PC Summary 10-09-2012 City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
C U P E RT I N+C) FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: Aarti Shrivastava,Community Development Director
Date: October 10, 2012
Subj: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS MADE October 9,2012
Chapter 19.32 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for
appeal of decisions made by the Planning Commission
1. Application
R-2012-26,Amit Goel and Ruchi Aggarwal, 7738 Huntridge Lane
Appeal of a Director's Approval of a Two-Story Permit for a new 2,692 square foot single
family residence
Action
The Planning Commission denied the appeal on a 5-0 vote.
Enclosures: Planning Commission Report October 9, 2012
Planning Commission Resolution (s) 6710
Approved Plan Set
g:planning/Post Hearing/sumtnary to cc100912
OFFICE OF COMMUNIT'Y DEVELOPMENT
CTI'Y HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255
(408)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 • ,planning@cupertino.or�
CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Date:October 9,2012
Application: R-2012-26
Applicant: Amit Goel/Ruchi Aggarwal
Appellant: Scott Hughes, 7752 Huntridge Lane
Location: 7738 Huntridge Lane (APN 359-06-044)
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Consider an appeal of the Community Development Director's Approval of a Two-Story Permit(R-2012-
26) to allow a new 2,692 square foot single-family residence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the P1aru1u1g Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community
Development Director's approval in accordance with the draft resolution (see Attachment 1 for the draft
resolution).
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan desi ation Low Densi Residential 1-5 dwellin units/ oss acre
Zoning designation R1-6 (Single Family Residential District,with a minimum lot size of 6,000
s uare feet
Environmental review Cate oricall Exem t from CEQA
Net lot area 6,000 s uare feet 0.14 acres
Pro'ect consistenc with:
General Plan Yes
Zonin Yes
Allowed/Required Proposed
Lot coverage 3,000 square feet(45% enclosed area, 2,082 square feet(35%)
additional 5% for other covered but
unenclosed areas
Floor area ratio (FAR) 2,700 s uare feet 45% 2,692 s uare feet 45%
2nd to 15t floor ratio No limit,however design review 42% (792 square foot second
re uired if reater than 66% floor/1,900 s uare foot first floor
1St floor building setbacks Front: 20 feet Front: 21 feet,6 inches
Rear: 20 feet Rear: 31 feet
Side: 15 feet combined (no side yard Side:5 feet and 12 feet,4 inches (17
shall be less than 5 feet feet,4 inches combined
2na floor building setbacks Front: 25 feet Front: 31 feet,8 inches
Rear: 25 feet Rear: 34 feet
Side: 25 feet combined (no side yard Side: 15 feet and 15 feet,2 inches
shall be less than 10 feet,however (30 feet,2 inches combined)
desi review re uired if interior side
8
R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9,2012
setback less than 15 feet
Height 28 feet from existing grade 25 feet,4 inches from existing
rade
BACKGROUND:
On July 20, 2012, Amit Goel and Ruchi Aggarwal applied for a Two-Story Permit to allow a new 2,692
square foot single-family residence on their property located at 7738 Huntridge Lane. The project
property is located in a standard R1 zoning district which permits two-story homes up to 28 feet in
height. The project is consistent with all aspects of the R1 Ordinance and other pertinent City ordinances.
In addition, the project is not subject to design review requirements since the proposed second floor is
less than 66% of the square footage of the first floor and there are 15 foot side yard setbacks on either
side of the second floor.
During the public review period, staff received several letters, emails and telephone calls from neighbors
expressing concerns on the project (See Attachment 2 for neighbor correspondence). The concerns from
the neighbors focused primarily on the following:
• The compatibility of the proposed two-story residence in a predominantly single-story neighborhood
• The apparent bulk,mass,and height of the residence
� Privacy impacts
Some neighbors suggested rnodifications to the design, including,but not limited to reducing floor area,
building height and number of windows. Other suggestions involved making the windows opaque,
relocating the A/C unit, rearranging the floor plan, increasing fence height, limiting construction hours,
increasing landscape area,and enhancing the privacy plantings.
After considering the neighbors concerns, the applicant agreed to make voluntary revisions to the plans
to address potential privacy impacts by proposing additional privacy plantings and agreeing to install 8
foot high fencing on the side yards of the property, pending neighbor approval.
The project was approved by the Community Development Director on August 23,2012 (see Attachment
3 for the approval letter). Scott Hughes, the property owner to the west of the project site, appealed the
Director's approval on September 4,2012 (see Attachment 4 for the appellant's letter and attachments).
The Planning Commissiori s decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days to the City
Council.
DISCUSSION:
Basis of the Appeal
The appellant is appealing the decision of the Director of Community Development based on the reasons
listed below. The appellant has provided additional reasoning behind these three points and are detailed
in Attachment 4. The applicant has provided a response to the appeal in Attachment 5. Each appeal issue
is followed by staff discussion in italics.
1. "There is overwhelming neighborhood opposition to the proposed project at 7738 Huntridge Lane.
