3-V-94CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Chairman_ and Planning Commissioners
From: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development
Date: May 11, 1994
Subj: REPORT OF THE REGULAR MEETING, MAY 10, 1994, OF THE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 19.29 of the Cupertino Municipal Code provides for approval of variances by the
Director of Community Development. The Director reports his decision to the City Council
and Planning Commission in time to allow any Councilmember or Planning Commissioner
to appeal the decision within fourteen (14) days of the decision.
A- - Beaflon
Application 3-V-94 - Roy & Yvonne Hampton, 21821 Oakview Lane
Description
Variance to allow a 7 ft. second story side yard setback instead of 10 ft. as required for single family
residential zones (Section 19.28.060 of the Municipal Code.)
Action
The Director of Community Development denied the variance per the findings in Resolution No. 009. The
fourteen (14) calendar day appeal period will expire on May 14, 1994. The Hamptons appealed the decison.
Enclosures:
Resolution No. 009
Staff Report of May 10, 1994
Statement of Justification dated March 10, 1994
Neighbor setbacks undated
Neighbor petition dated April 13, 1994
Plans 1-3 undated
Plans 1-3 showing 3 ft. offsets
gAmm\misc\3v94
CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: 3-V-94
Agenda Date: :, May 10, 1994
Applicant/Prop. Owner:' Roy & Yvonne Hampton Property Location: 21821 Oakview Lane
VARIANCE to allow a 7 ft. second story side yard
setback instead of.10 ft. as required for single family residential zones (Section 19.28,060 of the
Municipal Code:
General Plan Designation:
Residential Low Density: 1-5 du/gr. ac.
Zoning Designation:
R1-6 Single Family Residential, minimum lot size 6,000 sf:
Lot Size:
10;000 sf. (approximately)
Building Area Existing:
2,692 sf. (approximately)
Building Area Proposed:
221 sf, (approximately)
Total Building Area:
2,913 sf. (approximately)
Floor Area Ratio:
27%
Project Consistent with General Plan:
Yes -
Zoning:
No
Environmental Assessment:
Categorically lxempt
Background: This tract was annexed from the County of Santa Clara in 1980. The adjoining land uses are single family residential homes.
Request: The following is the variance request:
Setback Type Conventional ` Proposed
Second floor -side 10, 7'.
Total Variance 3
Discussion: In order to receive approval, the proposal must meet all three variance findings. Tile variance findings are as follows in bold type. with
staff findings below:
ictin —tliea �1 a o
referred in ruerf land building o s
applying in to b
or conditions PP
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances PP 3 g � g
which circumstances or condition do not apply generally to land; buildings and/or uses in the same district. The County of Santa Clara
approved an addition in 1978, which has resulted in the second floor of the building not mectin.g Cupertino's side yard sclbacks. •Phis existing non
conforming situation exists for many properties in Cupertino and does not alonejustify an exceptional or extraordinary, condition.,A variance is not
necessary for the applicant to achieve the goal of expanding the second floor office. The office expansion can occur by constructing the addition
east, toward the interior of the lot, which would result in the expansion meeting the setbacks. The existing bedroom could become the office and the
new addition could become the bedroom, if the applicant so chooses A new hallway and anew door to the existing bathroom would be required.
Expansion could also occur on the first floor in a conforming manner.
B. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of tiie petitioner:
An office does not itself lend to the necessary enjoyment of substantial property rights of the property owner, because the existing 9'x 17' room is
fairly large and the addition can occur as described above.
C. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely (lie health and
safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances .of the
particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or impr6.,ements .in said neighu,orhood: The
applicant meets this finding because the addition will not materially affect the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements.
Environmental Determination: Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommendation: The applicant does not meet all three variance findings and staff recommends denial according to the Model Resolution. A
Model Resolution of approval also is provided:
Enclosures
- Statement. of Justification dated March 10, 1994 - Plans 1 - 3 undated. - Neighbor petition -dated April 13, 1994
Neighbor setbacks undated Plans 1-3 showing 3' offsets
Prepared by: Michele Bjurman, Planner 1T
Approved by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
1
g:\mm\reports\pc2v94
i
i
Vad.aace Request for 21821 Oatndew Lane, Cupertino
by I� oy axed YvonneHampton., Owners
March 10, 1994
A valiance is requested to allow the extension of the existing second story on this
property towards the garage front wall, as shown on submitted preliluinaxy plot,
perspective, and other plans. The existing second. stogy wall is about seven (7) feet
fYoxii the adjacent West property line. Tll e variance will permit the extension wall
to also be about seve.d. feet from the Nest property line. The affected West
neighbor has been consulted, and has no complaint with the proposed addition.
