Loading...
02-V-9411 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 WORR E AVENUE, 1C.NTITE+ , ECUP ER ll I NO, CALIFORNIA LlIIFORNIA 95014 MINUTES OF THE E REGULAR MEETING OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mauch 22, 1994 5:00 Po M. CONFERENCE ROOM cC & D (LOWER LEVEL) ORDER OF BUSINESS STAFF PRESENT: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Michele Oj'urman, Planner 11 Pamela IEggen, Staff Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTE POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING 1. Application No. Applicant: Property Owner: ]Location: 2-V-94 Ernesto and Pat Yanez Same 8 173 Presidio Drive Planning Director Cowan outlined the meeting, variance and appeal procedures. Planning Director Cowan asked Planner 11 Bjurman to outline the issues. Staff presentation: Planner H 13jurman described the proposal of the existing two-story home. She said the proposed project is.a fairly small addition of approximately 250 sq., ft. on the second story, west side of the building. She stated that it would not meet the second story sideyard setbacks or the surcharge as required by the .code and that is why a variance: application was needed. Ms. Bjurman,pointed out on the map the elevation for the property and the variances on the western portion of the second story. She mentioned the findings in the Cupertino Municipal Code required in order to grant a variance. Planner 13jurman mentioned that the applicant meets Variance No. 1 but does not meet Variance finding. No. 2. She stated the reason why they do not meet Variance finding No. 2 (the preservation and enjoyment :of the property rights) is that she believes they can reconfigure the existing floor plan to meet their needs. She stated it would not architecturally be that consistent, but it could be achieved. Wherefore, staff is saying they do not meet all three findings and would recommend denial. Director Cowan asked the applicants to explain how they thought they could meet the findings. Mrs. Yanez explained that she had already talked to Michele and appreciated her explaining why she felt the way she did. She stated she had a little trouble in trying to decide how she was going to present this in the language preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. She said the issue for herself was about what the property rights and key issue was. She said she thought they had the right as the property owners to make their home safe for their children and not just safe for a feeling of safeness and a feeling of well-being. She said with the existing floor plan they were are not able to accomplish that. They measured from their daughter's door to their doorway that it was 34 ft. She said their daughter is in first grade. Planning Director Minutes of March 22, 1994 Page -2- She sleeps alone upstairs and has always been afraid at night and the. reality is she is terrified to sleep upstairs alone. She stated they never sleep through the night without her coming downstairs crying. Mrs. Xanez said the stairs have been a real impediment to the well being of their lives. She stated another issue was her mother is in her 70's and her dad in his 80's. She said her mother has already fallen down the stairs and had one kneecap fracture. She said they were very wary of using the stairs. She mentioned they do not come to visit their home anymore. She said she has to take off work to go to their home, rather than bringing him to her home. She stated, that having elderly parents and young children has made this particular door design not work very well for their family to live in. Mrs. Yanez mentioned that she talked with a realtor yesterday. The realtor said that one of the factors that effect the marketability of this particular floor plan is potential buyers not wanting to be isolated from their children. Mrs. Yanez stated this was not a good floor plan, not just for them, but any property owner who has small children or elderly parents. She felt that a large percentage of the population fell into that. She said they have some valid reasons why they need to alter the structure. She said she understood that they do not have the right to be intrusive into the neighborhood or into the environment. Based on Michele's findings,- especially Item 1, she substantiated that this would not be detrimental to the environment and also that it would not resemble the other two story in the tracts. She felt that the final analysis would help strengthen their position. Mrs. Yanez" said not only are there personal effects of the property rights, but also there are financial aspects. She said, as a property owner, 'they have the right to maintain their property values and to increase their property values. She stated, Mr. John Dozier, an expert on Cupertino property values, mentioned that although it is viable to combine the two bedrooms upstairs into a larger room, one master bedroom, it would devalue the property anywhere from $30,000 to $40000 to go from a 4 bedroom home to a 3 bedroom home. People typically do not want a 3 bedroom home for a half million dollars. What they want is a 4, 5 and 6 bedroom home. He also said that the other two story homes in our neighborhood all have the master bedroom upstairs. 'That they have a remote bedroom downstairs, as a guest room, but that the usual structure is the piaster bedroom upstairs, which is exactly how the floor plan should be anyway. If you were to go with Michele's other suggestion here, you would be able to build a structure and still stay within the setback requirements. We already discussed this at length with our contractors and its too costly. We looked at the options before deciding to spend the money and emotional energy approaching the variance process and we have measured it out and walked it out from the back and front. First of all, we have incurred significant additional costs. We have to build additional walls. We have spent approximately $30,000 putting in some storage room and added drapes, taking everything done to the home, and to do all of that and then add a second story that it is going to block the light coming in from the front and the back is going to defeat what we tried to do in the home already. Our neighbors have already said to us that they would much rather we have the variance than to create a home that is going to look like an add -on. I am sorry that they are not here today to tell you that. That was a big concern. For personal exercise for financial reasons, we feel like our design, (she pointed out that she highlighted what they want to do). She stated this would let them accomplish their goals. Director