All the noticed neighbors voiced their concerns during the public comment period but the Director
seems to have ignored our input."
9
R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge L.ane October 9,2012
Staff response:
The concerns raised b� neighbors during the public comment period zvere considered b� the Director prior to
approving the project and zvere noted in the administrative record. The neighbor concerns zvere also forzuarded
to tlie applicant for consideration. Consequentl�, the applicant decided to enhance the privac�planting ccnd the
height of the properh�fencing along the side�ards.
The proposed project conforms to all aspects of the R1 Ordinance and the non-discretionar�� tzvo-stor��permit
process. The proposed tzvo-ston�home is modest in size and is not the onl�tzvo-stor��home in the neighborhood.
Other exc�mples of tzvo-ston�homes in the immediate neighborhood can be found at 7709 Huntridge Lc�ne, 945
Rose Blossom Drive, 927 Rose Blossom Drive, 7803 Lilac Court, 7799 Lilac Wa�, 7759 Lilac Way, 908 Sage
Court, 912 Sage Court, 924 Sage Court, 10716 South Stelling Road, all four homes on Tomki Court, nine of
the ten homes on Joll�mnn Lane, and six of the nine homes on Orline Court. See vicinih�map belozv:
�j�� :�. ew f »+..�1 �}"� '�1 'r"0 _1�.►4 "Y
i °'++'�`.: • ��`r-^���kw�- +�s s p�;-,�' a�«��+ 1 �-��� �.. , -�. � . `5 ..
( � � ,.....,� ,,.� ���' ����,�"'�,���"`" """'"""°�� �(Y�" '+�1���a•��'��a3��"'r t e; „ ,�.
�4. .. � �, iY, i . �� �. M�� G(y. � X.. a a � M' �t { ♦ cs .wi. %n �.vBVx
.w,Yr _ ..�� �, •St ��"Y� C'�4+�R��'��P�n !�'y—...—,,,. �,• {�. ...., � :.
o '
.. . ,,
�� i .. . a �, .��.' �:.�� �. .. ` �*��"W� .:y..... i i . �r�i,�.:,,..�� +� .
:� Fi\
•,r �r�' �,.. _ . . � x .:y�
.�.a � : . $�I�..c � `�4ii�1� �, 10� fly,.
>
..�; . . ^ � �:�
,� '"1'i/�� �°` �"' �' �;1 h �' . Mt '�
�; '" M �"""�"�+.:�'ii' t ,�'S>c�.�t'�" ,,�� '
,
•.,
-s �p F � � �� � 4 � 0735� .�1073 �
'
' .+,c. '���+'� t ^r' -� �� �--.,.,.��� _ ,�'� ,�
.._� . . '�� �
�� � *i i� � :- �...�,_ "'# � � w���. � �'^ ��'
,
� ,. . """''�' +r`'R ,
� m�"�^ �,.�.� ._ �r�.� '�"'�4�'+nr'�t 9� +� ,•„ �� �'U ,�y"� d�x
,
7q1�" �d� ��
r .'�" -. �..�w,���. � . .�' � ` +r 9.` � �, "'� r
�;� ���«., �l;' k. � ...� ���;m ,�,.T.�: €,� n,� '!�. .p�N��-...
�
.
^� ::
,,
"�,�.. � ;� �. �"� �' .-;�B � lUSti��.n ��. � �
���ilr;-� �-t,.,�A�ti ,�2 a�i _ ?� � + '� � '� ».�'`
���t �:.� ��'�° �i ,�� ^�_. � � � �
,M� M ` - e.t� � '� ,,.F �� , ..a_,. rqa�''�� �
' �
„ � ..� .,,...�,�
� .
�� �t"�°�� .. .-�'�y*�','' ,,, w4 w-" 1�� �: ..� "'�" ^p� .. . . �. F
� �`\ r
- A ,., � .� ` � .�L!WYi�ll. i .��.. .. Mp�� , .
�
� "T
� ... .�. . � +, °i�r �� M'e
927 ��„ _. .t `�r�_ �, �, '.'� ��"�'�" p16.&'� �„ � ;:
., r � ��,,,�..�, , . � +�-Y " +!x�
, , ..,
�'" �. ,.. � �,�./" y �� s^ .,�T ..
� a���.� �, n,�i
�� � y �; "�fA�`�,°�,�'�A� +',+� - ,". !..,,.''Ir �,�, � . ,,�..y� ' . �x v� ��,��.� �_ t�'� �
�r, �"��.«+�, � . ' • � x
` �. , \"?�' �`��r� �"��J'V V �, ..._:.t . . ; ��,:, - �^'�A . +��,,, . ... .... ' .
,� .� . �.,yw �•„� . � • �
A�°,s ":�� �"'P,F'� ,„,5``�"�,-s° -+t♦� i �wM�^ .,c�+.. ` ��� ���_�•� '"���'�� ��
..,� # . ,„ � "... . � — .. �...�Ow�w��...�,al�L wfW�w+i 4 �.�
�« �.� .,.� '�• `r �. ) .� � �+w �� � ,.a S, -R,w . �
� . ..-.:� . ..
