01-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 Dom"
Date: April 20, 1994
Subj: REPORT OF THE REGULAR MEETING 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.
Application
Application 1-V-94 - Barre Barnes, 10485 San Fernando Oaks
Description
Variance to allow a 9 ft. first story sideyard setback instead of 10 ft. and a 14 ft. and 12 ft. second story,
sideyard setback instead of 20 ft. on a single family home on a flag lot. Pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 19.28.060.
Action
The Director of Community Development approved the variance per the fmdings in Resolution No. 008.
Approval is effective April 19, 1994. The fourteen (14) calendar day appeal period will expire on May 2, 1994.
Enclosures:
Resolution No. 008
Staff Report of April 19, 1994
Site Plan and Floor Plan dated October. 18, 1993 and location plan dated April 1993
gAmm\misc\1v94
CITY OF CUIEERT NO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Agenda Date: April 19, 1994 Application: 1-V-94
Applicant/Prop. Owner: Lotus Development Property Location: 10485 San Fernando Avenue
VARIf NCIE to allow a 9 ft. first story sideyard setback instead of 10 ft. and a 14 ft. and 12 ft. second story sideyard setback instead
of 20 ft. along with the 5 ft. surcharge, as required for single family residential zones (Section 19.28.060 of the Municipal Code)
General FRan and Zoning Designation: Residential Low Density: 1-5 du/gr. ac. and R1-7.5.
Lot Size: Approximately 13,700 sf.
Project Consistent with General Plan: Yes Zoning: No
Background: The request for a variance stems from two factors. Along the south side of the property lies a large water main which
was placed incorrectly many years ago. Due to the requirement for a retaining wall to protect the water main and a minimum
accessibility requirement along the side of the building, the building setback must be further than normally required. Secondly, a
combination of the width of the lot and the required second story setbacks for a flag lot causes the allowed second story area to be
severely restricted. The orientation of the lot is in keeping with the adjoining lots and is not typical of a flag lot situation. A flag lot
orientation typically creates a side to rear yard orientation to the adjoining parcels, causing a privacy problem. The lot in question is
not oriented in this way and does not create a privacy problem. The second floor will be 42 feet from the nearest existing dwelling, a
townhouse unit to the south.
Variance Request:
Setback Tyipe Reguired Proposed
First floor side 10' 9'
Second floor side 20' (flag) 10' (interior) 14' on one side 12' on the other
Second floor surcharge (side) 5' 0'
Discussion: The required variance findings are as follows in bold type with staff findings below:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to land, building or use referred to in
the application, which circumstances or condition do not apply generally to Rand, buildings and/or uses in the same district:
The First floor: Due to the requirement for a retaining wall to protect the water main and a minimum accessibility requirement
along the side of the building the first floor must be setback 1 ft. more than would normally be required. The water main was
installed in the wrong location creating a situation of either moving the main or allowing the variance. In staffs view, the impacts of
moving the water main far outweigh the impacts of allowing a 1 ft. variance.
Second floor: As stated this lot is not a typical flag lot due the conventional side to side lot orientation to adjoining parcels, and its
allowable second floor area is more restrictive than what a typical flag lot would allow.
B. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the
petitioner:
First floor: Without the variance the applicant would be unduly burdened and would be denied enjoyment of his property rights
which would otherwise be granted to him should the water line not have been mistakenly placed.
Second floor: Without the variance the applicant would be unduly burdened and would be denied enjoyment of his property rights
which would otherwise be granted to him should his lot be considered a conventional interior lot.
C. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely
the 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
improvements in said neighborhood:
The variance will not create any impacts to the health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Ivor will the
variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood.
Environmental Determination: Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommendation: Since the applicant meets all three variance findings, staff recommends approval according to the findings
contained in the model resolution.
Enclosures: - Site plan and floor plan dated Oct. 18, 1993 and location plan dated April 1993.
- Model resolution.
Prepared by: Tom Robillard, Planner II
Approved by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner g:\mm\reports\1v94