.01 R-2006-62 Ray Chen
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: R-2006-62
Applicant: Ray Chen
Property Location: 7453 Stanford Place
Agenda Date: AprilS, 2007
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Community Development Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for a new,
two-story 2,693 square foot residence.
*This item was continued from the March 27, 2007 meeting due to a public notice error.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the project as proposed with the recent changes.
BACKGROUND
The applicant (Ray Chen) is proposing to construct a 2,693 square foot, two-story
residence on a 5,994 square foot lot located along the north side of Stanford Place. The
immediate neighborhood is predominately ranch style single story homes (see pictures
below).
Sample pictures of existing single-story ranch style homes on the same Stanford Place
[-I
R-2006-62
Page 2
April 5, 2007
The project site is surrounded by similar Rl-6 zoning districts with the exception of the
properties immediate to the north along Tiptoe Lane that are zoned Rl-6i - single story
only (see diagram below - project property outlined in red).
Zoning map of the project area
There are some two story homes around the adjacent streets and in the broader
neighborhood (see sample pictures below). The proposed two-story home takes on a
simple Mediterranean style with mission style red tile roofing and cream/ coffee colored
stucco walls (see perspective below - red mission clay tiles not shown). The home is
consistent with the Rl Ordinance in terms of size, height and setbacks.
Sample pictures of existing two story homes in the neighborhood
( ~:2
R-2006-62
Page 3
April 5, 2007
Perspective of the proposed home
Generally, two-story permits are approved by the Community Development Director.
However, this project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission for final
consideration due to the number of concerns raised by the neighborhood regarding the
design compatibility of the proposed home.
DISCUSSION
Neighborhood Concerns
Staff has received email of concerns from approximately 9 neighbors. In addition a
petition :was submitted by 21 neighbors expressing concerns about the project. On
March 23, 2007, a neighborhood meeting was held between the applicant's architect and
the immediate adjoining neighbors. Please refer to the attached letters (exhibit A and B)
and the table in the project revision section of the report for additional details on the
neighbor's concerns.
Neighborhood Compatibility
One of the principle purposes of the R1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of
compatibility in scale of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is basically
achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific development perimeters
(i.e., maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, second floor to ground
floor ratio, building setback, building envelope) to curtail development intensity to a
level generally accepted by the community. Typically the City has allowed new homes
to be maximized within the approved frame work of the R1 Ordinance provided that
the design and the style of the home are consistent and/ or compliment the
neighborhood. New homes are expected to reduce mass and scale to the maximum
extent possible without undermining the property owner's functional needs. The City
has not in the past required new home proposals located in a R1 zoning district to
match the average size or be reduced to a single stoiy home in order to match the
general pattern of the neighboring homes.
{- ?J
R-2006-62
Page 4
April 5, 2007
As mentioned previously, the proposed home is within the allowable maximum
perimeter of the Rl ordinance in terms of size, height and building setbacks. However,
there are some very simple architectural solutions that could be made to make the
project more in line with the style and character of the neighborhood (please see staff
recommendations in the table below). None of these changes will alter the proposed
floor plan or incur structural changes.
Privacy Protection
The project will be required to adhere to the required privacy protection plan outlined
in the Rl Ordinance. There are no second story bedroom windows facing either of the
side yards. Please refer to the table below for details on privacy mitigation measures.
Project Revisions
Revised plans were submitted on AprilS, 2007. The following table summarizes the
neighborhood concerns, staff suggested changes and what the applicant has done to
address each concern (additional staff recommendations in bold):
Architectural and
Design
Compatibility
Concerns
. Change the proposed
mission style red slate
roof material to flat slate
roof in an earth tone
color.
Scale and Size
Compatibility
Concerns
. Simplify the bay
window on the front the
applicant).
. De-emphasize the front
entry.
. Delete all of the arched
elements and introduce
wood beams, brackets or
trellis to embellish the
front elevation.
. Introduce a brick or
stone base along the
front elevation.
Introduce wood siding (or
hardiplankj fiber cement
sidings to mimic the look
of wood) along the front
elevation.
Roof revised to grey flat slate
system.
The bay window facing the front
has been lowered to match the
eave height of the rest of the
house.
Front entry element has been
lowered by 6 inches.
All arched elements along the
front elevation have been
removed. Applicant confirmed
that the garage door windows
will also be rectangular in shape.
Stone base is being proposed
along the entire front elevation
and partial side elevations.
