded the Comrnittee that it has the power under that Condition to: 1) Vote on the plans and specifications that have been presented to determine whether or not they substantially conform to the designs and plans as submitted to Council as modified with Condition 35, 2) Continue the hearing to another meeting date to receive further revised plans, 3) Refer a question to the City Council to ask for more guidance on what it means to "substantially conform to site plans and specifications". Staff Member Winchester said the options the Committee wanted to take at this point were up to the Committee depending on what they were comfortable with. Chair Lee said her inclination is to refer to Council provide more clarity. She feels that the new designs don't conform to what was previously approved. Staff Member Winchester reiterated that Chair Lee was looking for clarity on "What is the Design Review Committee's role under Condition 35?" That the Committee was looking for direction on Condition 35 as opposed to not believing that the plans don't conform. If that is the case, the Coxnmittee should continue the application. Staff Member Chao also stated that if the Committee wanted to get clarification on Council's intent, they could refer the item to the Council to see if some of the specific changes proposed, for example if a pitch roof changed to a flat roof was within the intent of the Council. If the Chair desires, you could ask the applicant to make some changes at the meeting to help make you more comfortable with Condition 35. If Chair Lee and Commissioner Sun are uncomfortable in navigating the changes on the plans and specifications, they can refer the final design decision back to the City Council. Chair Lee confumed that she could refer the whole application to the Council for final decision. Commissioner Sun consented. Staff Member Winchester said procedurally, the Council would have to amend their Resolution to reflect that the final decision was theirs to make. Commissioner Sun asked Staff Member Winchester that if they referred the issue back to the Council, would the applicant have to go through the whole procedure with the Design Review Committee again? And then the City Council would vote on the amended plans? Staff Member Chao explained the noticing and agendizing process to the Committee and clarified that if the Committee is not able to make a decision, it is the applicant's desire to get the application heard by the Council as soon as possible. Staff Member Winchester again went over the Design Review's option to continue the meeting if they felt the applicant could make design changes that would satisfy their concerns about approving the application. She encouraged the Committee to ask the applicant how they wanted to proceed. Commissioner Sun stated that if Chair Lee was uncomfortable making a decision, then he felt the best option would be to refer the � Design Review Committee February 6,2014 project to the Council. Staff Member Winchester clarified that the Committee was not making the decision to deny the project, but was making the decision to ask for additional guidance and input on Condition 35 or referring to Council to amend Condition 35. Staff Member Chao stated that the next regular City Council meeting was March 4th, but the Mayor could call for a special meeting and the item could, potentially, be heard at the end of February. Staff Member Chao suggested that the Committee ask the applicant what they would like to do. The applicant stated that they would prefer it if the application were referred to the Council for final decision as soon as possible and not come back to the Design Review Committee. Staff Member Winchester stated that it is up to the Council to decide the review and approval process. The Council would either provide direction and clarification or amend their resolution to become the final decision makers on the project. The applicant said that they have listened to all the comments and have tried to do the best they can to be sensitive to everyone's concerns. They would like the project to move forward. He asked if they could come to some agreement with the Design Review Committee concerning the colors and awnings and other building treatments. They want to make these changes to get an approval now from this Committee. They are willing work through and discuss design changes to the flex buildings. Staff Member Winchester suggested taking a break in the proceedings so each group could confer. Chair Lee re-stated that the design changes she is looking for could not be achieved at this meeting. She has more concerns than just colors and design elements. The applicant said that they wanted to reach a consensus and obtain a decision at this meeting or be referred to the Council for the final decision. Chair Lee called a 5 minute break. Staff Member Winchester re-capped the meeting. Chair Lee made a motion to refer the application (ASA-2012-15) and the Resolution Number 12-098 to the Council to review. Commissioner Sun asked if the proper term should be "forwarding" rather than "referred". Staff Member Winchester clarified that motion Chair Lee was making was to defer making a decision on this application and referring the matter to Council. Council can then make the decision on whether or not to amend the Resolution or to clarify the Resolution. Chair Lee agreed that that was her motion. Commissioner Sun seconded the motion. MOTION: Chair Lee moved to defer ASA-2012-15 and Resolution 12-098 to the City Council for clarifications and/or amendment SECOND: Commissioner Sun ABSENT: none ABSTAIN:none VOTE: 2-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Respectfully submitted: /s/Beth Ebben g Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N O (408)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date:Tune 19, 2014 Application no: EXC-2014-01 Applicant: Sal Pablo (Valero Service Station) Project Location: 10002 North De Anza Boulevard (APN 316-26-095) APPLICATION SUMMARY: Sign Exception(EXG2014-01) to allow LED signage on two existing fuel price ground signs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the application per the draft resolution. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation Commercial/Office/Residential Zoning Designation P (CG, Res)—Planned Development General Commercial and Residential S ecific Plan Heart of the Cit Existin Land Use Automobile service station (no chan e) Lot Size 19,602 s uare feet(.45 acres) Existing/Proposed ground signs Two Project Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zonin Yes, exce t for the si exce tion re uest Environmental Review Cate oricall Exem t er Section 15302, Class 2 of CEQA BACKGROUND: Site Description The subject automobile service station property is located at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard. To the north and east of the site are office uses; to the west and across De Anza Boulevard is an office use; to the south and across Stevens Creek Boulevard is a plaza and a mixed use commercial/residential building; and kitty-corner to the site is another automobile service station use. The nearest residence is within 140 feet of the project site's property line. EXC-2014-01 10002 North De Anza Boulevard June 19,2014 Page 2 - , , , ,. , Prior Sign Exception Approval . �.T� ��r� . ,- �� _ �__. �� - � � �'�� . � On March 27, 2000, the �:� �. 1 �-, �� g � � �� ' � r�i ,w' � ��" . ' � �� ,.r ,: , " a � �� i, ,�„�, ,� �` � � �� `' �1 Planning Commission � � _ � `"" � ��i ..�-°.�,�—L " �,� : - .:;.; � �= � �� <,�+M approved a Sign Exception �� . �'.._. ; �� 1�.,, � M •t t �:,i; � t.F . "� ,�' •:} . fi ' ��_�: ��. . (EXC-1999-14) on the site to "'' . � � �� "`� �' ```" �-° ,�^- w � � �. a� -C ..A��Y � =�.� ; _,. r.1 �"° 9��,s�,�r �v, .. . ��r��n� � allow two ground signs •�� -�� .� � =�- `' i Project;ite � � �:, ` ■ , c �� when one was allowed. The � �� = ��_.�: " . -- _.. � . ....�. - ,�, _ , ; � . . . . .�"'�: � �� °_� :.. a , � � � ,_ , . � Planning Commission : :,,.��. ,.. _ � r _: _ � "� �` . � _, supported the additional � �� --�--� � �� , ��r.� �.' _ -'�.=: . � � _,,� `'�' r �' a'�� w. i��,. r-.\ .�.+�^.� t � s�' �.,......_ � , . . . . . ' ._ ' ' sign for visibility purposes _, �,� r:,� �� :�.�� >� . "�' "�'� , , � � t � � ` � ' . �� , �_� �� _ � . since there is a landmark } ��:�» �� , � �t �,.. �� ..a =�"` �::�.s� �.�� . � , � .�� o � �� ,�,�. �,��,� � _ .r �. . _ . _. -- �°,� � '� .�,.a..f,-� �#. . ._ __ easement at the corner of the = .. .• -.�;'��: � Y� � e � ��-��-��-��-� � �,� �i� �� '4 " ��t�, �,��r � � �.. � ,„,� �w�, Slte. _u. r� ,+,�'�!!� !� � �.� �.�.> ��:'��'�� ,�:,�a � �` �,.�.�.�, ��. � Y � � ,��`A�ro , �`�� - _ _.� ,�'�< � -, . . _ � . , fi, �i � .s >�� ; ��,: .... . ,._ c . � DISCUSSION: �- � � �:;.�,� b � � :�--- .�=.� � � . .� . � � � �.. t ''x^ • :� r ��,� _ �'�� m.. . i '. - � ' vu�� '- a r '!� e '��xi �� , .�`., W ....f, f\/t � . Application request � �� '=�'`�` ��,�� o � ��' .