Findings explanation;
A) tbis_vari.ance request is exceptional to requests made for other Cupertino
properties due to the following extraordinary circumstances:
1) 1.1:1e house .11as a:n existing condition whlich matches with this variance
request, and which was previously approved by the responsible authority at
the tinte, if the city had not annexed this area into Cupertino .bl the interim.,
the existi.xl.gvariance from the County would still apply, a:nd. allow the
proposed second story extension.
(The current second story was added in 1978 after receiving a variance from
t:ll.e County of Santa Clara to approach the adjacent West property line to
withirl four feet. Tine .1978 request was made to the County because the
property. was in the County at that time, and the oAginal house build in 1955
(which this owner purchased in 1974) was built with the garage west walt
located a `Li:ttl.e more tb.an four feet :froxn the West property 11he. The 1978
addition did not approach this closely to the West property,, and only extended
to w i.tllia about sevenn feet from th.e West property line. The distance
requestediri this variance from the c1t3, is for a seven. foot West setback
allowance .for the proposed extension of the existing second story.)
2) 11e proposed extension of the second story will not materially increase the
i
by.i.pact to the West neighbor's rear (private) yard: In .fact, it is proposed to
rennove a:ti existing second story window, and locate a new window about four
feet .farther towards the street, which. will increase the neighbors privacy.
3) The proposed extension will huprove the house Appearance for the owner and
the neighbors by removing an unsightly metal extension on the existing
chimney. This extension was required by the County in. 197$ after the.
previous addition was nearly completed because of a change in. the building
code. (Tlie code provision previously allowed chi-nineys to Have dower Heights
if they did not aplar oach within 11 feet of,the'nearest wall..) B allowing the
proposed extension, the second story will be made to include tJie chimney
extension as part of an integral, better looldlig structure.
4) The new additioi.i. will be stronger structually if it extends forward from the
present second story wall line; because earthquake loading i the North
South direction will. be strongly tesisted by the wall. "shear" going directly
t1irou . h the existing second and first story addition w to the additi` o x all i on
i; g Y
foiH datloii. if the variance is not granted, mid a ten foot setback is enforced,
there A -At be a three foot "jog" in. the wall, and a corresponding decrease in
building strength, although it still: wilt meet code requirements.
P) 'I"fze grantixlg of the variance is needed for the preservation and enjoyment of
the owner's property xzghts. The second -story extension NAI be narrow, said of
limited usefulness :if the wall is moved three feet to coxaforni to the usual ter foot
side lot setback. Also, the architecture will appear strange, since the rest of the
structure will still have the seven foot setback.
C) ,. Ilze granting of the variance will, not materially affect the Health or safety of
persons resid ig or worki7:zg iai the neighborhood of the property (if, the applicant.
T1ze7:e will beno iMpact on. Huth or safety because the house addition. will be
safely constructed by reputable contractors working with city approved plans that
meet current building codes, .and subject to city inspections.
the gr'a:czting of the vadmice will not be materially detrixnelatal to the public
welfare or injurious to property of improvements in the neighborhood. since no
chati.ges m the type of residence is proposed, no impact to public welfare will
occur; instead, the proposed second story addition will ibiprove the neighborhood
by remOV'a.g an unsightly metal pipe extension on the existing clihnney, and
add:u:i.gr� arclii.tectlYrally pleasing gabled windowtaeatzrtexit once scoiid story.
Page 2
Name, Address
Setback
Mr. and Mrs. C. Kiang
T-8" 1st floor
21836 Gardenview' . Ln
+ 14"? 2nd floor = 8'-10"?
was built in last 3 rs?
Mr. & Mrs. C. Ca 'ever
8' to 1 st and 2nd story
10186 Mann Dr.
variance approved 6 yrs ago.