The applicant prefers stucco
finish. The applicant has
introduced decorative grid
patterns on all of the windows to
enhance quality texture of the
house.
The arched
element on the
side of the entry
feature should
be deleted.
The window
trim should be
increased from 3
inches to 4.5
inches.
/-1
R-2006-62
Page 5
A priI 5, 2007
Privacy Impact
Concerns
. Revise rear facing bay
window (2nd story) to a
normal flat window or
squared bay (no
windows on the sides)
Landscaping
Concerns
. Obscure or frost the
bathroom (2nd story)
windows facing the rear
and ri ht east side.
. The row of privacy
screening trees should be
set back at least 12 feet
from the rear property
line in order to be
outside of the overhead
wire clearance easement.
. The applicant should
work with the neighbors
to the rear to clear out all
of the existing invasive
vegetation and repair the
rear fence.
The 2nd story bay window facing
the rear has been revised to a
squared bay. The cantilever has
been reduced from 24 inches to
18 inches. No windows are
being proposed on the side of
the square bay window.
All of the rear and right (east)
side facing bathroom windows
have been revised to non-
transparent windows.
The landscaping plan has been
revised to reflect that the row of
privacy protection trees along
the rear has been set back at least
12 feet from the rear property
line.
The applicant has verbally
agreed to clear out the existing
invasive vegetation in the rear
yard and work with the rear
neighbors to repair the existing
property fencing.
Staff Comment
The applicant has incorporated the majority of staff's recommended changes into the
project since the original staff went out to the Commission dated March 27, 2007.
The changes proposed by the applicant have effectively made the home more consistent
with the architectural style and design of the neighborhood. Staff supports the changes
and feels that the neighbors' concerns have been reasonably addressed.
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ;)~
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Emails of Concern from the neighbors
Exhibit B: Neighborhood Petition
Revised Plan Set
Material and Color Elevation
F: \ PDREPORT\ pc \ 2007\ R-2006-62.doc
LeL/
C/z.A.r
Ir5
R-2006-62
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY 2,693 SQUARE FOOT
RESIDENCE.
SECTION 1: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
R-2006-62
Ray Chen
7453 Stanford Place
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, and applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title;
2. The granting of the special 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;
3. The proposed home is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood;
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; 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 R-2006-62 set
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of, March 27, 2007, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
f-&
Resolution No.
Page 2
R-2006-62
AprilS, 2007
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
The proposed two-story house is approved, based on the conceptual plans entitled
"Residential New Home for Mr. and Mrs. Un, 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino, CA 95014"
last updated on December 18, 2006, as amended by this resolution.
2. PRIY ACY PROTECTION
The project is required to submit a final privacy protection planting plan consistent with
the Rl privacy protection ordinance. The row of required screening trees or shrubs along
the rear property line shall be planted at least 12 feet away from the property line in order
to stay clear of the over-head PG&E wire clearance easement. The required privacy
screening trees or shrubs shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be preserved
and maintained. Said covenant shall be recorded prior to issuance of final building
occupancy.
3. ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES
The plans shall be revised to reflect the recommended changes outlined in the staff report
dated AprilS, 2007. Final plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department forreview
and approval prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. APPROY AL EXPIRATION
Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number
issued) within one year of the Two Story Permit approval (by AprilS, 2008), said approval
shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the
conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the
Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development
may grant an one-year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor
Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive
justification for the extension is provided.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERY ATIONS 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of April 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
1--7
.1 at;v 1 V.1 L..
Gary Chao
From: Dan Borrego [dan@borrego.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 20074:37 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: house at 7453 Stanford Pl...
Hi Gary,
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today regarding the house on Stanford place. I just wanted
to send you a quick email to voice my concerns about the project since we share a fence, and the second
story will be looking directly into my backyard, bedroom, and living room. As I mentioned, my house
and the others around me are under a use restriction in our CC&Rs that say we cannot build a second
story. The concerns I have regarding this are that a house with a second story immediately adjacent to
my property will affect the desirability and/or the value of my property should I choose to sell at some
future time.
The owners of the property at 7453 Stanford Place do not live there, and only have the intention of
"flipping" the house. Since they are not residents, they have no vested interest in the neighborhood nor
the impact of their actions on the residents here. I don't feel a second story fits into this neighborhood of
single story houses and would like to go on record as being opposed to such a project.