��`' The a licant Sal Pablo of `�`��`� � � � * �" ' �`�`� � � pp , , Sign Development Inc., Proj ect vicinity aerial representing the property owner, Dave Schalker, of Valero Service Station, is proposing to replace both sides of two existing ground signs along the Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevard frontages of the site. The existing internally illuminated sign cabinets would be replaced with new internally illuminated cabinets with light-emitting diode (LED) price numerals. A substantial portion of the background of the sign would be opaque in order to minimize glare. The existing cabinet and sign base dimensions would remain the same. The project requires a Sign Exception since the City's Sign Ordinance prohibits signs with directly visible light sources (Section 19.104.220 F) and requires changeable copy letters or numerals to be made of permanent sign and symbols or letters of high quality and durable materials (Table 19.104.180 B). The City's Municipal Code requires Design Review Committee review for all Sign Exception applications. LED Signage The City's Sign Ordinance does not specifically address exposed LED signage on fuel price ground signs given its relatively new implementation in other automobile service stations throughout the region. Under the current ordinance provisions, LED fuel price signage is not permitted since it has a directly visible light source and is not considered a permanent, durable material. The restrictions against directly visible light sources are intended to limit glare and distraction to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents in the neighborhood. The requirement for high quality, durable material in changeable sign copy is intended to avoid unsightly, reduced quality signage that would diminish the City's aesthetic appearance. As part of the proposed project, the LED numerals would be equipped with an automatic brightness control that would be adjusted based on the ambient light condition, including a reduction in intensity by up to 90 percent. The cumulative illumination intensity of each sign would be within the 250 foot lamberts allowed by the City's Sign Ordinance. The signs differ from electronic readerboard signs in that they do not include periodically changing or animated messages. The proposed LED numerals EXC-2014-01 10002 North De Anza Boulevard June 19,2014 Page 3 would remain static, except for when the price of gasoline changes (typically once or twice per day). The conditions of approval for the project require the following in order to minimize glare and distractions to passersby: • Restrictions on illumination intensity (modeled after the City of San Jose's recently adopted programmable electronic sign regulations), and a requirement that the signs be turned off by 11:00 PM • Restrictions against animated messages • Utilization of automatic dimming technology to adjust brightness • Licensed lighting engineer testing and confirmation that the signs meet the illumination restrictions The primarily static LED � numerals function similar to � ��",�' � ��x �µ 4 � '° � �'".';, "�. the existing plast�c numerals . �� e � � .�, o . . � = in that they change depending ��J� __ � �"' � ' � � � ��a �� on fluctuations in fuel pricing. �- ` � � � � �� ,� *�.' The LED numeral technology - w, � � , �,}.�R(��, 1 J�g,' ' `L+'.f ' will enhance convenience by - � �T x ` `� ��-� �� "�r;:�. � allowing service station ; : a- - ° � operators to control fuel �� ' � �� `;,r�. a.�,s �.,� :� . '"' _ �`' ��.� .�. . � rices remotel without � �r ��` - _ � ' � 'i t �� , P � _F.;, .� � a �. , ,�� _._ .,: � ��z��,� .� ��,; � �- � _ . ; ��:,; having to manually change � ° �- . � ,�� individual numerals. The LED -� . � � ..:� �. �.�;�w . . T .: numerals feature crisp, energy -- �` :• s- . ��va��`��°��- `°�� efficient illumination with '� ��a �'��_., � �. +�'` •'�s ,_ . — � �M M,...: ��_-;�t}u similar lighting intensity as _ internally illuminated plastic � � �' � letters. The proposed Photo simulation of the proposed signs viewed from De Anza and Stevens Creek opaque background of the sign will further reduce light glare. Approval Findings Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project based on the following Sign Exception findings (Section 19.104.290): That the literal enforcement of the provisions of the Sign Ordinance will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance; The proposed signs are consistent with the intent of the Sign Ordinance in that they minimize glare and distraction to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and neighborhood residents. The LED numerals function similar to the existing plastic numerals in that they change depending on fluctuations in fuel pricing. The lighting intensity will also be similar and has the ability to be reduced if deemed necessary by the City. EXC-2014-01 10002 North De Anza Boulevard June 19,2014 Page 4 That the granting of an exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare;and The proposed signs 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 project includes automatic dimming technology to reduce glare and will not include animated messages. That 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 The project does not propose to add additional signage nor increase the size of the existing signs. Moreover, the strict application of the ordinance standards would not allow the LED technology that is currently being used in other service stations throughout the region. The illumination intensity and appearance of the signs address the intent of the City's Sign Ordinance since they would not create distractions nor impact the City's aesthetic appearance. OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW The City's Public Works Department and Building Division, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department reviewed the project and have no objections. OUTREACH/NOTICING The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearin Site Notice&Le al Ad A enda � 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 Web • 3 notices mailed to property owners site (one week prior to the hearing) adjacent to the project site (10 days prior to the hearin ) The City sent out notices to adjacent property owners. No comments were received at the time of staff report producHon. 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:January 7, 2014 Deemed Complete:June 9, 2014 The City has 60 days (until August 9, 2014) 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. EXC-2014-01 10002 North De Anza Boulevard June 19,2014 Page 5 CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the project since the 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 19.104 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner , Approved by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development Attachments Draft Resolution Plan Set G:\Planning\DRC\staff rep\2014\EXG2014-01.doc EXG2014-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTTNO APPROVING A SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW LED SIGNAGE ON'TWO EXISTING FUEL PRICE GROUND SIGNS LOCATED AT 10002 NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD (APN 316-26-095) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2014-01 Applicant: Sal Pablo (Valero Service Station) Location: 10002 N. De Anza Boulevard (APN 316-26-095) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION: WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Sign 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. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of the Sign Ordinance will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The proposed signs are consistent with the intent of the Sign Ordfnance in that they minimize glare and distraction to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and neighborhood residents. The LED numerals function similar to the existing plastic numerals in that they change depending on fluctuations in fuel pricing. The lighting intensity will also be similar and has the ability to be reduced if deemed necessary by the City. b. That the granting of an exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed signs 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 project includes automatic dimming technology to reduce glare and will not include animated messages. c. That 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. The project does not propose to add additional signage nor increase the size of the existing signs. Moreover, the strict application of the ordinance standards would not allow the LED technology that is currently being used in other service stations throughout the region. The illumination intensity and appearance of the signs address the intent of the City's Sign Ordinance since they would not create distractions nor impact the City's aesthetic appearance. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-01 June 19,2014 Page-2- 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 Sign Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-01, 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. EXC-2014-01 as set forth in the Minutes of Design Review Committee Meeting of June 19, 2014, 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 received on May 7, 2014 entitled, "Valero, 10002 N. De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014," drawn by Sign Development Inc., consisting of 4 sheets labeled 1, 2, 3, and PID- 1; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROTECT 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. EXCEPTION APPROVAL A Sign Exception is hereby granted to allow LED gasoline price signage and a new background to replace the existing sign faces on two existing ground signs at an existing automobile service station. The color of the LED numerals shall be red, and the background shall be black. 4. ENHANCEMENTS TO EXISTING SIGNS The following enhancements are required for both existing ground signs: a. Paint the stucco and frame portion a muted earth tone color compatible with the bu ilding color. b. Insta115" high address numerals on both sides of the sign. c. Add additional landscaping at the base of the signs as determined appropriate by the Director of Community Development. The address numerals may be free of landscaping. d. T'he plastic "Car Wash" signage at the base of the signs shall be removed. 5. ILLUMINATION INTENSITY AND HOURS OF ILLUMINATION The intensity of each ground sign shall not exceed 250 foot-lamberts. All illuminated signs shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. 6. LED SIGN REQUIREMENTS The following requirements shall apply to the LED fuel price signs: a. The signs shall not display animated messages, including flashing,blinking, fading, rolling, shading, dissolving, or any other effect that gives the appearance of movement. b. The signs shall not include any audio messages. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-01 June 19,2014 Page-3- c. The signs shall utilize automatic dimming technology to adjust the brightness of the signs relative to ambient light so that at no time shall a sign exceed a brightness level of three-tenths foot candles above ambient light, as measured using a foot candle (Lux) meter aimed directly at the sign face at a distance of 100 feet from the sign. d. An ambient light measurement shall be taken using a foot candle meter at some point between the period of time between 30 minutes past sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise with the sign turned off to a black screen. e. Immediately following the ambient light measurement taken in the manner required above, an operating sign light measurement shall be taken with the sign turned on. f. The difference between the ambient light measurement and the operating sign light measurement shall be three tenths foot candles or less. g. The signs shall contain a default mechanism that will cause the sign to revert immediately to a black screen if the sign malfunctions. h. The LED copy may only contain fuel price numerals. i. T'he signs shall comply with Section 13532 of the State of California Business and Professions Code and all other State regulations regarding LED signage. 7. LIGHTING INTENSITY VERIFICATION Prior to final occu�anc� of sign permits, a licensed lighting engineer shall confirm that the lighting intensity is in compliance with the conditions of approval in this resolution. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION REVIEW/ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS If complaints are received related to the intensity of the LED signage under this Sign Exception, and the complaints are not addressed immediately by the property management, then the Design Review Committee or Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the Sign Exception at which time, the approval for LED signage may be modified or revoked. The City reserves the right to require additional measures to reduce lighting intensity if deemed necessary. 9. SIGN PERMITS REQUIRED The applicant shall consult with the City's Building Division to obtain the necessary sign permits for this project. 10. TEMPORARY SIGNS Temporary signs shall comply with the Temporary Sign regulations of the City's Sign Ordinance (Chapter 19.104 of the Municipal Code). A temporary sign permit is required for all banners, a-frame or other freestanding signs (except those required by the State of California), and promotional devices. 11. 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. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-01 June 19,2014 Page-4- 12. 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 attorneys' 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. 13. 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 exactiCoons. 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 19th day of June, 2014, 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Gary Chao Winnie Lee, Chair Asst.Director of Community Development Design Review Committee Q � �..a r�.J N z ¢ w � B � A / �' I ii�i N i 0 � ' v-�' �--�''.__. � —v ' BUILDING �if`� (,� � � ��<J' �� ' � n� �� . �� . ENHANCE EXISTING L�1�DSC�PING PROPR/ETARY/NFORMATION. The information disctosed in this document,including al/drawings,designs and re/ated maferia/s,is ihe valuable and proprietary information of Sign Developmenf Inc.It is provided so/ely for the purpose of evaluation for purchase and,without the express written auihorization of Sign Development Inc.,may nof be disclosed or dupiicated,in whole or in part,for any reason.Sign Development Inc.expressly reserves al!patent, copyright and other proprietary rights fo this document,inc/uding a/l design,manufacturing,reproduction,use,and sales rights thereto.O 2Q11 SIGN DEVELOPMENT INC. STE�-'ENS �'REEK : � � N � � __ _ �o�-c�.. SITE PLA'� SCALE: l!32"�= 1'-0'' CUSTOMER APPROVAL SIGN AND PRINT FULL NAME DATE N NO. M7280 DATE: 10.24.13BA REV: 02.20.14BA � ,v �{ 7 Y'"" '� s�^��' 3 � �, � �� s �1 �� . a� � ,� � � .�, Y yY / / � �%�� £ � �� ;�., r �. � � �,. � �� .� �, �: � � :�:f. , . . . x � . �� ,., .. ,, - � �:..: � - ".w. �, � � ,�,� � t� .,,� . :��, ��, ..�� ;� PAGE: 1 OF 3 �� MAY � 7 2014 �. Sign Development inc. license#576277 Upiand,CA 91 786 (909}920-5535 ��L E RQ 10002 N . DE ANZA BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 NIGHT VIEW SIDE ,'1 ;�-u��f.xlsTl�vc� _ _ BACKGROUND TO BE OPAQUE. � - _ -- - _ p - ; � = � COP�'TO I LLI�M I'�A7�E ,__, a _ .� � � , ._ , . � � � _ , h,• RED LED� � c�n' : � � ' � � � � : . . , � : � __ � �'' T� . . _.. __ . O , J . RE'VIOVE EXISTING - CAR WASH LETTERS FROM BASI; INSTALL NEW 5"FCO -�-""- 1 OOC�Z ; ' PAINT EXISTING BASE ADDRESS NUMBER -�� ' AND CABII�IET TO BOTH SIDES OF BASE ' ' MATCH EXISTING BUILDING � REFACE EXISTING DiF PR10E ID S1GN ONLY SCALE:3iH"=1'-0'" EXISTING CABINET SIZE REMAINS THE SAME SIDE B .-,: 7 `= v; X' � r-. �t 7'-0"(EXISTING �#� � ' � ° ��} " ��F_ �� .�� =,� �,. ��` �� :� �, ��:. PROPRIETARYINFORMATION. The information disc/osed in this documenf,including a!l drawings,des+gns and retated materia/s,is the valuable and proprietary information of Sign Development Inc.It is provided solely for the purpose of evaluation for purchase and,wifhout the express written authorization of Sign Development lnc.,may not be disc/osed or dupiicated,in whole or in part,for any reason.Sign Development/nc.expressly reserves al/patent, copyright and other proprietary rights to this document,including ali design,manufacfuring,reproduction,use,and sales rights fhereto.O 2011 S/GN DEVELOPMENT tNC. �1/ALERt� ��serFS�c� � cAR wasN �: � � � [�: � � z 0 O � 0 � CUSTOMER APPROVAL SIGN AND PRINT FULL NAME DATE NO. M7280 DATE: 10.24.13BA REV: 02.20.14BA _ �, �� ..� � � �Y ��v �� .� � � � _�,,.�. . � . .%�� __ �� , � �, ` �� , $ �° .� _ � �r� �`�� 7�Y ��.�.� � .��` . � �` � ��- � �� ' � � . .� 0 ENHANCE EXISTINC'1 LANDSCAPING ��N. � ��: M�: EXISTING D/F PRICEi'1D SIGN PER THE SIGN ORDI?�'ANCE, SIGN ILLUMINATION SHALL BE TliRNED OFF AT 11:OOPM OR V1-'ITHIN TWO HOURS AFTER THE BUSINESS IS CLOSED, VVHICHEVER IS THE LATER T1ME. ALL UNPERMITTED AND TEMPORARY SIGNS ON SITE MUST BE REMOVED PER THE SIGN ORDINANCE. PAGE: 2 OF 3 Sign Deve/opment Ir�c. license#576277 Upland,CA 91 786 (909}920-5535 V��O 1�002 N . DE ANZA BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 NIGHT VIEW �II)E. .1 ��-U��t(:�IS1 I\G) REMO�'E EX1S�rI'�G ---___` CAR WASH LETTERS FROM BASE �� : ' ��,�� , , . VALER � �� - �� . va�ero self serv�e GasoH� �� :�� ..� ' INSTALL NEW 5"FCO :- �� 1�002 - - PAINT EXISTING BASE ADDRESS NUMBER AND CABINET TO BOTH SIDES OF BASE ' VIATCH EXISTING BUILDING � REFACE EXISTING Di"F PRICE ID SIGN ONLY SCALE: 3i�"-1'-0" EXISTING CABINET SIZE REMAINS THE SAME SIDE B c.:,. z � � � � 8'-0"(EXISTING c� �r . �� -T� � � �� : �� ;r��:: �� .��'` �x�� PROPR/ETARY/NFORMATtON. The information disclosed in ihis document,including all drawings,designs and related materials,is the va/uable and proprietary information of Sign Development Inc.It is provided solely for the purpose of evaluation for purchase and,without the express written authorization of Sign Development Inc.,may not be disclosed or duplicated,in who%or in part,for any reason.Sign Development inc.expressly reserves ali patent, copyright and other proprietary rights to this document,including al!design,manufacfuring,reproduction,use,and sales rights thereto.O 2011 SIGN DEVELOPMENT INC. � VALER�� Valero Se1f Ser�ne Gosoline CAR WASH � � � � � c� � z c � C � CUST4MER APPROVAL SIGN AND PRINT FULL NAME DATE No. nn72so DATE: 10.24.13BA REV: 02.20.14BA �.