« ° �j '•,i y � e �t p w.�C,\"�'1 7�'S. �� �� y�,'� .'�,
�.� ��� � t `�� ,� E� �V������[ � ��A�Y� � r • r��0 Y�'.
� ,
� ' 3
�� .�°�1 � ��� � �A���.C� .. } � M� .y.. .�G.� .
"� • i �"� Project sitc `� ��� " -
�9,�.� a�.• :�•" � '�} . """�,^.w;y�.��i� ����F g� � .....
. �.,
w " ' "
. . .
.
, s .
�� ��"�^'� � . _� �'-'�.� �� 7.M � . .� �
5 • � �
.. t
�'� ', � S'!'', ..; - "'.`. ... ,qY , ���
A Y�' _.,.R1j Mi `�y e
.� `� i
��.�t��.�a,r tpfi �.��r�ta�r �, ...,.�,� � :* =�i � EXISt. "*Jt
, :.
�,. � W
_"� .'��"'��'.r;/# . �,. � . ��"
� ,:;.
,-.,�-�..��sr►-�. ....,.,� � �, , : �' �,..;..� TWO-
..,
. m
.
�".'"..,"��::.''�,� , ."+•� � �t 772p� ��a �� "
. � ,
�', � O
��w . �- ��� ria:, ..,r1�.�-�� st ry
,, n .. ♦ r � � `,, l `�A. �� � . � �� � .
�'., x � � h o m
, 4 �
. . ,, ,, �
,
�`�, � � w "
:,��< , "�„ � - : . �,. "+� �, Tt2,,, e�t., .�..K^myr�^w .
,,,,��,�»�...��..,4 , � � � ��� " +�
� t .. �' •. y�,��;� � �.� .,_.,_ �..
Vicinity map highlighting existing two-story single-family residences
2. "The project proposal is much too tall, big, and invasive to our neighborhood. In its present form, it
will destroy our privacy, decrease our property values, and destroy our quality of lif e."
Staff response:
T�te project is designed to be zvithin tl�e prescriptive building envelope rec�uirements of the R1 Ordinance.
Typically, most conventional first and second floor plate heights are betzueen 8-10 feet high, and this project
proposes 10 feet for the first floor and nine feet for the second floor. The project proposes n bLCilding height of
25'-4" zvhen 28 feet is permitted. In addition, the total proposed floor area ratio, lot coverage, and 1st/2nd floor
setbacks are zvithin the limits of the ordinc�nce (please refer to the project data table on page one and two). Staff
is not azuare of c�n� evidence to support the clair�i thc�t a nezu tzuo-ston� home in a residential neighborhood
zvould negatively impact the vahte of the neighboring properties. All of the residential homes located in the
same R1 zoning district have equal development rights, zuhich include the abilih� to construct tzvo-ston�horries.
If the entire neighborhood zuishes to restrict their abilit�� to construct a second ston� �znd/or develop rules to
significantl� limit any tzvo-stor��projects, then staff would recommend thcct the neighborhood formnll� initinte
a rezoning request zvith the Cit� to place a zoning overla� on their neighborhood in order to prohibit the
developnient of two-stori��iomes. The Cit�� Council has in the pc�st allozved for certc�in neighborhoods to place c�
10
R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9,2012
single-stor�� only zoning overla� through a public process and zuith majority neighbors consenting. A fezu
examples of such streets include Fallenleaf, Tiptoe, and Colon� Hills Lanes; Heatherzuood Drive; John Wa�;
and portions of Shadowhill Lane.
3. "Further, we believe that this proposal does not meet the City's R1 Ordinance requirements as
detailed in Sections 19.28.110 (B)(1), 19.28.140 (B)(3),and 19.28.140 (B)(4)."
"Section 19.28.110 (B)(1)-- Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Principles, Two-Ston� Design
Guidelines.
The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonabl�compatible zuith the predominant neighborhood pattern.
Nezu construction should not be disproportionatel� larger than, or out of scale zvith, the neighborhood pattern
in terms of building forms, roof pitches,eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights."
"Section 19.28.140 (B)(3)and (B)(4)—Findings, Tzuo-Story Permit Findings.
The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design zvith the general neighborhood. Adverse visual impacts
on adjoining properties have been reasonabl�mitigated."
Staff response:
One of the principal purposes of the R1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of compatibilit�� in scale of
structures zuithin a residential neighborhood. This is basicall�achieved b�having developments adhere to a set
of specific development parameters (i.e., maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, building
setbacks) to curtail development intensih� to a level generally accepted by the communihj. T�ically the Cihj
has allozued nezu homes to be maximized zuithin the framezuork of the R1 Ordinance provided that the design
and the sftjle of the home are consistent and/or compliment the neighborhood. The proposed project is consistent
zuith the R1 ordinance and is not subject to design reviezu.
