Loading...
2-V-93s c es CITE' OF CUPERTINO � 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 252-4505 To: Chairman and Planning Commissioners Mayor and City Councilffiembers From: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Date: April S, 1993 Subj: REPORT OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TIE 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 C®nnntission in time to allow any Councilmember or Planning Commissioner to appeal the decision within fourteen (14) days of the decision. Application Application 2-V-93 - Bangalore R. Natarajan. . 21450 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Description Variance to the single fancily zoning district: Section 19:15, side yard setbacks and Section 19.19:30, second units. The request is to reduce the rear and side yard setback from 4.1/2 ft. to 3 ft. and 2 ft. respectively. Also to allow the increase of maximum building area from 540 `sq. ft. to SOS sq. ft. Action The Director of Community Development approved the variance per the findings in Resolution No. 4455. Approval is effective April i, 1991 The fourteen(14) calendar day appeal period will expire on April 21, 1993. Enclosures: Resolution No. 4455 Stair Report of April i, 1993 Plan Pages I & 2, dated February 1993 Skeels Letter of 2/25/93, Thomas Letter of 2/24/93, WofPnndnn Letter of 2/19/93, Parcel Letter undated, Natarajan betters of 2/24/93 and 3/9/93 Variance Criteria gAmm\misc\2v93 CITE' OF CUPlERTIINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 JEPAR'ICMJENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 2-V-93 agenda Date: April 7, 1993 Applicant: Bangalore R. Natarajan Property Owner: Bangalore R. Natarajan Property Location: 21450 Columbus Avenue Application Summary:. Variance to the zoning ordinance: Section 19.18, side yard setbacks and Section 19.19.30, second units General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 1-5 du.gr.ac. Zoning Designation: Single family residential, minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. net (R1-10) Lot Size: 15,198 sq.ft. (.35 acre) Building .Area : Residence 2,660 sq.ft. Detached garage 660 sq.ft. Existing 2nd unit 806 Eg.ft. Total- 4,126 sq.ft. Lot Coverage: 27% Rear Yard Coverage: 21% Project Consistency with General Plan: yes. Zoning: no I V,nvironmental Assessment: ❑ Categorically exempt Comments: The existing single family home and detached garage were constructed with permits in the County of Santa Clara. In 1981, the County Assessor observed an accessory structure that the applicant is today proposing to convert to a second unit. It is impossible to establish the construction date, of the proposed second unit, because no evidence of a building permit exists. A prior owner of the property (Wof1'rndin), submitted a written declaration that -the structure existed at the time of purchase (1978). In any case, a variance would be required for the conversion to a second unit because the structure does not meet setback and maximum size The variance request is to allow the following: Type Allowed Variance Maximum Building Area 640 sq.ft. 806 sq.ft (166 sq.ft.) Rear Yard Setback 4 1/2' 3' Side Yard Setback 4 1/2' 2' k 10' is allowed because die usable rear yard area is equal to the lot width multiplied by twenty, as outlined in Section 19.06. .1 The applicant must meet all three variance findings in order to receive approval. The applicant does meet finding number one with regard to exceptional circumstances applying to the use referred to in the application. The use, a detachedsecond unit, is currently an allowed and promoted use. The unit potentially provides low to moderate income housing, a General Plan goal. The applicant does not meet variance criteria numbers two and three. The type of structure (detached, accessory), in its current size and location, is not essential for the property owner to enjoy basic property rights. Further, because the structure was illegally constructed it does not meet uniform building code safety requirements. Recommendation: Recommend denial of the variance request. Since the existing residential ordinance allows second dwelling units, staff would encourage the property owner to modify the existing structure or construct a new one in conformance with the residential guidelines. Non -technical enclosure(s): - Model Resolution Prepared by: Michele Bjurman s Plan pages 1 & 2, dated February 1993 Approved by: Ciddy Wordell - Skeels letter of 2/25/93, Thomas letter of 2/24/93, Woflindin letter of 2/19/93, Parcel letter undated, Natarajan letters of 2/24/93 & 3/9/93. Variance criteria Feb. 25, 1993 TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN: This letter concerns the property at 21450 Columbus Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014. We have lived at 21430 Columbus Ave. and have been neighbors since the fall of 1963. The small building at the South/West corner of that property was there before 1978 and was built by the Aronsens. The. properties in this development are large (1/3 acre) and buildings such as this are common. r- V. Dean & Sally A. S eels 21430 Columbus Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 253-4424 z' � ' ci 21370 Columbus Ave:^ue Cupertino, CA 95014 February; 2-4, 1993 To n'hom It Yhy. . Concern: 'We have lined at our address, 21370 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino, CA for the past thirty-eight years. The original owners of the home and guest house at 21450 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino, CA maintained their residency there for mars- years, and at no time was the guest house a problem-..n.the neighborhood. We are confident that the new owners will continue to provide a congenial at- mosphere at their residency there. We welcome them to our neighborhood! Very truly yours, , Duc�in W. Thomas e ��o Thomas GODFREY S WOF€'ILtlDI1N 6855 TARA AVE. LA.S VE GA.S Nv. 59102 PH. 702 876 8446 DATEo FEB. 19, 1993 TO v HOME 11 MAY CONCERN. F„E;FEMNC-E 21A%50 C""'LUMMUS V. CUPERIPTNO Oki 9';014. a sOi�F.UY cat �°' �lD! N `ma's k'm £ 'b s oaf ? M " � •E'er e :� 1Y VJ N -5.dP E:sR €i Ta.a a. S d. IF'".M e..55 a�O+rS2 dt`_ i UN --NCO OPkTED AP�A. OF SANTA C0T1J!TTY , TEE .PROPERTY INCLUDED TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES h•T THE ME OF PURC2EASE TBEY ARE (LOOKING" FROM TEE FRONT 'OF THEIR PROP TO THE vad eiEL zF THE mZOt dA.i.SD is N L AL-m L`X_- _ PORT/'GARAGE. B. TO THE RIG—H�5 �T THE Ate. Off' -� ; r`%RS _A ���� �'�� ��'-�� _ _ _ _ �NO.