�� b�. �� - `� � - �� ,� _ a � _ � � ��'"'� � �. _ w� �Z EXISTING D/F PRICE/ID SIGN PER THE S1GN ORDINANCE, SIGN ILLUMINATION SHALL BE TURNED OFF AT 1 I:OOPM OR WITHIN TWO HOURS AFTER THE BUSINESS 1S CLOSED, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER TIME. ALL liNPERMITTED AND TEMPORARY SIGNS ON SITE MUST BE REMOVED PER THE SIGN ORDINANCE. PAGE: 3 OF 3 Sign Deve/opment inc. License#576277 Upiand,CA 91 78b (909}920-5535 VAL E RQ 10002 N . DE ANZA BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 � VALERO YELLOW(PANTONE l 23C) VALERO TEAL{PANTONE 315C) -- WHITE#7328 - - WHITE#7328 � ��-� VALERO TEAL(PAIv'TONE 31 SC) D �� - VVHITE#7328 ��-� VALERO�'ELLOVV(PANTONE 123C) _ __ __ _ _ _ � , _ - _ __ ,, — -r,� �� i-r. c � i- _Y:n ' � l '�r ,�.'7 \ r' . �� u\�LJ l� �+�II .�)�.�� h.-1L U�v— _—_ _r—, _'�� /�� —� - ��a: ��4 I� Iy __ �i I� `�, r�� L�\�1 i�� I� �J ,` „\.�-,�.'�;1�" j ,� � .... a � �� 5' �� : ) � � =,-----_�—� � -____–' I / �— �, ,�� 1 �. ; � �a��.� � ' ia' �i ' � r � �� i �� c:I'`�'� i i �—\`,\��. ' i r.-,`—',-. ! ^�� j—(i +i� � � � „,`__�I� '— 4, �,�I L. �� rr �r�,r ��2��,� �,, CHANGEABLE NUMERALS: WH]TE COPY VALERO TEAL BACKGROUND � ,� �_, ,� ; �`� '°? � ; NOTE: ;I ;�i, ;! 1 � �i i �� , ��, ;'� -;;��, ; ; DIESEL PRICE PODS-VALERO �' � %' % � �� YELLOW BACKGROUND AND �______= CHANGEABLE VALERO TEAL NUMERALS i ! 3/4" RADIli S � ; MAX , � � � , � , • � � � '��---------------- 1 '-z" 3i4" __ ,___ OR 2' � ' — – � ' i ' ! ' 2 1 i4.. 3i 16" _ ___ _ MOLDED FACE CORNER SECTION PROPRIETARY/NFORMAT/ON. The information disclosed in this document,including al!drawings,designs and related materials,is the vaJuable and proprietary information of Sign Development Inc.lt is provided solely for the purpose of evaluation for purchase and,without the express written authorization of Sign Devetopment lnc.,may nof be disclosed or duplicated,in whole or in part,for any reason.Sign Development lnc.expressly reserves all patent, copyright and other proprietary rights to this document,including aN design,manufacturing,reproduction,use,and sa/es rights thereto.O 2011 SIGN DEVELOPMENT INC. s: C u: � w � � O u C � SIDE A 7'-0" �� "� �: �� _�.� � � d � �;" - VAL �� ; � ER � Yalero Se�f Senae Ga�li� �"`� ��,� � � � � ��r�.��< �,�,� ,,,�: CAR�ASN ��s �� SIDE A 8'-0' ;�� `�� vn�ERO� �� . ��.�� t� �. Yalero Se1f�rv�e Gasohne �� , � �. " ��' �� ;��, ��; CAR WASH � REFACE EXISTING DiF PR10E ID S1GN SCALE: 3%�"=1'-0" � REFACE EXISTII�G Dr�F PRICE ID S1GN SCALE: 3i�''=1'-0" REFACE/KEPAINT EXISTING CABINET. CABINET CONSTRUCTION: ALUMINUM ILLUMINATION/ELECTRICAL: STANDARD FLOURESCENT COOL WHITE HIGH OUTPUT INTERNAL ILLUMINATION, 1NTERNAL MAGNETEK BALLASTS(OR EQUAL), 11L LABEL AND VISIBLE DISCONNECT SWITCH ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS TO BE UL LISTED AND APPROVED FACE MATERIALS: MOLDED HIGH IMPACT CLEAR ACRYLIC FACES WITH TR1�I��SLUCENT 3M VINYL SECOND SURFACE DECORATION FINISH SPECIFICATIONS: SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTED, RETAINERS, DIVIDER BARS, POLE AND BASE TO MATCH VALERO MOCKING BIRD DARK GRAY GENERAL NOTE:ALL SIGNAGE TO BE MAN[�'FACTURED AND INSTALLED ACCORDING TO LOCAL Al'�ID'VATIONAL BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL CODES CUSTOMER APPROVAL SIGN AND PRINT FULL NAME DATE NO. M7280 DATE: 10.24.13BA REV: 02.20.14BA PAGE: PI D-1 Sign Development /nc. License#576277 Upland,CA 91 786 (909) 920-5535 VAL E RQ 10002 N . DE ANZA BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLAI�NING DIVISION . • CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N 0 (408)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date:Tune 19, 2014 Application no: EXC-2014-05 Applicant: Seema Shenvi (Prashanth Telang) Proj ect Location: 10445 Byrne Avenue (APN 357-12-036) APPLICATION SUMMARY: R1 Exception (EXC-2014-05) to allow a 10-foot combined first floor side yard setback where a 15-foot combined setback is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the application per the draft resolution. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation Residential(0-4.4 DU/Gross Acre) Monta Vista Zoning Designation R1-7.5 (Sin le-Famil Residential, 7,500 s uare foot minimum lot size) Existing/Proposed Land One-story single-family residence Use Gross Lot Size 6,500 s uare feet Net Lot Size (after street 6,000 square feet dedication) Allowed/Required Proposed Lot coverage 50% of the net lot area 2,788 s uare feet(46%) Floor area ratio 45% of the net lot area 2,347 s uare feet(39%) Height Two stories,not exceedin 28' One stor , 17'8" First floor building Front-20' Front- 20' setbacks Side-15' combined (min. side 5') Side- �EO' cumbin�d ��r�ith -�' ��7 e��:h �ici�� (exc. req.) Rear-20' Rear-33' Proj ect Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zonin Yes, exce t for the setback exce tion re uest Environmental Review Cate oricall Exem t er Section 15303, Class 3 of CEQA EXC-2014-05 10445 Byrne Avenue June 19,2014 Page 2 BACKGROUND: Site Description The subject single-family �� • a ' .� :��' »� .,� �.. � �� =P�� ''� _�, � .�,.� ,�.. �. residential ro ert is located on �� r�� e� �� .�� '�� ;`� � `� �'�' '��` �� p p Y �� ,. . �;, �,�. ,. � �` . , � ;. _ .� ��_,; � � �� . � . the west side of Byrne Avenue "`��` �� ; �� ` ��,° � ��;, ��.. ��° ��4�� F � � � ?�r � � '�q � .,� �i.� ' near polores Avenue. The � ,;�;,,� ��, " ��` `' `� � � ;��,�� `` ,��,. � .� � �m . �M .y' y; .�� •- �� _ �,� �� property is surrounded on all �.� � �� ,��,. 1 �_;��► �' +R� 1 -'�.'� .: ' 1��6�'T ` ' ",' �� .. .. . �r� ' . . ' � , � ,r. sides by single-family residences. i ,� _* �; � �R , . .�� - � � - .�� '-��`'``„� �_.: ..� �.��k�_ .. �. ._ `�a" � � ��;�,��'. ,, �� * �Project site � . ,,� � " �, ,. . , �. . The existing one-story residence � �"�. ______. ��R � � '�,< t: ,,., y�..�.,�—t� �' � a .� � r was originally built under the ;'�"�`�� r �� ,:� w _ , . ��,�-.,A.�.�,��y.:�� ""�� t >x County of Santa Clara s �, ;�;� "`�' �� __,�°_,�e;� , ,�'A � � �R� �V-� , � .��"�i . . . ,�.�„ � , jurisdiction. The property was ,. �'�'. �`` , �"" �y��`�' � �,,,,, ` ;. "'�- � � �a �-� . � a �.,�.,�� '� " � . .� : „ , .� . . . s . annexed into the City in 2004 � , ,�� ' , . � ,.��' ,��, -,� ,.,�. � ' � ��t (Monta Vista). — � ��,�,;.., ' �----i. .�, �� i , ',�• � � �� `'~� k , ,�"" �i� �� t�'. �,�� :.:� ' �„� ,�.�,�: � �j �-; � ��; T`he existin lot is substandard in �'` ` �. � � '"'��. � � - � ` t g t� , g � _ ...�_ �' __ � . ,. �. . .. ,4- ��; ^ �'�"'�'� ...� 1I�� '�° !� } ,�y�,�a _ , size at 6,500 square feet (1,000 �� `' �� `"�i'"�""`"`i�� ' � �.� �� . _ � �'�;' s uare feet less than the R1-7.5 '6 =� ' � �_::��' ��;... q zoning district minimum lot size Project vicinity aerial of 7,500 square feet) and substandard in width at 50 feet (10 feet less than the minimum lot width of 60 feet) with a depth of 130 feet. As a condition of the proposed project, the applicant will be required to dedicate the first 10 feet of the lot for the purpose of street widening and public improvements. The dedication will reduce the lot size to 6,000 square feet and depth to 120 feet. DISCUSSION: Application request The applicant, Seema Shenvi, representing the property owner, Prashanth Telang, is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and storage room at the rear of the property, demolish a portion of the rear of the existing one-story single-family residence and construct a new 1,192 square foot first floor addition which includes a new two-car garage. The project requires an R1 Exception for the proposed five-foot first floor side yard setbacks on either side of the house. The City's Municipal Code requires Design Review Committee review for all R1 Exception applications. Side Yard Sethack Exception The project site is located in the Monta Vista neighborhood where there are numerous lots that are substandard in width. Consequently, many of the neighboring homes have nonconforming side yard setbacks as well. The project is located in a R1-7.5 zone, which requires a combined 15 foot first floor side setback, with no side less than five feet from the property line [Section 19.28.070 (E)(2)(a) of the R1 Ordinance]. T`11e R1 Ordinance only allows properties located in the R1-5 zoning district (Rancho � Rinconada neighborhood) to have minimum five-foot side yard setbacks on both sides. The intent of this regulation is to require greater side setbacks on larger and wider lots wit11 bigger homes while EXC-2014-05 10445 Byrne Avenue June 19,2014 Page 3 smaller and narrower lots may have lesser side yard setbacks, allowing more flexibility to construct a reasonable and balanced floor plan and front elevation. Given the project's lot constraints, the applicant is requesting the five-foot side yard setback exception only along the first half of the house in order to satisfy the two-car garage requirement and still have enough building area to balance the front elevation. Only the garage is proposed to encroach five feet into the south side setback. The rest of the house on the south side is setback at least 10 feet from the property line. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a map of R1-zoned Monta Vista residences with existing first floor side yard setbacks less than 15 feet combined. It is noted that some of these residences were built under the County of Santa Clara's jurisdiction with varying building setback and development parameters that are considered non-conforming under the City's requirements. However, there are seven recent first floor side yard setback exception approvals in the neighborhood to allow for five-foot first floor side yard setbacks on either side. One of these recent approvals is the neighboring residence to the south, where in 2005 the Design Review Committee approved a similar request for a 10-foot combined side yard setback, where the only the garage encroached into the setback. Staff supports the exception because the proposed house is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood both in terms of massing and setbacks. In addition, the Design Review Committee has approved similar requests in the past. Project Design The proposed residence is ,-�''__� ____:==�-.. �...�.__...� R designed to meet all aspects of _ �.. ; � ��"�R��,=�::,�z� ,��.� �� 1 . .�, the R1 Ordinance, with the ' - - � �- - �. . ,---, - ,,,,�c- � exception of the first floor side �-`- r.--� �-�' � � -�—r � . ,. '� = .. .. - �� - -- - „ �, i �- �.-+�-, __ � .�._ $�,1"� �'° �1 yard setbacks being considered #;.._; � �� : � � � � T�' � -} � .�:��; , - ��, � �.� . =��r ��.�� ,�- r-�} � 4 �,.,_�-� �, _ by the Design Revlew ` �� _ � . ,.. . . .�..�. r,�.,.-��:----r,.�,- Committee. Pt�6PEGT;v�v,Gw nvDiTiON»+oF�MOecL_.__MC�cI.SHArvl�1T�11.Nv � a ____',...__. '. —. . ..s..0 n xv:o�.waa�scwrrr 109��a'(c�/�VENt1G G I¢ if�0,J�LIrOF,aV. Approvrzl Findings Staff recommends that the Perspective rendering Design Review Committee approve the project based on the following R1 Exception findings (Section 19.28.140 E): The lite��al enforcement of the R1 Ordinance 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. The 5- foot side yard setbacks are appropriate in order to allow for a functional floor plan and a balanced front elevation on a substandard lot. The intent of the ordinance is addressed since the side yard setback exception rec�uested is not for the entire length of the house—only for the garage. The rest of the house on the side rec�uested for an exception is setback the rec�uired distance. EXC-2014-05 10445 Byrne Avenue June 19,2014 Page 4 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 welfare. The project is a one-story single-family residence that is consistent with others in the neighborhood. 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 Due to the substandard lot width and two-car garage requirement, the strict application of the prescribed side yard setback requirement would create a situation that would result in an unbalanced floor plan and front elevation. The intent of the ordinance is met since the exception would result in a house that is comparable in siting, scale, and massing as others in the neighborhood. 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 Monta Vista neighborhood. The granting of a side yard setback exception is not anticipated to create adverse visual impacts since it is only for the front portion of the residence, while the rest is setback the code-required distance. OUTREACH/NOTICING The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearin Site Notice&Legal Ad Agenda • 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 Web • 7 notices mailed to property owners site (one week prior to the hearing) adjacent to the project site (10 days prior to the hearin ) The City sent out notices to adjacent property owners. No 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:May 5, 2014 Deemed Complete:June 4, 2014 The City has 60 days (until August 4, 2014) 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. EXC-2014-05 10445 Byrne Avenue June 19,2014 Page 5 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, Associate Planner Approved by: Gary Chao,Assistant Director of Community Developme Attachments Draft Resolution Attachment 1:Monta Vista residences with reduced first floor side yard setbacks Plan Set EXC-2014-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN R1 EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 10-FOOT COMBINED FIRST FLOOR SIDE YARD SETBACK WHERE A 15-FOOT COMBINED SETBACK IS REQUIRED LOCATED AT 10445 BYRNE AVENUE (APN 357-12-036) SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2014-05 Applicant: Seema Shenvi (Prashanth Telang) Location: 10445 Byrne Avenue (APN 357-12-036) 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. The 5 foot side yard setbacks are appropriate in order to allow for a functional floor plan and a balanced front elevation on a substandard lot. The intent of the ordinance is addressed since the side yard setback exception requested is not for the entire length of the house—only for the garage. The rest of the house on the side requested for an exception is setback the required distance. 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 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 project is a one-story single family residence that is consistent with others in the neighborhood. c. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minixnum variance that will accomplish the purpose. Due to the substandard lot width and two-car garage requirement, the strict application of the prescribed side yard setback requirement would create a situation that would result in an unbalanced floor plan and front elevation. The Draft Resolution EXC-2014-05 June 19,2014 Page-2- intent of the ordinance is met since the exception would 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 Monta Vista neighborhood. The granting of a side yard setback exception is not anticipated to create adverse visual impacts since it is only for the front portion of the residence, while the rest is setback the code-requfred distance. 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 an R1 Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-05, 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. EXC-2014-05 as set forth in the Minutes of Design Review Committee Meeting of June 19, 2014, 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 received on May 5, 2014 entitled, "Addition and Remodel for Mr. Prashanth Telang, 10445 Byrne Ave., Cupertino, California," drawn by Seema Shenvi, consisting of 6 sheets labeled A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6; 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. EXCEPTION APPROVAL An Rl Exception is granted to allow a minimum combined first floor side yard setback of 10 feet (5 feet on either side) for the one-story single-family residence. The new two-car garage is the only structure that may encroach into the required 10-foot south side yard setback. The rest of the principal residence shall be setback at least 10 feet from the south side property line.. 4. DEMOLITION OF REAR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Approval is dependent on the demolition of the existing rear detached accessory structure (currently used as a garage and storage room) since it would put the project floor area ratio over the maximum 45% allowable. Altemative arrangements may be considered by the City if under the maximum FAR. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC WORKS CONFIRMATION FORM The project shall comply with the requirements indicated on the Public Works Confirmation form dated 12/19/2013, including, but not limited to, dedications, easements, off-site improvements, undergrounding of utilities, all necessary agreements, and utility installations/relocations as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and required for public health and safety. The Public Works Draft Resolution EXC-2014-05 June 19,2014 Page-3- Confirmation is a preliminary review, and is not an exhaustive review of the subject development. Additional requirements may be established and implemented during the construction permitting process. The project construction plans shall address these requirements with the construction permit submittal, and all required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy. 6. GARAGE DIMENSION The minimum interior garage clearance shall be 20 feet by 20 feet(measured from interior walls). 7. 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. 8. 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 attorneys' 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. 9. 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 19th day of June, 2014, 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Gary Chao Winnie Lee, Chair Asst. Director of Community Development Design Review Committee Attachment Monta Vista Residences with Reduced First Floor Side Yard Setbacks ,. .°��;,'�� . � .�A� '� � � Y � � N Red u ced first floor side yard setback Past City setback exception a p p rova I �>�.