The proposed project consists of a Mediterranean st��le similar to the existing tzvo-ston� homes in the
neighborhood on Tomki Court and Joll�man Lane. Further, the project is compatible in terms of mass and bulk
zvith other tzuo-ston� ranch style homes on Huntridge Lane, Rose Blossom Drive, Lilac Wa�, and Sage Court.
While the proposed project ma�be larger than some of the original one-ston�, ranch-sh�le tract homes in the area
that zvere built in the 1960s, it is modestl�designed and no larger than most of the recentl�approved tzuo-story
residences in Cupertino.
It is not practical to expect nezvl� developed homes to match the size and heiglit of the existing single famil�
homes zvhen the neighborhood is in transition and tl�ere are similar nezuer tzuo-stori�/single-stori� homes in the
area. The proposed home is compatible zvith existing homes in the neighborhood due to the fact that the project
is zuithin the prescriptive building envelope, height requirements,floor area ratio and all other aspects of the R1
development standards/guidelines. Further, the proposed 34 foot rear �ard and 15 foot side �ard setbacks on
either side of the second floor provide ample clearance and transition from the neighboring residences.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) per section
15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) of the CEQA Guidelines.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined in the staff response sections of this staff report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to approve the two story
permit. The Commission should find that the project is consistent with the City's two-story single-family
development requirements.
11
R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9,2012
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/Gar�y Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Neighbor correspondence
3. Two-Story Permit(R-2012-26) action letter dated August 23,2012
4. Appellant's letter
5. Applicant's response letter
6. Plan Set
12
R-2012-26
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6710
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW 2,692 SQUARE FOOT
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 7738 HUNTRIDGE LANE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: R-2012-26
Applicant/property owner: Amit Goel and Ruchi Aggarwal
Appellant: Scott Hughes
Location: 7738 Huntridge Lane (APN: 359-06-044)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TWO-STORY PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the Community
Development Director's approval of a Two-Story Permit 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 Planning Cominission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the
appeal; and
WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Coinmission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a) The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this title.
The project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Cupertino General Plan and Single-Family
Residential (R1) Ordinance; meets all prescriptive development requirements of the R1, Parking, Landscape,
and Fence ordinances;and the two-story non-discretionary permit procedural requirements.
b) The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
The project will not result in conditions that are detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
c) The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood.
The project is consistent with the R1 ordinance and is not subject to design reviezu. The two-story home is
modest in size and is not the only two-story home in the neighborhood. The project design is similar zuith other
two-ston�homes in the neighborhood on Tomki Court and Jollyman Lane. Further, the project is compatible in
terms of mass and bulk zuith other tzvo-story ranch style homes on Huntridge L�ne, Rose Blossom Drive, Lilac
Way, and Sage Court. As with other Cupertino single family residential areas, the neighborhood is in
transition and the mass and bulk of new homes and additions in the area generall� reflect that of the proposed
project. The mass and bulk of the home is compatible and in scale with other one-story homes in the area due to
the fact that the project is within the prescriptive one-story building envelope and height requirements; is
Resolution No. 6710 R-2012-26 October 9,2012
consistent with the predominant setback pattern, roof pitches, eave heights, and building forms; and is
consistent with the single family residential design guidelines. Moreover, the 34 foot rear yard and 15 foot
side yard setbacks on either side of the second floor provide an appropriate transition to the adjoining one-story
residences.
d) Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
The project complies with all the prescriptive development requirements (i.e. setbacks, height,floor area ratio,
privacy screening) of the R1 Ordinance that are intended to mitigate adverse visual impacts to adjoining
properties. In addition, in response to neighbor concerns, the applicant has agreed to make voluntary revisions
to the plans to address potential privacy impacts b� proposing additional privacy plantings and agreeing to
insta118 foot high fencing on the side yards of the property, pending neighbor approval.
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 Two-Story Permit Permit, Application no. R-2012-26 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. R-2012-26 as set forth in the
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 9, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "A Proposed Remodel Amit Goel and Family, 7738
Huntridge Lane, Cupertino CA" consisting of 6 sheets labeled A-1 to A-4, 1 and 1-1, dated Apri127,
2012, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans.
3. ACCURACY OF THE 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.
4. CONSTRUCTION PLAN SET REVISIONS/CLARIFICATIONS
Prior to issuance of building permits, the construction plan submittal shall include the following
information:
a. Show the material of the driveway. Pervious and/or decorative paving material is recommended.
b. Completed Water-Efficient Design Checklist(Appendix A of the Landscape Ordinance)
c. Incorporate the City's standard tree protection measures (Appendix A of the Protected Tree
Ordinance) for the trees to remain.
d. The total building height shall be consistent throughout the plan set.
e. Construction management plan; including, but not limited to: contact information; allowed hours
of construction; schedule; measures to abate noise and dust; staging areas; contractor parking, etc.
Resolution No. 6710 R-2012-26 October 9,2012
5. PRIVACY PLANTING
The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to
issuance of building permits.
6. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the
privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for
all windows with views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second
story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community
Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to final occupancy of the residence.