However, If the project is to go forth, I would like to talk with you and the owner of the property about
at least keeping the impact to a minimum. The main issues are the size and placement of windows which
will take privacy away from me and the other neighbors, as well as the installation of privacy screening
materials such as non-deciduous trees and shrubs as mentioned in the Rl zoning requirements. Since
PG&E has an easement in the rear ofthe yard and has demonstrated their tree trimming inability, the
trees planted should be far enough away from the power lines so that PG&E crews will not "top" them
and destroy the privacy that they will provide.
As for the appearance of the house, I feel that it is being reasonable to request that materials, paint color,
finish, and trim that are chosen for the home, should fit with the other houses in the area, so as not to be
more pronounced and draw attention to the only two story structure in the neighborhood.
Gary this is only a fast recap of our conversation today. I'm sure things will change by the time these
plans have gone much further along in the approval process. If I can think of other concerns or solutions
to the issues that I have raised, I will let you know as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Dan Borrego
2/21/2007
14
cxccutlve 1 eal ;:)Iauonery
r ctbt:: 1 UI 1
Gary Chao
__.______,__~.~__.._.__"__~.."~,.__"..____r_T~""'_.__,.._~..___~.__"._.m_._...__.__._.._'_""~vv.__.__^_._T__~.__.____._.,.,.,____.__.~__._...~~_~.__'__~..____.~._~~__~.~.....___..___.._._____T.__r_m__~.____,.__~__...~..,'.._....._..._.~.__'~..__,...._~.__._..._,..___..V",.._"_'_
From: Larry L. Line [Iine@jps.net]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11 :03 AM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: 7543 Stanford Place Construction Plans
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Chao:
I live directly across the street from the proposed construction at 7453 Stanford Place in Cupertino. I
noticed the sign posted in front of the house that lists your name as the contact for the city but does
not mention a hearing date or a date by which comments must be made. I hope this omission is not
intentional.
I wish to.express my concern about the design plans. Because of the physical layout of the current
structure on the property, the proposed building seems to be much to large for the size of the lot.
Moreover, it will be excessively close to the street, magnifying the apparent monster size. There seems
to be no attempt whatsoever to conform to the general structure of housing on this street. Normally,
I welcome modifications to the houses on this street that improve both the comfort of the homeowner
but also improve the esthetics. This particular structure does neither. I do not want to see this
property developed in the manner envisioned in the artists rendering.
Please advise me when there will be a hearing regarding this property. Please also advise why there
is no deadline on the property notice.
Larry Line
Larry L. Line
7452 Stanford Place
Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
CA Tel: +1.408.446.3513
FAX: +1.n5.261.8054
Email: line@j~,-net
2/21/2007
/,-11
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
We the owner-residents residing on Stanford Place and Tiptoe Lane, Cupertino wish to
formally express our feelings concerning the proposed re-construction of the house
located at 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino
We feel that the architectural design of the house is not in keeping with the design of the
other houses in the neighborhood. It directly violates the Rl ordinance,
19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).
C. Design Guidelines.
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be
generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director
of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the
following items are met prior to design approval:
a. The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be
disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms
of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature
heights; ,
b. The design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls...
There are currently no multi-story homes on this street. Although many of the
homeowners have remodeled their houses, all of the houses have retained their original
design, which maintains the continuity of the established "Ranch style" architectural look
and feel. This proposed, Mediterranean style, two-story home with a stark stucco
elevation and disproportionately high entryway will be an eyesore, and is certainly not a
"reasonably compatible design." There are many talented architects that can, and have
designed homes in the area that are not only harmonious with the rest of the
neighborhood but also add to it's desirability, and serve to increase property values.
Allowing this house to be built as proposed will set a precedent of random building that will
serve to destroy the beauty and desirability of the neighborhood.
The owners of the property at 7453 Stanford Place do not live here, and since they are not
residents, they have no vested interest in the neighborhood, or the impact of their actions
on the surrounding residents. They are simply investors with dollar signs in their eyes. The
approval of this project as planned will set a precedent for other speculator-investors who
want to construct "monster" houses and change the character of our neighborhoods in
order to make a lot of money at the expense of Cupertino residents who care about the
city, it's neighborhoods, and the quality of life here.
1/5
1--(3
In addition to the negative impact on Stanford Place, there will be a significant impact to
the privacy of the homeowners on the south side of Tiptoe Lane. Their yards and every
window along the backs of their houses become part of the Stanford resident's view. The
Tiptoe Ln homeowner's are restricted from adding a second story. If houses all along
Stanford Place were to begin adding second story additions their houses would surely
become less desirable, and would suffer from loss of value.