��'�,�� c 5 p � ��n; � �� P�� s� ��c ��p � �� , � � �� , � �� $ ` �� -� � � �" C �.� �� .�.a� ti� � - .: i � '�` .^ ' �, �'� '"�.z.��_ ��.�.r�.:��' �� a.� ,.�., . .� . , a,i�:rrrv�`"`. .. � a. ��,�r �.Y. ��'� —� �.'� ., �t �..:i` ��.:� "w.?�'��, 'if��"�1�'��' ''�v �i"['°`�' w _+r_..; h.• «'i p .�' �g •`nj �� " '�' •"��•�T.'�._"� �� i� " �i � �� ._ �'°.�4�A tw�"�a i ,��'a � — " -^�s,�• � '#1��s.iwi�iE�" w 1v. � at i s�fi'i �� i @ ' = ..� . � �_ � • { �+#. , p�� g� ,,y ,.� M � w r !�„ � •�/�d� �.��il� � y�� «�T � . A a. Y..`�^" 1. s.i'��.'�s�..:�� s ..q�.� S± - � � �y �"�/I� � � �=` ��'� �� ,� �� EXC-2010-08 "i�� .: �� __ �'.�;��, � �� ,�� • � ��.� �., ,� : �•',� � �� .. ► �. ,,�" �a'�'r.�'+..:��''�ti �'�,�� , �° �•' ��,� � i�es ��rk"1'��. �-o i � � �_1 � �. .�� f� .�. ;�o: � e�� 5�:� c�� '' �" -� • °��`°�+;�� ..,..��_ '� e� '� �vt•'; �1 . � i� . . ,.� . . - �� : �,� a,�' , � ` R 2006 13 � ' � ,. � �`;.. _ �� :.`"�`,� '�`'�'�x � — — �� ';� � �,� b�' �r"��'� '� �'' � �'n, � ,� �. �;.i �i��, �'--�•��:°�'9 .�'` `'.� -'�� ' "°�`�°� `° �'s� h� "se'c�� . , . ''.�„�,y i � ��` �T� 'S � i `�; �"�. : � � . �' 4 '4 �=° �" ` "� t p�'�*�'�"� •,,+� ..._.°@ � , , �� ,�.�' � �� c',r�'�i' r �!°�'�,�"��„� r. +i�' �'�"l,�. ' .`� ��3a.`.».!} � C &i � j� +��..,�,� �., �,-r��• '' z e�'r:�'�� i+ P" =s i�� ►. '�� < - e � . . € a ' , � @ , rs. ,�^ �¢ � , r �' '� ��s ._ ., —� .�� ' _ �kJ f� 8 R �� t �� - , �� • �� _ ' � . . ; , � � � � , � ..,, � � �' �, �l►► �,uv�,.�'� .'w� "p. (� y�r,_ .<, � ,..._,. °ass;`"r..'_� �' ''�, �, ,�_- s��` �+, � .. ��j�.' "�^ " ` : _._,. �� a .. � m:,w� R s�:� ., � - �- . ♦ �� -a�-�; � , �.�� e� � — EXG2013-01 ��a �� }� .�� .. . ; �� . � �. �� . �.: �. g. �. , ,� i��T,t+�`�""`��'yr s ti,. ��'x�� `�'•,:� :�`�� '._�-ii . �.�!!er�s.*wi�.e � .�� ` �� .. ' '�� :� �� s. ; :�.� �: i -� � ;�, �� . �� a° -- R-2005-18 � ..�.,.�� L� . �- .+. �➢` �� ;�=� � . ,��r�� ~�,,:.� �;�.� . �� '" -�;�1 + � � � � ��` �� .,�, � , • . , � �� . a, ��x �; .� i , �� 1 �:�. ��f ; EXG2010-11 � � � --� . � _ .� . . � _ � a h, � ,� "$, " . .. , yir. .. � ti i� • ^_ • "I`,.. .�'T i,r. �s� „� with file no =�- . � . �_ . �- �� =- � - : .: � �,, � � ��, � � � �..,. �. �+. � -,� . ��_ B � � = m.. � � �� .. � .,�a�,�-°� �., . K= .,� n r �� k �3'i ,� '`` .- . '`-°; � � �■ r �:` ,.. � ' � � � , , $' �, _ . ' �a� � � .q.�� s � •- �• Fir�.. �.a�� . . i= w ,. �k� P�� t� � . ..�.�a�C'�r^.� � � . , :..'h �� y r. �. ' � � t `..,"� ; � , � �`.;.� ' , � �� — „ . .. ��e� "'" � r °� � ' � '�±`."�r'� » ,. _ a, &. a m*e s.�, a..,� s � �! i�-s+c �:il��' � i � _� ` �,._" « , � x i.�.. '��'i'Y��r�.�•.a�o, v,ea"�'_ ...a ��`,a►:", " ' . �` a . `,�, � ,� ,�, ' ��e..�� .�< :�t� .�,,,.N f-'�L �� +V.,�,,,��t►y, � � � "�s'°a�s �a�r,.s�,"� , ,,• ti•: �,� •�,�' 7 *• r�c w:'°ew-� ,r f. .ri .a.� r: . , � � � , � ��- . P.. , � , _ � � �a . ,-f � M , . . x � _ � � - � n . . � , f � ..s.,�, - �r � � ,, - � � . ,.� � � „ �` � ��-, ,�,, . ;-; °"� � �,r �,.,L +,�� ,�Y � � � r,,,Re,,,� � � a� �, . ffi _. � ;�-,r.. , -� .� •.' .�' , ,+k "` 5.r. •i� a ,� , ..s�"v�.+�!'.+r+,i.��s�. ,.� A . „yyr • - n o� ; � a � �� s� . ,�. a--s�� ..`.Y,�.�,r �,`1VC,'_"' ±�ir�?e°�.l�+;'�s�;> ��i� , a,. ��°sF �;�°*r �°'�"' � ��'��, �r'"��.i�f� �e�.�"''�" ar � "t �� . ' �.� . ,,.,., . . , ; � � �r? ,..._ .i� _ js,� ,'iR". _P � t • � ��1' a . ' • �e aF°ly�� e. ._ ..c.i � .. i�, !., a� `. }'�j '�. �;� �3�s� ^� � g�� ; ;�. «. , � . ' � � � � �''�'�.t`�'[;::�.�+r.a.. �:�-;'`'"�� "+u�R— � e � , . � � . _..,�, �.r�� ..'Ik,, .,. �m�'�, f a' ' � � « a ' ::�� . .�: ��: s .�.r.�� ' .. " !; . , a - - res _ .. �� . , •' • ., �• r.�, .i � � �+� �� . � � i,- � -�� a... • .r.wF...ss� .,� . ' . ... a%--:Y� � �C e i . � �� .. �' � ��_—ey��1 �C�' � . ., irne a 3. ;i r . � �' +�F v a. � ,�, ,�'�� A e�y � tti � .[ � `� �=;� 'sl 'ti •ffi�.� �.Y` , �.�.� ;� ;� �., . �i� , � �� ,.�, � . ..� � "~��- r�` a . � � . � a ;rR�� ++� r�,�� ,�_ .."'� �.�.°::�,:' .+es..� .. � ..-T � ... , � ;� . , - ��. f 6 �� '� . ��, r .. ,,, - .a�e'ar , • . ..� � J�.� �,,,a�,,,.w�., ��i� � 9 �'` s ��"�1 �,�! ��.°,�� .� �" r�p 3�� *-SS±�w.` ''_� �g �, ��, . "rn re-R_�!`R*�.. l�4.P,n i. „� �g f a r'"� � . ` .P�e �� 5f' � � �.. � ,�� M'i•L¢x ��,3° iai�., ir�_�"`"� :�' t�..�.�!€°,"°. �'. . �� Pro�ect s�te ,� �_ � � �. . . e ��:.�e �x ��.�$5; ��r�� . � �:y � � . �_ � #� � � ° � s �� ; �.. a��' •'�$, ^�*"",. t.,�,.'�: •f. +�;�°�'4 +r�ar�� K.+ar' ,, ,+ .£.:� , '� � , .. . � � ,. E , ' "F+�' ''e � y i ; �_ : � < a• � � �;a��a r 3 �!�'�� b"�A�„ ��.. �.��:� �� ,�.,:i ,.d�.. 1. __ . , f ��. � ; e.F � . � , r,�.,.,� _ . + :,. . � ° � >4 �� # . `��,�,'. -. '�..,. ,�',��..i�:. .. �- .° �Y �.. ��' . '��• .. "` � `• :_.�j'§1 �..�i...n �,e��. `�� .:�e ` . � � ` ; : a �} . , a � � . . s , . ' �� f��..,,y�� ,�..d. .a.. ~ � g D"°8 9 7 .x � .. `�a .}u� �!91° ',.. . �.. €� � .� . �y"� � `;..^8 � 7� �� 1 �t � � �. � µ =� � � ,'� . o....�;>.:V,,, • „ � � �a� � ' . � ,� - , �w. . , � '�'� « . �' • : _ � � �'_. _� � �; _ `,,� , n , �" �°° �`�`'`�";` , a• f��i t�' �,%.a�.:�� _ �` ' �� P��'"� +� aw � ,� y�' ,�., _. -r�"'°�'�-•,� _��.,,n„�S,�.��_ _ ''�g . ,�.,. _ e �si„�� a�' . , y .,x � �'��t R-2005-17 � ' S'� � ° - _'__ _ _ . �� ; e �. �;..�L �. sv �, a. _ 'i � ,_,. � � ' �, -�'�-�. ..�.... , �.,� }�a,,. ,,.-r-+7-w� b <:.� *"i� �•�. �y ~ :$> ��,,,te g�s�„_.�.r g � 33, s,�, , . ., . _ � �_"_' c �,• � £ .. ". .. .. ... � �}i� � ... ��€.�. � • � .. .. ,� a'.', :.<arorri�.l#� � � �! °''e'ii� a� � ... ,.i�� ". � . �IE� S �� R�j °��r '' . �` '� �-�a' k� .a�Y 4 a ."yt'y,� '' ....< g� a � �- � �� _'��x' . � �ti ' , -.r-. '� ;��" �r� � .� . � � R-2007-23 �.z• "�'�. �, � i�� ; :. .A .. '�. -,�`�.`�-�.� , � ,,�� .. . � o e . � �� '��:� r' � y _ i. � •_ ` ,�� •. P7;�, ��,�.�.. „ . � .� �, , '• '�,•-r�„ � _. i� � � �._ � _ ' �t� . ''�' �---� �� ' � . � .., , , , � . .._ � _ � 4 i- �, � ., . � � ��t.� ` .�� 3+' y'��: r- -.� .�'�' �a:a � � �_��#t � g3 „ . .:'.. v :� . � .,,e : . , � .,,e ' A � . ., �� ,,.. � —^a�.r. �• . ' � �_a >, ?.. �' q,r � _"� ..',�,�'� �,�".. a 'sa,""� , ,. �p i� y � ,+a?.,�� ° �.� � ` �'�'�:%`�� r"'�it �'"�r �i� �'�� ,. �. � � +i �''`+°' ' •° � � .= b .p � � ��, ' �� ,�� ,�s � � , . �:�• ,�� .., b,- ��, , .. u..c, . �-� . . .»al��i .... .- . �.. 7 a_ i�!��,�,..� ` 3.,�°�.;,;� • .. � 4 +�€.�„� '� ��± `�'� ,° ,� �. • - - — �°� � �i,� , _ _ � � . < :,.;_:: x.��.. ;..,,---� � ,�,c :iF` : _.. .� °�:..� _ _ c �r_.. _+, � ... _ �__._._�. .�i.,__. ([I�0' . IE12-5' 50.0'PL � (EI Fence 6' 24.5' � '- .� h�gh � / (NI Fence 6' k�- - . ..... nyn (E)Garage + (N)Storage - ��EI co�c z � (E)Store Room Harascape�o I �.N a De removed� ... . ^ IEIGarageandlEl : ��. � ��. 70' � � ... . � � Store Room to Ce �- � aema��a ° Concrele pad l0 10 0' �6 �� t Land Sa "�� I . .. . . _. . cDn9 remain_ . . .... ....... � to rema�n1 . 10.0' 262' � 5.0' (E)Fence 6' �tback at New r I � AdAilion ... .... . . � hgh .� ' INIDown Z _..__� _ - � spans as - ---, in i .�._� _._ . . � � . t �- � � �e�pu.ea , , .�� io � - { O � � . �.�(N)Pwcn � 8.8'tx9S � � Z . m � I f ° 1r 1 D `° ; � g New Addilion � I ° «! N 0 Existing � Sunroom I j � 12 0'x 19.5' (EI Fireplace to . � r � be removed �. to be demolised l�E � � o�„�,aY m � i b„a„p„�� Existing House , 35.0'x 40.0' � �!' . F�=360.6t N�Rooi i8' m no � wde roof �` c I ..° 5.0' :� ovemarg n t � I .� � . . (EI Fence 4' � �hgh (N�Fence6' n;gh I~ � (N)Garage 0 FL=360.1± �: Seat FleigM at EI cas Me�e� . . �.- � . � . �ay window is � .� � � � � 24'above F•L . �N�200 Amps Sub panel I z f_'_""_"` I . . � . j(NlPach��I�- ��NewAddilbn " . » , o �t- 77x59'x'. 12.0'xa.4' +: . o ,<;-� , I o `__� N � r �� i � _ j. i� ? I ?, _ , . � Z ,� o � ;< w��a�«,a. �- . . ',r. c� N L7 � � y �aa.«s b . . , fE�as I �`�� = b d � ; r > m � t' � � � ; l o�.. . . . . -� �\ a ?. � � ro i i 'g.m �.,_ . . I "�?I� ° �n � 1 '.{a ° i ' o� . . �1 � - � , i � . . ci'� �lElSewe� 3'-� - � � . � E ��e 50.0'PL - , ; � E�� { �-i - -I � Z � j (ElWaler; INISa«a� � (NlStreet -- I Meter .. o � BarriraEe � '� � � . (NIPLANTER / V (N�Temporary _ � � d STRI� / / / Sidewaik � �` ___ . °� l.�__ =---- + ----I - -- i �-- -- -- I I � k(N�5.0'kin �4iN15.0' Selhackto Garage BYRNE AVE. ` C� STREET (N) SITE PLAN N---� SCALE: 1"=10' NOTE: 1. Contractor shall field locate existing sewer line and connection thereof. New Sewer line shall be provided as per codes and Local Agency's requirements.Contractor shall coordinate this construction with Local Agency. 2.See seperate drawings for drainage plans and details On site drainage to be directed through landscaping on the property and not onto neighboring propeRies. 3.Water mains to be relocated.Contractor to coordinate new location with Owner. 4.All(E)Trees shall remai�. 5.The underside/soffit of Eaves 8 Gable end overhang within the 5'setback zone shall be1-hour rated. 6.(E)Water meter to be relocated.Contractor shall cordinate with City,San Jose Water Co.and Owner. 7.(N)Utility lines shall be located underground.Contrcator shall coordinate with City,relevant utility companies.and Owner. 8. Finished floor level at(N)Addition to match(E)Finished floor level. 