7. ADDITIONAL PRIVACY MITIGATION MEASURES
a. The number of second floor windows on the east side of the residence (left side as shown on the
plan set) shall be reduced to four (4).
b. The second floor bathroom windows shall consist of obscured (frosted) glass.
c. The applicant shall be required to plant additional privacy trees and/or shrubs along the side
and rear property lines by the house prior to final occupancy. The plantings shall be evergreen.
The plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. Prior to final
occupancy, the property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future
property owners of this requirement. The precise language will be subject to approval by the
Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. This requirement may be
waived or modified in writing by the affected property owner.
8. 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.
9. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material,
architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan
shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes
determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor
modification approval with neighborhood input.
10. 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.
Resolution No. 6710 R-2012-26 October 9,2012
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2012, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino,State of California,by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller,Vice Chair Sun, Brophy, Lee, Brownley
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Marty Miller
Gary Chao Marty Miller,Chair
City Planner Planning Commission
,
U
W
❑
�
W
�
�
z
�
�
�
x
w
�
�
� ° 5' P.S.E.
a� � — —
c� � °�Y� 5' W.C.E.
Cp U — — — — — —
i C
�� I
W �
Ol� � � �y t�
I '� �
�N �r-�
� — — — �- —.l�r-�
. �
.
..
.
%
GROUP OF OCCUPANCY:
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIUN
•% %%
Rw�` - - P -
- - - -PERSIMMOf�
TREE
TO REMAIN
16" O.H.
TYP.
' l�l'-2"
1 ���
�oc.
� 12'-4"
2ND FLOOR I 15._��
PROPOSED
�92 SQ.FT.
j � 2(�' X 2�'
� I GARAGE
INTERIOR
PROPOSED / �
1ST FLOOR I
19�� S0. FT. C
INCLUDING GAR
I.ST FLOOR= 1466' �
SG1.FT. -�
DRIVEWAY TO BE
REP�ACED
DRIVE AY
�
�
�
�
I
I o
1 JAPMESE
�
TO REMAIN
�
(
�
— --�— — —
2�1� SETBACK
� �
m cv \
.o ��
P�ANTER STRIP
cuRB
���8 Hu�1TRID��
THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
Q?
0
0
� �
U �-
� �
� U
�-~- C
� �
�
Q��
.
.
.
.
U
Z
w
0
w
�
�
Z
�
�
W
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
FOR IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE CALCS.
AND DETAILS
ll
12
R-3/U-1
: UN
� �
A PROPOSED REMODEL
FOR
AMIT GOEL AND �AMILY
��38 HUNTRIDGE L.ANE
CUPERTINO. CA
A.P.N: 359-�6-�44
5.i?'-8'x 3'-
s.3s��.5X�-�_��.�
�.21'-4'x 2�-0'=426.6
8.14'-9"x 3'-0'=4425
s.z�-e-x zer-e-=ar�za
�.s•-e�X�-e-=ie
tt 2�-u-X ie�-�-=s�
�.s•-�-x 2•-�e=e.s4
ise�
SITEP�.f��l
1/8"=1�_�..
,�. Y�.'�```":_. � /e—:,7 C.�l�' ��l�
. I-`� _ --z -- - - r•�
.��:� f�:���1 i i(.�'�'��'" � _-a.-.. __..�--�......... _ _
_ �_
=�`"���'J�i f';��� :.- __ � "� 3—��
,
. ,�! ,.: ���.,i _�' .�
.�
,�,,-
�Ji�n r t =�.
�Ici4«I ,
_ _ _
,c a�,,,k(::::T::»..,..._�.�... �---�{,-�t�",4,vV.�c . - . >-
.,"w,nr. . ..
�
�L 15'-7'X�'-5'= ll5.44 �
�2. 28'-4'X 19'-4'_�6.61, �
;3 1'-9'X lY-8'=�� � ���./�.O� '
�4. 13'-8'X 8'-0"= 109.� " t
� � � � � �:��; �p .
. w_ �.._
� _�,:� �.
;
;
_. ;�: � :° _.._._._..��._�__.__..�____._ ..s._... j
�aA��t��,rrtumt^r �
JU� 2 � L�;1Z
�.
APPLICABLE CODES 2�1� CODE
CA B�I�DING CODE VOL. 1 & 2
CA RESIDENTIA� CODE
CA PLUMBING CODE
CA MECHANICA� CODE
CA E�ECTRICAL CODE
CA ENERGY CODE
CA GREEN B�I�DING CODE
CA FIRE CODE
CA RE�ERENCE STANDARDS CODE
G L GGARWAL RESIDENCE
��35 H�NTRIDGE LANE
REM[)V�
' EXISTING RES. S�.FT.= 1126
1ST. FLOOR= 1466 Sa.FT
2ND. FLOOR=�J2 S�. FT.
GARAGE SQ.FT.= 434 SL. FT.
TOTAL SO.FT. =2.6J2 SQ.FT.