Cowan asked if they had a typical floor plan that was used for most of the larger homes in the neighborhood. Am Roger said the typical home floor plan was slightly different, because the typical two. story is full length, when it projects over the garage. Stated that you could see some of that in the photographs. He pointed to a typical two story. Planning Director Minutes of March 22, 1994 Page -3- Director Cowan pointed out that this was not the only choice. Ms. Yanez pointed out that it is important to her that she have a private master bathroom. In this particular design, the downstairs master bathroom, is also the guest bathroom. Ms. Bjurman wanted clarification on the floor plans that were brought in today. Were they proposed plans? Roger said the only change to it was that the volume was shown in the existing end bedroom and the additional area to be added onto the house onto the upper floor. Ms.l3jurman asked if this one was the proposed one and you say you have a master bathroom. Director Cowan pointed out the master bathroom. Roger said any proposal that would include changing the floor plan situation and relocating the master bath in order to meet more common requirements would mean that all the plumbing upstairs would have to be reworked. Right now, the common wall between the kitchen and the distant master bath, is 2 x 6 walls, is designed as part of the plumbing. Director Cowan mentioned the three findings: The three finding (c) is fairly easy to make. That is where you rely upon public testimony, because it has to deal with the degree to which your deviation from the ordinance would affect the surrounding property owners. I get the.impression that your neighbors are not concerned about this. It certainly is consistent with. the character of the buildings around it. I I agree with Michele with the position that you meet that finding. We need to make sure that the change is not detrimental to the neighborhood. But I do not see that in this case. This vertical envelope, is consistent with the neighboring property. Typically, the most difficult finding to make is the first one which basically asks "are there any unique situations that apply to this property? Personal living arrangements are certainly a factor from your point of view, but not necessary from a public point of view. That has always been the very tough test. Michele is recommending to make the finding here on the basis that the .there is a law established developed pattern and from a community point of view, to deviate from the pattern and something that is a little oddball and might be detrimental to the neighborhood. But you basically have a pretty well established pattern development here and in that sense it is unique. The character of the development is so strong that it is very difficult to change that pattern. It is a little thin, but I can see that as well. The middle point here that has to do with the economic enjoyment, and that is a part that is the second most difficult finding to make. Your other options that you can employ that would equally meet your needs and also meet the needs of the community. Other people will want to do ;the same thing. Director Cowan stated that the floor plan helped. Mr. Cowan asked Michele if she had any comments? A member of the audience mentioned if they do change the floor plan to extend further north on the upper level, and not touch the existing downstairs, but build out so they could enjoy themselves with the same square footage, that when we present our plans to you on round 2, that you would now apply, and that we would probably be denied those plans beyond the extraordinary.I am concerned that if we do the different or expand out we would create a bigger envelope of darkness inside the house, which is already dark, but that it would suddenly be different, recognizably different, from the rest of the neighborhood. Director Cowan asked Michele if it was g possible to o out in that direction legally? P _ Planning Director Minutes of March 22, 1994 Page -4- Ms.l3jurman stated that a 700 sq. ft. on a second story is about a 9 ft. projection. Roger said if it was build out over the kitchen, you could go out somewhat over the existing master bedroom, then you could pull forward over the front of the house. Ms. Bjurman pointed out where in the front of a side angle in the front of the house. Director Cowan said before he made a decision, he wanted know to what where the possibilities? Director Cowan asked if they were talking about a 9 ft. wide room? Roger said the additions could come out this way a little bit (pointing to the exhibit). Ms. Bjurman asked what was existing on this plan? Roger stated everything, but the three bedrooms. Director Cowan asked if the other houses in the neighborhood have a different arrangement? Roger pointed to the exhibit stating this arrangement is pushed forward. Mr. Yanez said it does not stick out at all. They all discussed the exhibit on how it would look coming out forward, which direction and the darkness of the house inside. The architect stated that the proposed addition to the new section is to actually put a patio door on the second story to give them more light, because they are still trying to achieve more light on that back side. So the back side is really quite dark on the north side. Ms. Bjurman stated she thought the exhibit they brought in was essential to the whole application and had not had it beforehand. Director Cowan agreed. The architect said they made an attempt to try to keep the Yanez's cost down. Director Cowan stated that it was reasonable to have another bedroom upstairs. He said he did not think it was practical to have it out in the front, given the narrow width unless they were going to totally disrupt the space. Director Cowan stated he would grant the variance. Director Cowan asked Planner if Bjurman if she had any suggestions regarding conditions of approval. Ms. Bjurman stated none. Director Cowan asked if they would be willing to replicate the architectural style of the house in terms of the neighborhood. 0 Planning Director Minutes of March 22, 1994 Page -5- i - The Yanez's stated that was exactly what they wanted to do. Director Cowan made a decision to grant the variance. The conditions of approval will be per staffs resolution. ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Director of Community Development adjourned at 5:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r d Pamela Eggen, Admin. Clerk Approved by the Director of Community Development ZL4( &Atn� Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Attest: Kim Smith, City Clerk gAmm\misc\min3-22