9. Intemal Dimensions of garage sahll be 20'x 20'min. PROJECT ANALYSIS: LOT SIZE = 6000 SQ FT Net Area Existing House = 1400 SQ FT Area of(E)House to =225 SQ FT be replaced by Garage (E)Garage = 245 SQ FT (to be demolished) (E)Front Porch = 62 SQ FT (to be demolished) (E)Enclosed Rear Porch = 234 SQ FT (to be demolished) (E)Storage Room = 321 SQ FT (to be demolished) New Addition(Rear) = 662.5 SQ FT New Addition(Front) = 53.0 SQ FT New Front Porch = 51.2 SQ FT New Rear Porch = 83.5 SQ FT New Garage = 447.3 SQ FT Existing Floor area = 2227 SQ FT Existing Lot Coverage = 2365 SQ FT New Living Space =1854.0 SQ FT Floor area w/roof ht = 30.0 SQ FT >16'from FFL Proposed Floor area =2346.7 SQ FT Total Lot Coverage = 2788.0 SQ FT = 46.5% Existing FAR = 37.2% New FAR = 39.2% Front Yard Paving = 465 SQ FT Front Yard Area = 1000 SQ FT Front Yard Paving Percentage = 46.5% Total Impervious Area (max) = 3000 SQ FT Total Pervious Area (min) = 3000 SQ FT Impervious Area percentage = 50°/a DRAWING INDEX: A� SITE PLAN,PROJECT INFO - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A2 (E)FLOOR PLANS&ELEVATIONS, (N)FLOOR PLAN A3 (N)FLOOR AND(N)ROOF PLAN A4 (N)EAST 8 WEST ELEVATIONS AS (N)NORTH&SOUTH ELEVATIONS A6 (N)SECTIONS C� COVER SHEET C2 TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP C3 STREETIMPROVMENT C4 GRADING 8 DRAINAGE - SECTIONS - ELECTRICAL LAYOUT PLAN - TITLE 24 CERTIFICATION - FOUNDATION PLAN AND DETAILS - ROOF PLAN AND DETAILS - SECTIONS AND DETAILS . . :� Y'.. � . Hie�:kbern Fa�^± .. Ch1!Caur.e f � "�� . .,rys�al!,l��iny forpcstn�icxt ��. r. '�1. {�.. . ,a'`� r:ii' *�,�>n "�& ;�rr';\' b�s'_ �., r. 3, �`�. _az�s.-.e � s� : i3cit�ic�°"�.. �` ►hx?ta:"t�la tliyh Sch�xrl�' FI g�-USjtle � p ._ �.Ihr�"V t/ %.'GCt;3;.:�"� �' `'1_ �: t�r{clsz _ ��fTf,..�?d='V �t�t�� $^f5&(�If15� Loc�er Itocros 3+ srtd FE C%1j�re t"{� MG�;c�Yi:,�u .r�:. •'�___:,..�� VICINITY MAP N.T.S. SCOPE OF WORK Addition of 712 sq ft of living space,51.2 sq ft of front porch,83.5 sq ft of rear porch 8�447.3 sq ft garage Demolition of(E)Garage,(E)Storage,(E)Sunroom&(E)Fireplace Addition of 20'driveway. Upgrade of electric subpanel&relocation of watermeter. Remodel of(E)kitchen. 5'-0.S 29'-t t.5' t'-6' k k 4 i-i, 1'�'i• � � 5 70 ... � 6`-65 ( 13 105' �� ! b� . � (ry)p��y f ; �,83.5spft• 6 { in 83.5 sq st area of New Addition� Porch rwt incl.in 662.5'sq ft " FAR , �: � N � 3�-0 Existing House : 1129.6 sq fl A : o • o : _ ____ ---_ •� ' S'-0',o � ��'15'-9.5'�"� 10'x 3'area w/ . heghl to bottom of roof raRers grealer ,.�� - than 16'-0' �n" (N)Garage (E)Uving aea ro ! w rn�� QQ a S ((� �demdished ; � 7 a -� _. ' N. � ". � . ��..'.. .��.. . .................. ^, �Z:,Q. � °f �New Additlon .a; .�"20'-9.5' --29.1 sQ k . �53.0 sq ft - �''. � N' � _ . � _ . � ._._.. ....""".... . ........ �. .. . O� •� ._.1_.._._.i�..:: a _ 1'-6' 19'-3.5' 1'{>' 7'-2.5 �'�. 10'-6. r-s• (N)FAR Calculation: ",s°"a.°a°'P°'�' nol mtl.in FAR 18'roof overhang incl.in Total Coverage calculation. Seat Height al bay window is 24'above FFL. Mea not ind.in FAR PROJECT DATA: APN: 357-12-036 Property Address: 10445 Byme Ave. Cupertino,Ca-95014 Owners: Mr.Prashanth Telang (408}-489-9711 Ms.Seema Shenvi (408)-460-9394 Zone: R1-7.5 Type of ConsVuction: V-B Building Sprinkled: No Number of Stories: One CODE DATA PROPOSED ADDITION CBC 2013:Residential,Building,Electrical,Mechanical,Plumbing,Enerqy&Fire. Cupertino Municipal Code N �.��I�TE.I� tVIAY 0 5 20 i4 BY General Notes See(N)Floor and Roof plan on Sheet A3. See Topographic Map and Horizontal Control on Sheet C2. See Street Improvement details on Sheet C3. See Grading and Drainage on Sheet C4. Revision/Issue � Date SEEMA SHENVI 408-996-7456 SITE PLAN.PROJECT INFO ADDITION&REMODEL FOR Mr.PRASHANTH TELANG 10445 BYRNE AVE. CUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA•95014 Proj�ct S�eet ��Dec 2013 A 1 ScaN AS NOTED WALL LEGEND: _________ Existing wall to be removed. Existing 2 x4 @ 16"o.c. studwall to remain. New 2 x 4 studs @16"o.c.,UNO � I ..... ........ ...... ............... .. ........ ............._._.. �.J LsuMry . _.. .., ram�y i �1.......i_..._..._. ..._..._..__..._..�...... ._..._..._.__..._..._....._._ f.. : :_�_. � �,.:�:-" ". Den Bcc Rwm s2 • ,....`BM ,_i... �... • (NIK I�en r')'-�.�-:'.�. 3 I___' � lvnq g�Rwm+t _..__..._. _.._-.��Od . . . . ...` �� __.... ...... ° 9'J' :_. IS'-i' : i�T-� (E) FLOOR PLAN � N (E)Sun Room 1 E)Canposite.00f lo D8 reDlaceO 12 ___ Dn�d X ___ � -- T.P � . . � � � -- � � � � Q T.O.S.F. __ _ � � � a•min totr max IE)stucco (E)Po.cn Verily a1 vle (E)Home (E)FRONT/EAST ELEVATION IE)Compos�te.od �o he.ec�acea 12 (E)Meme�a�+e�001 <�pncn �o Oe reD�ced � � � � � T iE�s�,«oF��s� (E)Home (E)SIDE/S4UTH ELEVATION � � 1 � ' � _ _ __. , � (NlPacn ��, � aosn ,m•z I 3. __. -tl � �:J ., �,� (N�Pa�tli ' : ........"._."_"."""""" "."""""_.""... . �'""■ : O � \•� � i_... (N) FLOOR PLAN � N Note:Plan shows walls to be demolished.SeeSheet A3 for(N)Floor Plan dimensions and details. ___ � TP--_ > a N >" w «_ �F m Q � T O S.F. <'min bl Y max Verdy at sne 8 End � At (EI Exis�ing (N) New PL Property Line # NumOe�/POUnd B.D. BoarC BOT. Bottom BRZ. Bronze CL Center line DBL. Double DET De�ai D.F. Douglas fir D.H. Double hung DIA. Diameter DIM Dimension DN. Down DR.. Door D.S. Down spou� D.W. Dish washer DWG. Drawing E. East EA. Each E.J. Ezpansion ELEC. Electnc ELEV. Elevatbn E.S. Each side EJ. Expansion E�. Equal EOUIP. EQUipment EXIST. Exsisting EXT. Exxterbr ABBREVIATIONS F.A.U. FaceG air unil MECH. Mechanical F.D. Fbor drain MFG. Manufacturer F.F. Floorfinish M.H. Manhole F.G. Fixed glass MIN. Minimum FIN. Finish MISC. Miscellaneous F.J. Fborjoist MTL. Metal FLR. Floor N. Norih F.O.0 Face of concrete N.I.C. Not in conhact F.O.S. Face of sNd NOM. Nominal FTG. Fooling N.T.S. Not b Schod FURR. Furring O/ pver FX. Fixed O.C. On center GA. Gauge OPP. Oppovle GALV. GaNanized PL. Plate G.C. Geeneral Cwitractor PLYWD. Plywood G.I. Galvanized Iron PNL. Panel GL. Glass PR. Pair GR. Grade PT. Pant GVP. Gypsum pN. Quan�ity H.D. Holddown R. Riser HDR. Header REF. Reference HDR. Hardware REF. Refrgerator HGR. Harger RE�'D. Required HORIZ. Horizontai RM. Room H.S. Horixontal sliding R.O. Rough openirg I.G. Insulated glass R.R. Root reflers INSUL Insulalion RWD. Redwood INT. In�erior S. South J.H. ,bist hanger SCHED. ScheAUled JT. JoiM SECT. Section MAX. Maximum S.G.D. Slidirg glass doa M.C. Medicine cabinet S.H. Si�gle hurg � '�S. �w�, � � �v '� ��- �L��z� vv ee - ��.� �o�o�■ �� r.;�z=.��,�� • (E)Comoosila row to 6e replacea 72 � --- p:kh < IE)Membrarre rod � � to 0a reoUCed ___T.P. _ > � � � � i T.O.S.F. \�'min�olY ma� v�ym:na (E)Home (e�s��oF��sn (E)SIDE/NORTH ELEVATION (E�Sun Room To be EemoesheC SHT Sheet SIM. Simlar SL ShCing SPEC Specfc�auon SO. Sauare 5.T Suntunnel STO. SlanAard STOR. Stwage STUR. Stuctural T Tread T.B. Towel Dar TEL. Telephone TEXT. Terture0 T.8 B. Top anE bonom T 8 G Torgue and groove THK TM1ick T.O.C. Top o/curb T.R. Towel Ring TYP. Typcal TP.H. Toile�paper hdGer U.N.O. Unless noted otherwise W Wesl W/ Wilh W/C. WaterUOSet W.P. Water proof W.P. Wa11 paper General Notes See(N)Floor and Roof plans on Sheet A3. See Notes and Specifications on Sheet--. Revision/Issue � Date � � SEEMA SHENVI 408-996-7456 (E)FLOOR PLANS 8 ELEVATIONS (N)FLOOR PIAN ADDITtON 8 REMODEL FOR M�.PRASHANTH TELANG 10445 BYRNE AVE. CUPERTINO.CALIFORNIA-95014 Proj t ShM ��Dec 2013 /q2 ua�. AS NOTED rn n 2 Y � 5_�" � 7 0+ I I W2 �Ni ey�ess w� ��.� (N)Master Bedroom ., 14'-1'K t2'�b1/2'x ; Ha�dwood Flr 8'ClG S:: I 4 35'-0" 5 2'-6" � 3'-4 1/2" 3'-5" I 8'-9"± 6 � l_ i ....... .... ...... I V.� �--� _ I A � 5'-10" 5'-41l2' 7'-3^ � ` �r...�:-: ., ,. ,...D7 � � D4 Y(��Ti1e Flr I� �: � � Master e•c�c � "�Bath �' � " ....... ._... ? �. W '� .- .._. y C.�OS@t � � ' TuDME Snow r ��' ' n r. � N : � . .... ...... .... ..... ..... I.... . :.... �. � � ' � (R)Family � DS � � A � A6 — — — — — — � ' .. .. . . . . . N.. �. (N)Study '�1'-0'x 9'-t�i2'i HardwooG Fk 8'CLG N \ (N)Porch B'�9'x x 9'-6 t2'z C'8 \� T'8 CLG 07 = D7 0� D3 N Closet � (N)Bed Room#2 � HardwooA Flr W u t t'-6'x x 12-4't ' � °;�� B'CLG � � d �(N)Mic Space Accass , E 2a',30'mm. ? , < m ... .... f .. � F' � s'-i o' 2�-8- N t0 � � � q a � N srw�,e� w V ` oa , Bath � � I . �? . . — Tile Flr A � — _ o w — : � • p a 8'CLG � � ,' . _ . . . O Z .. . .. . .. � w ... . .. ... oza h�I �� O . ___— ' � N ....... . ........ W � wo - -- ----- 0 3'-4 1/2" 3'-0" 2'-0" ' �. : ,2.�. 6�_6. ' o^ w �--� W • (N)Dining Q �u�i � � °: � HarAwood Flr - (R)KiiCh@n va�neec�c : DW .... ...... ......__ �: : HardwooA FN �_' I ��. .�._ .___. :. . ,. __ _ o�c�c °. 0�� W6 . ,. . _ . ', _._ � .___ � : W, ..._. �: � � ,_, .;.. N . a WSH ' O: °, RE F DVR � --,�^�.p ,k�. � A' V � V D8 4'-7" 12'-7 � __. ....,iz•oa�arn Owrsbpe . Y N 0 (E)Bed Room#1 ��'-6't z'2-9'z ....� .-._. Hardwood Fh _ � 8'CLG ° f. �N�nmc Soace nccess . D2 / ; , �, �''� 30'K 24' . � ' (p �..I..... : . Cbut .. - ' HattBath p7� : ., 3'-0" 3•8•zxs-C't � I ...;. ..... � , W � 8'CLG � O INl crwai soac�Arcess y � �6 . .. .. ... .. . . . izd' ,ca�� R Livin � i 9 � � :...... ......: �. � � . 17'-10'x x 16'-t'z � B'CLG '� _ ___ _.._ _.. ��rr.�. .,. , __...... . .