���E SCOPE OF WORK 19�� + 182= 2�82
NEW 2692 S�. FT. RE�IDENCE FAR= 44.8�/ �OT COVERAGE 1ST. TO 2ND. F�OOR
_ 6 LOT SIZE=6.�0PJ 2�82 _ 34�� RATIO
ZONING R 1 TOTA� S�.FT. 26g2 6��P �92 = 41.68%
1�I��J
DESlGNR2 ■ o,,,� 4- 2�-2 D12 Al
2185 ROSSWOOD DR. ,,oe►�: GOEL & AGGARWAL
SAN JOSE, CA 95124 oR,,w�►BY: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER
DAVID PRUITT ��eY:
DESIGNER 4 0 8'�,2 6-9 913 dav�dpru�tt�sbcglobal.net q.� 1/S"-1'-PJ"
,
19�(� S�.FT.
I
. : .r',::i"l l f�`;�!!;�'�;�1_._._ ���:����U �- -
-..__�.....
,�I'� ��,,`i i��.�"'���t`��_ _ _ _� --....-. . �_....� .
_,.��o.....
�,��iG'��i 1��� __ ��_ � ���3.� /.�.� _n
! 1�9.,>
_ -�. -s"�"�-'
r�� �
��Igna��.�;
���������� . ,._ __. - _ . �
15T. ��OOR P�f�N
THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
� � � � � �
2.6J2 S�.FT.
2�1D. F��OOR PI���E
s
� (�:��1�2:�6.
- � �o —�—��
. , . 9
. . . : ._. __ : .. .____��. ..
. � -.
�92 Sq.f t.
���8 Huf�TRID�� �f��lE
DESIGNR2 ■ o,,,�: 6/ 26/12 A�
2185 ROSSWOOD DR. ,,o��o: GOEL & AGGARWAL
SAN JOSE, CA 95124 �,,W►.,�: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER
DAVID PRUITT ��o�:
DESIGNER 4 0�'6 2 6-9 913 da�.idpruitt�sbcglob�l.net �E SCALE: 1/4"=1'-�"
�
�
:,
N.G
�� ---_..__l
� •
F.F. + 12'-4"
� � �
�
F.F. + l._4..
- —�------�-----�--
0 0
�
�
;
!
I
i
TILE ROOF
�
� �
� �
�
� ---
� �
f STUCCO
( TYPICA�
I
, :;.�.�Y,; � ���o��-���
,� r �� .
, . �: < .o'a - --- � — —-
_r_sses._�s�-n=-.�
��'S y���r,���i��°¢�l`,` _ <.
. .�.t I a��.r: , �
_:a�s.=:-9rx im-".:._....,.—u�-a�,—.yrn.�e-.-.
1Y
.�4,;;r�'y�l :��,�: _ _ � `�3�,:1�...
. _.z..=���
.ti:
��i�i�i;���f r, _ __.�
,�,_,.,��-,a;
—�, � .
���T SID� E���P�TI04�
EAST REP�R ���UATI0�1 SOUTH
STUCCO TRIM TYP.
ALL WINDOWS ARE OPENAB�E EXCEPT FOR SOME FIXED IN THE KITCHEN
,!�
� �
� �
+ � �
.F. ------------
� ST�CCO
' TYPICAL
o�
TILE ROOF
�
�
�
F.F. + �•_4.,
-----o-----o----o-----o--- o---o N.G.
RIGHT SIDE E���f�TIO�I WEST
THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
���v�Tlo�s
�
i�
�i�
�
I
�,
� ��
-�
vE�ux 4�� 12
FS P'!08
TYP. PITCH 4
��
�
' ��
�
.�.�:r...��
�
�� �� � ��
__
�� �� ,
;
�� �� � �
, �__
11 II _._,.--__.� .
�� �i .� �
�_��—�. �� —
15'-2"
�
�
�
�
� � 25°
�
11'-2" �
� i
� �i�
�
,�-�o/�-�
:� : le:-�- �
��
I
�
. -.: � ..
STUCCO STONE �R��T ����,�TI0�1 NORTH
TPY.
���8 Hu�1TRID�� ��NE
__. _
DESIGNR2 ■ o,,� 6/ 2�/12 A•3
2185 ROSSWODD DR. .,�,� GOE� & AGGARWAL
SAN JOSE, CA 95124 �►��: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER
DAVID PRUITT ���:
DESIGNER 4�8'�2 6-9 913 devidpru�tt�sbcglobal.net �,�; SCALE; 1/4"=1'-PJ"
�
�
�
i
�
�.
t
±
R00� P�P�(�
TI�� R00� TYPICf�� 4:12 PITCH
THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
R00� P�f�f�
DESlGNR2
2185 ROSSWOOD DR.
SAN JOSE, CA 95124
DAViD PRUiTT
DESIGNER
:...........................................................................
�.�
�
�i.�. .
. . . .
2�
�
�
I �I.�
,' r,�.`�7�.(. .. .�i __ . . �r�_ /cT�-�C�.-
°� ± ` . f. � ?'