21853 Monte Ct
8' setback to i st and 2nd story
Adk
April 13, 1994
Dept. of Coznx un ty Development
City of Cupertino
Dear SMr :
As neighbors of Roy and Yvonne Ham ton, we would like to express to the
city that we have no objection to their proposed addition, including the
second story extension along the Misting wall line. we understand that a
city variance is required for this extension because it fails within the
current 10 ft. side setback zone. I we Have no objection to the granting of
this variance, and wish our neighbors well is their efforts to i.'prove their
home and the nefizhborhond-
Signature - ,
County Administration Building
t
,�ag 70 West Hedding Street
ounty of Saab � la9C�r San Jose, California 95110
w
299-2521 Area Code 408
California
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
VARIANCE PERMIT
Fide No, 72-20-66-78y
Permittee: ROY YVONNE HAMPTO'N
Applicant: Same
For: Side yard setback
Location: Northwest side of Oakview Lane between Mann Drive and 0akview Lane
Address: 21821 oakview Lane
1�
_Having made the findings required by Article 49 of the Zoning;Ordinance of the
County of Santa Clara, the Secretary of the Planning Commission hereby grants a
variance permit for the "specified use subject to the following conditions:
1. Thatdevelopment take place in accordance with plans filed,
This permit shall be effective on July 24 1 8 provided that (I} no.
appeal.•has.been filed before that date, and permittee has signed ACCEPTANCE
STATEMENT and has filed it with the Secretary of the Planning Commission.
Lucas S. Stamos, Secretary
ACCEPTANCE STATEMENT:
The undersigned understands and accepts this permit and the conditions herein se` t
forth, agrees to comply with all conditions of the permi t, Understands that failure
to comply therewith will render the permit subject to revocation, and acknowledges
receipt of the copy of this permit,
Y
Signature of,permittee Date
.,,.�.
Signature of'aPPlicant Date
t.
App l i c.an t : Same
Fur: Side yard setback
Location: Northwest side of Oakview Lane between Mann Drive and Oakview Lane
Address: 21821 Oakview Lane
Having made the findings required by Article 49 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
County of Santa Clara, the Secretary of the Planning Commission hereby grants a
variance permit for the specified use subject to the Following conditions:
j
I. That. development' take place in accordance with plans filed. ,
i
This permit shall be effective on July 24 1 8 provided that (1) no
appeal has been filed before that date, and 2 permittee has signed ACCEPTANCE
STATEMENT and has filed it with the Secretary of the Planning Commission,
Lucas S. Stamos; Secretary
ACCEPTANCE.STATEMENT:
i
The undersigned understands and accepts this permit and the conditions herein set
forth, agrees to comply with all conditions of the permit, understands that failure
to comply therewith will render the permit subject to revocation, and acknowledges
receipt of the copy of this permit.
Signature of permittee Date
Si
gnature of applicant Date
Within seven (7) calendar days after the date of decision of the Secretary of the
Planning Commission on an application for a variance permit, any person dissatisfied
with the action of the Secretary may file with the Planning Commission an appeal from
such action. At the time of the filing of the appeal, the appellant shall pay a
filing fee of twenty-five (25) dollars.
LSS: rs
cc: Applicant (2)
Transportation Agency, Land Development
Transportation Agency, Inspection Division
County Counsel
Frank Sabatte, Real Prop. Div., Assessor's
Dwight Mathiesen, Assessor's APN 326-19-3$ �.
®6931 REV 8175 CPO :
e "
L-xi SrrtJCz_�
I N --
.2o
i
l ,
a _ SOOK, PAGE
326 19
Zd
SO 49 48
d7 I t6 1? 18 19 20 2i
9 6 ,6 5 3 N
12 /I 10 _ _ — —
7R N? 157Y x•�s4 r,i vc. TR N4 :390 R E
3�,,��o - "./IANN e-PaFT MANOR UNIT l g}�
:AFT MF,ri0p UNIT N•
357
75
:flPq
qq q -y n- 110 I n 2.9 i ram.
a5 72 83 3S :a I5
o
v i 2 99 109 2 W
45
t (-2 3,6 34 85 96 23 w I
! d 1
I 100 s 108 3 .� z
Y W
44 74 37 33 6_5
w tn
1l6
T
J '
S
45 t. Z EV 38 32 87
0 w^
(J I Y
883 2 5 4- IOcS 5 u; 1
3 _ Q I 102 w
�c '40, eta+.. •:> �pt7 - (�
' 92 27 l03 OS-
7 70 89 a s 5
a i -90 9I - 104
29
--`; . • 2 ul)
9 J
l' W
COMPILED IN CONFORMANCE WITH SEC. 32T
OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE
EFFECTIVE.DATE MARCH 1,1977
DWIGHT L. MATHIESEN -ASSESSOR