� � Hardwooa Flr �. N _ . _ _.; ;_ iN)Entry- - '. e•-o•c�c - _ _ _ - � I � B'CLG .... ..... .... ... . ... � . T-5'z x 5 9.z°. . . (N)E�ed�wlFireplat@� W (N)Garage I oi � o SIaG on Grade � ' , MATCH(EICLG . , A � � Vi � J ! #' �.. hF D9 . . . . 1•-6- q�_p• 7•{>• �. . (N)PorCh . 7'.2'x 5-10'i �...�� . . ... .... ...... . ... . . . . �. .. ......_ 9'ClG�� 2'-S., 2'-5" 40-0" (N) FLOOR PLAN Wi 12'-0„ % � _ � (N7 eay w��aow wr seai at 24'aDOVe Me FFL � N 1 2 4 5 6 I - (N)4'i1'PTpos� I ...... ......... ......... ...... ...... . ... . ...I.... _ at(N)Porch.typ � ... ��... . : ....... .. ........... :..... . . � . � �------ __ _ _ � � � � � __——_�_J L——————————————————————————————— i ' I I f I � ....(N)a7 n�gn P7 waoE railmg � I ��. per Owriar s choica � �. I . I � f . . � . . . IN)SkyL9nl. I i ww��sdw ow.��. I ' I '. � I ' � �� I �L DOWN SPOUTS —t�J� I i AS REQD. ' I _ , __ I I � I I . ! _--_ I __.... I . � I � I � I I � �i I . ... . ` . : �'�� _ _ '� .�� ' � ; I �; .:� ......}.....: � I I � � I .............. ; _........�, �'� : I � . � I : : ; ��.: ,�. .......'... .. � . __-: . < , � I �I _.. ... '.. �r.� � Ridge Ventilator � (N)CLASS A �� COMPOSITE ROOF � -......._., � 12 _ I � rn � -�5 � -o _...._.. A I � ' I A6 i : _ ? i `,: ' i � I � ; I (N)Sun tunrrel, � : � �� :ta•dw�e�Nv D ; I � ....�... u.n.o.CoMnn ' I' + ".. bratrons w�Ow�wr � I ` � ' I � � � ; � ...._.._... ; ( ': µ � � . : : � .� : :�', '� � .• : I :............: .. .��,: }' : � ' I .. ..__....,..._. �, ,� I : . .._.__.{_._ .._._.. ........... ..... . ...� .._.._ __...._ '_...... . . •� I � I , .:_ _............ • L_-__-_-_ _� I -------------- I I I � � � � .. : � I I � � � : � F.' ..._._. ' ,.. � . : , �� __ .._....,, ; : I .,.......... ...,..., , � � U I � : f d' ` I � . � �.. �� ......:.. . ; � .....__._ ^ ... .. . _ � : � Z � I I � � � � � ( I � 100 sq in Dormer Vents � --------------=--------------. I @3'aboveeaveslevel I � : I I. ___ __ _ _._._ __ . � I � A I (N)1 hour Fire Ratad Eavas:Rw�de 518• � I . �, /"J � . cyo m„a a�me��aenae.ryo wna,a ' % : ti• � ea..s Is.Imm s•ar orooenr rne. I ;'�_j,�Q . ��Q�� J� . . '� I � I �� 1�� °� ��y j �' I � ;-a + _ : � ;"'� :� ,�� I . � ,- ;_ _ � _ � . ��i�.w�..w�.a .r :Z � � E..v.��+o.�,sa-�w ' � �>a�,�»�«s� _ L------------- .�.,..,....M, ��, --_--__--____�_� .. : . I 5'Mwow'M�na � �� _ I r-=------------- :�. .......... ........... .......................... ...................... ........................L___-__---J �i (N)ROOF AT GARAGE AT PORCH �2 �2 _�5 5 MA� GARAGE (N) ROOF PLAN � N General Notes See Site Plan on Sheel At. See Wall legend on Sheet A2. See Schedule of doas and windows on Sheet A4. See Elevations on Sheet A4 8 AS See Exteria finish speafications on Sheet A3. See Sections on Sheet A6. See T24 Calcultaions on on Sheet--- See ElecVical Layout Plan on Sheet--- See SVuctura�Plans and Details on Sheet--.-and-. Revision/Issue � Date SEEMA SHENVI 408-996-7456 FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS ADDITION 8 REMODEL FOR Mr.PRASHANTH TELANG 1D445 BVRNE AVE. CUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA-95014 7rojact $hM ��Dec 2013 /�13 ScaM „4._,. m (N)Class A,50 Year Composite roof � (N)Stucco Finish —� 12 N � pitch�5 — ------ o N � ......... ��. ,.��...... �.......... ...� . . ......... . �.....,.. . �. . — — _. i� _ i. ; ��25' � ° X __. _. . _. _ ,___. �...:.,. T.P. � � c� _. _ � � : _ _ .'-...._ , Line -- -- -- - __ _ — — , ._ __: _,_ ..-.. _:.._ .�T T.P. .` � : , ,.,..... , - a� c � ' ;� � � ; W o � 000��a � �� s � Z 0�� ! at R igh line � m co � m , �0�� y- �� . .: a�o�aa � T.O.S.F. �. -- _� +s'�"_ "min to 14"max (N)Stone Veneer (N)4"wide Foam Trim Verify at site 5.0' (N Garage New Addition 5.0' (N)Setback (E/N)Setback (N)FRONT/EAST ELEVATION 2S'�Line 10'high line at R —� �`� �� > a I (N)Tread=12" min,Riser=7.75"max 5.0' ti (E/N)Setback New Addition (N)REAR/WEST ELEVATION _(N)Stucco Finish (N)Class A,50 Year Composite Roof � � � ............. c�u��—— — } ll. F, p.,' fn % W +� _ ` U � � � Q � (E)T.O.S.F. 12"max projection at 6"min to 14"max (N)garden window Verify at site – �. ,. 5.0' (N)Setback at Garage SCHEDULE OF DOORS: DOOR TYPE SIZE DESCRIPTION D1 5'-0"x 6'-8" Ext dbl wd panel door D2 2'-8"x 6'-8" Embossed panel wd door D3 2'-6"x 6'-8" Embossed panel wd door D4 2'-4"x 6'-8" Embossed panel wd door D5 2'-2"x 6'-8" Embossed panel wd door D6 2'-4"x 6'-8" Bi-fold door �� 2'-4"x 6'-8" Pocket door D8 3'-0"x 6'-8" Insul Stf door w/glass panel D9 16'-0"x 7'-0" Gara ge door D10 4'-0"x 6'-8" Sliding Closet door 'All doors shall be of Owner's choice. SCHEDULE OF WINDOWS: WINDOW TYPE' SIZE DESCRIPTION W1 7'-0"x 5'-0" Bay window W2 5'-0"x 4'-0" Dbl glazed slider with screen W3 2'-0"x 3'-0" Dbl glazed slider with screen W4 3'-0"x 2'-0" Tamper proof sliding with screen W5 6'-0"x 4'-0" Garden window W6 1'-6"x 1'-6" Fixed glazed window W7 1'-6"x 5-0" Single hung window W8 1'-6"x 6-8" Fixed Glazed window W9 5'-0"x 2-0" Double Glazed slider with screen Header height is 6'-8",Match Existing. *Windows shall be of Owner's choice. 'Contractor shatl field verity window dimensions. EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATIONS: 1.Roof malenal: Class A-50 Year Composi�ion Shingles,malch exisUng malch(E)wbr. 2.Fascia�. 2x Fascia,see eave detail,lypical. Cobr:Ma�ch existirg. 3.Gutters 26 gauge G.S.M.gutters,lypica� Cobr shall malch fasda. 4.DownspouLS: 26 gauge G.S.M.Oownspouts prime and painl downspouts to malch aAjacent color 5.Flashing: Z6 gauge flashing arW counter flash all peneVation at roof 4'mi�.lap,6'mi�.side lap. Pain�lo mat�adjacen�cda,where ezposed,with, tst coat#1722 Kel Gua�d galvanized iron primer. 2nd coal 7F7240 Ady Shield aaylic flat finish. 6.SWCCO Siding�. Match existing,uno. Cdor Match exislirg,uno. General Notes See General Notes on Sheet–. See Specifications on Sheet–. See Wall legend on Sheet A2. See Schedule of doors and windows on Sheet A2. See Floor Plan 8 Roof Plan on Sheet A3 See Exterior finish specifications on Sheet See T24 Calcultaions on on Sheet—. See Electrical Layout Plan on Sheet–. See Structural Plans and Details on Sheel–,–and–. Revision/Issue � Date SEEMA SHENVI 408-996-7456 ELEVATIONS ADDITION 8 REMODEL FOR Mr.PRASHANTH TELANG 10445 BYRNE AVE. CUPERTINO.CALIFORNIA-95014 vroj.ct she.t ��Jan 2014 A4 ScoN 1/8"=1' 12 pitch 5 (N)Class A,50 year Composite roof _______,�__ (N)Ridge Line _ � _. _. _ � , __. _ __ _ . _ :_ _ _ _, - - -' _ ao :. -------- -- __ � . .. .:.... _. .... . ._. , _ ..... . .._ . ...... ._. .... ,. __ ...,: .. .. ... ........... .... . ..: } c � N � � X � W w . v > i e U ; � � � � (E)T.O.S.F. 6"min to14"max Veriiy at site NeW Addition � (N)Stucco Finish (E) Home (N) SIDE/ NORTH ELEVATION ,z 5 pitch (N)Class A 50 year Composite roof New Addition New Porch New Addition (N)Stucco Finish � k ,, 4'-0" (E) Home (N) SIDE/ SOUTH ELEVATION New Garage New —y_ Porch � � _ T.P._ (E)T.P. � � o, � _c w � > 'x � W � � 00 U f0 � (E)T.O.S.F. 6"min to 14"max Verify at site General Notes See General Notes on Sheet—. See Specifications on Sheet--. See Wall legend on Sheet A2. See Schedule of doors and windows on Sheet A4. See Floor Plan&Roof Plan on Sheet A3 See Exterior finish specifications on Sheet See Sheet A4 for notes not shown. See T24 Calcultaions on on Sheet—. See Electrical Layout Plan on Sheet–. See Structural Plans and Oetails on Sheet–,–and–. Revision/Issue � Date � SEEMA SHENVI .�.��.�e ELEVATIONS ADDITION&REMODEL FOR Mr.PRASHANTN TELANG 10445 BYRNE AVE. CUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA-95014 v.o�«� sne.t ��April 2014 A5 Scok ��8._.�. Q � v � } � � � � � w\ Z LL / � w W ' > � � X � (� 00 w � � � Q T.O.S.F. — —— —— T.P. � � � � � � w Z w i � � � � tl Q oD W � o� T.O.S.F.(Match Exist) FOR DRIVEWAY,SLOPE ANC DRalri SEE CIVIL DRawINGs � T.P. �N��9"Auoi Prt:mang (N)Class A 50 Vear ComposOpn Shirgle roofing 301b un0erlayrtwrn i�r cox v�ywe snea�n�,y 2�RR 6 CJ�24'o.c See Sbuclunl Dwgs. R-70 F_G.�nsulation 1IY gyD bClinish,pa�nME � � �v�.��s�k_ � 1R)FAMILY (N)BATH CDX Plywd sheam�ng 2vd StuCS�16'o.c. R-13 F.G.inwlation .. 1/7 gy0 DC(inish,pain�eC (N)Shower Encbsure . _ �\ � I�IC'UWLSaKE � � � IEIG�+AVASO�LE 1 a .. V' f 18'EMBOD Wall Ftg.See Stnrttural Drawings 1/7 9Yp bd fmish.paintetl (N)Fbor Finishas ro malch a.isting 2�l SIWS Q 16'o.c 3/6'Thk CD%PIywE shealhi�g,min ura R-13 F.G.insulalion 2Y Jast�2<'o.c.See Stn�ctural Dwgs. 12'gyp bd(nish.painled R-19 F.G.inwWtion BUILDING SECTION A A6 BUILDING SECTION B A6 N)3 coa�7�s•swcw,w�Mea ro n,mn e=is� CD%PIywC sheaming 2y<Swtls�16'o.c. R-13 f.G.�nsu�atro� 12'9YO EOlinish.Wirite0 General Notes II --- I I l See Site Plan on Sheet A1. ', See Wall legend on Sheet A2. ' See Schedule of doors and wi�dows 'I on Sheet A4. I See Floor Plan 8�Roof Plan on Sheet A3 '� See Elevations on Sheet A4&AS ' See Exterior finish specifications on Sheet A4 See T24 Calcultaions on on Sheet T24. I See Electrical Layout Plan on Sheet E1. I See Structural Plans and Details on Sheet S1.S2 and S3. I Revision/Issue � Date � I SEEMA SHENVI .�.�o.,.� I SECTIONS I , ADDITION&REMODEL FOR I I Mr PRASHANTH TELANG 10445 BYRNE AVE. I CUPERTINO,CAUFORNIA-95014 I Proj�ct She�t ��March 2014 A6 xai. 1/4"=1'