,� ��-� ;y,'j(`'��;` j
,� .� �i:,�►J���;�.. , _�` �-�-�-r�=�_
z. :��:.
�
:A',M��G`a��l W;���`; ___ �'��-��.�
-- _�
'�:
��I�`'•.�su��;-- ---_ _ .__
. . ^_,
. ..
. ............................................... , ��.���.,��-,� ,
.........................
....,, . .;.
. 12 __. _ . � � ._ . .
. , . _ . _. _._.V..
�
, : 4 � d �_
PA _ � � �_ . . a�
+ '— " ...�_ � - � � !d_-�-�
12 4 _ �
� .
� i
� � �. , . : :.� �____..
�- �, : ._ _ __�� _ ,¢ _'
� i
� „ i
�.�. 1 ��— i
��
u �—�
S�CTI0�1
�
�
12
�
Pf�RTIf�� S�CTI0�1
���8 Huf�TRID�� I�f��l�
■ .-. �„E 6/21/12 A�
��,: GOEL & AGGARWAL
�,,�,�: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER
- -9 13 ���
4 0 8 6 2 6 � davidpruitt�sbcglobel.net �E SCALE; 1/4"=1'-�"
�
�
.
HUNTRIDGE LAN� � •-, ._`T.. �,_�
CUNCEPTUAL LA,N3)��APE�SCAPE PLAN
1�gn—��-0� .
waw w...�...
AGGARWALJGOER RESID Nc�NOTES AND CALCLn ATIONS
Conceutual Landacaoe Hardtcaoe Plan*
The following calculadons provide a breakdown of the propoaed hardscape and landscape aceas,
QAt least a 2'cleazance from paving to thc property line sha11 be maintained.
Site : 6000 sf
Provosed Hardscane:
Proposod Residence(first floor and gazage): 1900 sf
Driveway: 478 sf
Front walks,side yard waik,rear patio: 1142 sf
Total Hardsca�e�. 3520 sf Q
Total Landscane Area: 2480 sf
Below the 2500 sf dvethold for iandscape plan requirement
Lawn Area Calcula'ons:
25%of 2480 sf= IQ 620 sf or maximum lawn atlowed
� Proposed landscape azea
'Reference to item#S–city plaiming comments May 29,2012
Privacv Protection Plan•
Required 30 degree view angies from second story windows have beex►noted on the plan.The
following plant selecrion has bcen made,taken from the city pref ' of plant material.
v—y✓
A Pittosporum tenufolium @ 5'-0"ce 15 gallon size/min.6'tall Q f
�
'Reference to item#9–city planning comments May 29,2012 �--���
Front Yard Imcervions Snrface Area Cakalations*
Total area is 20'x 60'width of property=1200 sf.
40%oC 1200 sf=480 sf.
Proposed impervious surface area:
Driveway 390 sf
Front entry/walks 56 sf
Total: 446 sf or 37%(below the regulated 40%)
'Reference to item#16–city planning comments May 29,2012
Front Yard Tree
The following u�ee has been located in the front yard.
T-I Lagestrcemia Tuscorora standazd/Ctape Myrtle 24"box
•Refen,mce to item#23–city planning comments May 29,2012
�_►
r •y/� '/�/ ��
'i �9 `i(",-�1 �'�i ^...,/�%,L��E'/
. . !"���� �, ����1-� :�� ;`_� _,_.�„a,v.� � �,.� �
t �-- -..� --. --
�:�I'!; • � ._ -
� r���l������ �,...,._..�.�.
`. �.��.._..._ ____._
� __r _.__��.._
��������+� ���-_- _� _ ��;- . -:�� :;
�. �...
;�ig�la�u��_--T.- - - _.-�.: __. . _ �_ . �
, , _ � �.
��h'C�.C�F�'l�� �' • �" .,........�
�i�' '��-�:�' � .
�
a � � c� a � �
JUL 2 0 2012
� y ;
�. : � � � �- ...�-�01.��.... .. -
. . � �
� _ ;
., ��
_ F�. _ .. , �;� l D..��l.��� �
, ;,
i`,i,+ f
HARDSCAPE CALCUL.ATIONS�f
Area#1–Driveway–19'6"x 2'
»�-���X s>
=478 sf
Area#2–Entry Walk and Landing–6'x�
9'x4
=60 sf
Atea#3–Front Yard Sidewalk–3'x 10'
=30 sf
Area#4–Rear Yard Sidewalk–3'x 4b'
=138 sf
Area#5–Rear Yard Walk–4'x 16'
=64 sf
Area#6–Rear ratio–2s'x3a'
=850 sf
Total Hardscape–1620 af
m AARDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
�
HUNTRIDGE LANE
PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN
1/8"=1'-0>,
��� �
� .�,����
� �1-.,..�,r
L��� �
�,.
REVISION8
a
e
_
�
C
i
Y
1
�
WT�
V�j. �
IC-, .�r
h
W °�
AU
~O
�z
� a
w
c+.