�°,:DI��G PIG?IM 6 WATER ��D TOILET ? e T�wT��� ���s� � � � �fSl� U �� el GUEST HOUSE. SIGNED: I GODFREY S WOFFINDIN DATED 2/19/93 March 9, 1993 City of Cupertino Planning & Building Department Dear Ms. B j urman; Thank you for your letter of March 3, 1993 regarding our request for variance on the please consider the following facts: P.R. & Padmini Natarajan 21450, Columbus Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 (408)252-3608 In response to your questions existing guesthouse on our property, Variance criteria. (a)o That there are circumstances or condition applying to referred to in the application, which not apply generally to lanai, buildings distrActo exceptional or extraordinary the land, building or use circumstances or conditions do and/or uses in the same We bought the house alongwith the guesthouse (included in price). It has stood on that property ever since the late fifties. It was built around that .time and satisfied the city limits on size at that time. According to the original owner who built it, it was built according to codes existing at that time. This is also substantiated by evidence of other similar buildings in our neighbourhood. Criteria (b) o That . the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment . of substantial property rights of the petllUonero We believe that we paid a fair price for the house including the square footage on the guesthouse. If we are not allowed a variance on the guesthouse, we will have lost our rights to enjoy full use of that part of o4 F property RAd therefore we will be incurring considerable financial loss. I The builds is buil$. be fully operational as a guesthouse with sewer connections S the city and we would like to use it as it was meant to be. Criteria (c)a That the granting of such application wall n _ under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adveIrsely the . health of safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, -under the caureu instances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighbourhood. Our previous letter of February 24, 1993 has answered this criteria, but please let us add that the guesthouse has stood on the lot for a long time through several changes in ownership and no one in the neighborhood has ever objected to it. In fact neighbours currently living in the environs have supported our request for variance. And with the changes we propose to make -(Please refer to architectural plans) it will substantially improve the property and raise the value of the property. Thank you, Z04, 4. Alm B.R.IVa rajah (owner) 117-r 1j,gN<!�AL_v2F_P. NA7AP_ATAr\J N C'L:Vax-o�� Padmini Natarajan (owner) February 24, 1993 B. R. & Padmini Natarajan 21450, Columbus Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 (408)252-3605 City of Cupertino Planning & Building Department Dear Sir/Madam, We have recently acquired the property at the above address. There is an additional detached guest house at the back of this 15000 square foot lot. We request that the city grant us a variance based on the following facts: 1. All the properties in this neighbourhood have land of this size and almost all of them have this kind of "in-law" quarters. 2. We plan to renovate the guest house and bring it up to code. 3. We would like to rent the guest house. 4. In the event that the guest house is not rented, we could make full use of it as a guesthouse. 5. This guest house has been on the property since 1978 or before in time and. has not adversely affected either the neighbouring property values or the privacy of the neighbours. 6. After renovation, this guesthouse will greatly enhance its usage and may increase the value of the property. i. We are planni to get affidavits from the previous owners and neighbours to confirm the existence of this guest house. The main house was built in April 1952 and the guest house might have been built around the same time. S. We have made exhaustive search for building permit on the guesthouse in the Santa Clara county records, but we could not find it. However the county has a record describing that the "detached building" was in existence at least as far back as 1950. We hope you will consider our application favorably and please give us a call if you need more information. Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration, Sincerely ",r B.R.N tara'an(owner),Padmini Natara'an owner 1) Describe the. relationship of the variance application to the following basic findings necessary for the approval of a variance: Co That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health of safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proper of the applicant and will not,, under the circmnstances of the particular case,, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or it is in said nei a 2) Scaled drawing (site Plan) which describes clearly the nature and scope of the prcposed variance. Please discuss proposed exhibits with theoPlanning staff prior to sutmittal. 1 3 A ►J p Ny'1 rn `Ig C 1,9�, ^ �g A u al m,,r ►� sob n ie h�`7U NvAm n �v 4 As, to :n 11 cn J 0 r B II 7 s f fN )) 6u S t31�.--_ •:�Str.�,�n:.a'i..S.—,---...--.—,—R1L.am.�,.aS4....Ids4uo+L.�..�tiS i r F• e SS r i imp ? -MR n':PR'l ,T taqy f��;:, p t. p, «' 't�%•�� �� }t I 1 ? e•�Y r 1 7 v+ .F� ' N ryl at cn 0 r_- . It 1A if T. jyv 4,.; II Ili 81- Oil O It t4 Zj it till to 01 ti* it 1p L m 77 IT c. it'A S, at Vf 0, 71, 7� if If r. 1-71-41 311O"