W U
� �
�z
a >
� Q
�I r
°.a J 9.t�
� �-,�r�'
��.
� ���
sn.n
1
ot b �s
/ �
/ I
/
� I
� � _
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— — — — — — — .- � I
' i I
�� JUL 2 � �ui1 �
U
ay.
I
_ - �
N 89'S9'38"W 301.00'
�-- — — — 73.90' — — — i— — — — — — — — — — — 227.10. — — — — — — — — — — —
i
HUNTRIDGE LANE (60' R/W) Basis of Bearings
i
i ' � i
; -�,- ,.. —� /� �
' �: r-.� ::�y��:��::"�t �
o; } .� � ---_--� _ ,.� �.�.�:.�.__ .:�:
M; .��,t; r���liC��,�?
_�_.,.�.�.���
' ����r0'J�! ���f � -�3 -- i�
; �.,�, .__ _ _�.�_.:�._„�,.-......�.�.�..._�
� v�
— — — — — — —— N 89i59'38" W 60.00' '`�I, �������J
— — — — — — — — — — —
— - - - - - - - - - - - - -� � _,..-_. ., _
� I �\ I�',;?����r-��%�<>1 -.._.. ., -- -_.-_:.._--.. ..� ..� :-:�- .. .��,,,_
� I I J�..N.I�f.L . ...�.. "�' • � � . .... .� . _ _. ......
I � I LEGAL DESCRIPTION \ � •�
� � I
A�L THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO,COUNTY OF
I N N I ' SANTA CLARA,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,DESCRIBEO AS FOLLOWS: � : � 2
BEING L07 21.AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN TRACT MAP N0.2406 RECORDED IN ' � ". . . - � . _ /��+•`•'��
I BOOK 132 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17,FILED MAY 3,1961,RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA ' ' � � � �
( � � COUNTY. ' � � � � �
I _ _ _ _ 20'SETHACK UNE _ _ _ _ _ _ � I I
5.,� /�
� I � BASIS OF BEARINGS � - . '— �
� � _ _ � �,�b�-_�_ ..
( � I .. .
I �vi I SHOWN AONNTR�CTNMAP�N082 068EREC0 Dm ENTBOLq(E7�2 OF MA S AT PAGE S7, I I
�a FILED MAY 3,1961,RECOROS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. . n
I IN I I � 3
I ;
I 0' 10' 20' 30' � � I � . ,
I '" .
. _ .,__....
� ' � � t .. . .__.:__....,_-.,..�.N_......_ �
i5.2' � SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT ; - �,•a�f-
I a �
I C� I THIS MAP REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE 8Y ME OR UNDER MY SUPERNSION AT 7HE I . � �,
� / i I� � REQUEST OF AMIT GOEL W FEBRUARY OF 2017. � ' N Q �'
i �
Q d
I 3 � ; � e
I �I 6.8' � I I TOM H.MILO,LS 6438 t = I � '
p i �N LICENSE EXPIRES: 12-31-2012 ` 'p 4
� ��,, � LOT 21 i Q �O I DA7E: � � P z „n,,w�_,�-. A
TR N0. 2406 I °o %� .�,..-...-<<--.... -
3
� �� N BK. 132 PG. 17 I N �2 � I �..� .,.__..,...,. ..,-.... ..._ NI w
I o� APN: 359-06-044 � � I
o� I ~
� � IN
I ' � � LEGEND �
� I
� 6.9' I I I
5.1i I
I �5 2 • FOUND BRASS PIN MONUMENT I
I ( I O SET 5/8"X18'REBAR W/CAP LS 6438
�
� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I W.C.E. WIRE CLEARANCE EASEMENT � I
20'SETBACK UNE
I � I P.S.E. PUBUC SERVICE EASEMENT I
00 Of � I
I N N � �� PROPERTY LINE
I I ——————— ———————————————————— —I �
I ——————————
T EASEMENT LINE
� �5'W.C.E �
_ � I -- ADJOINER LOT LINE I I
� 0.6�----- --------�---- 0.2� I I
�•�� WOOD FENCE
1 s�PS.E � ,.o� 1 _ �= -
- - - - -- - -
„
S 89'S9'38 E 60.00'
1.0 0. 0.2 �
i <�T � ^ � C�T
2� � ��� ( 2S
I �6 �
' - �I — — — — — N 89'S9'38"W 250.00' — — — — — — — —
~ CARRIAGE CIRCLE (60' R/W)
I
�
�
IBOUNDARY SURVEY � � •
� DRAWN BY THAA AMITRGOELR T K M JOB N0. SHEET
� CKD.BY THAA 7738 HUNTRIDGE LANE Land Surveyors 22 Bohan Drlve � /
I �AJE FEBRUARY 10, 2011 LOT 21, TRACT 2406 ta Clara CA 95050 FlLE N0. /�
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS �08.615. 5 phone � 1
SCALE �� ���� CUPERTiNO CALIFORNIA 408.615. 56 faX