For these, and other reasons, we, the undersigned, are against the present design of this
proposed structure. We ask that the City of Cupertino Planning Division to consider the
concerns of the residents of Stanford Place and Tiptoe Lane, please deny the approval of
this design as it is planned.
2/ij
I r-I +
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
Address
Print Name
Signature
7403 Stanford Place
Ken and Patti Greenly
/! ,.
l'_-t. .
~~'1S ~tantord Place
!:c~K,J: S':.d4-~,
7419 Stanford Place Elaine Peterman
7443 Stanford Place Patrick Law
7449 Stanford Place Caine Yu
:$' J
t, ........y'-"-1
f'. L{},
7471 Stanford Place
;-(1^^ \,JC V' I
v
"
:.-/{,<.., '
c-
1 if),
Stanford Place
Sa~ C~
7 if! 0
Stanford Place
rLIJ I'NE L'\JVl
~. ~ _. ~/.2 ......~ /'~~<~
(. . ~~7 I,,, .v1..-
du:=J It)L<-
7 .q.,~~
Stanford Place
.,4
i../.e-:\,/ (?.:( '--,
@~1-C~
L'Ttl / AI vT ;:44
'7LfJ2- Stanford Place OLiVe, C}tiX~
l~~ '1 Stanford Place L~i/' Q (, V~ '\..... 'vJ v'-. ,~~... _x:
......._-~
Stanford Place
3/)
1--/5
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
Address
Print Name
Si 9 ~..ilture----
,..,,,,,,
7488 Tiptoe Lane
LI Hua Ho Lee
~.
n
I
,,;/
7508 Tiptoe Lane
Dan Borrego
",
"'(~\ ;_~ t--, ~ (,,--1 - " ~
\ . /}..J U,j,. ..... \ '\O,,.:.J,i.....C;.-......:'\<,
1L~:l
7496 Tiptoe Lane
Mary & Skip Robidart
74.'~ Tiptoe Lane
QS~
6 u N { L ~ PK;\ p{~.. H \ f1e.t,frK (J1 (
~J.JJ
'7,) ~ Tiptoe Lane
'1 ' ~-
-'5.L{ 0 Tiptoe Lane
,/1 ,) - J
Jj'''::.t. i .. .:.Zc_....~ ./" "
. J ,j-" ~--'''1--'-'''''-
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
5/S-
'.--/1
LOTSllE
ALLO'NABLE FAR (45%j
AlLOWABLE OVERHANG (5%j
5994 SF
2697 SF
lOOSF
(N):ZOOAMP
E1..EC P A Ifi.
15'-0-
lREE. ARBUTUS MARINA
IN :l4" BOX NIN, I!/ Hl_.
lYP.
1&1
~
;
~
I~
~~.t
..J:5i5
. Q,IC)
VJ Cl
Ct:li1<
~O()
...
O~O
Z....Z
<(\II~
."lW
o::~a.
~"El
SITE INFORMATION
OIM\IER: WEN PING I..WiUH.JUAN
ADRESS: 7453 STMFORO PlACE
CtJlERTH), CA95014
A.P,N.1t 359-32.039
SCOPE Of WORK
NEWCONSTRUCnON
ZONING: R-1
OCCtPANCY: R-3lU-1
CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-N
TOTAL PROPOSED RESIDENCE:
RATIO OF 2ND FLR TO 1ST FlR:
PROPOSED FAR:
"93 SF
449%
44.9%
15'-0"
v
'J.t.:/\ '
7 '. i r"
(, '
\ f' ';
r" .' 1 I
r-J ---~ \ !
I '-____...._1.'
I
v~wu~~
I
I
I
I
,
0---- ...I'
I --
I
I
VI )It() STORY
I COlA'll AFlEADBL
aJTlJNE:
I
I
'----
---,
I
I
_~ I
".~___~._......L...
1 sr S10RY
aJ1U1€
8:
~
1
1
I
~
~ JI
~:
I ;::
I......
'"
BUILDING AREA,
1STFlR
2NDFlR:
BOL COUNT'
1430 SF + 428 SF (GARAGE)
726 SF
109 SF
'-V
OVERHANG,
1STFlR:
AT GARAGE:
2ND FlR
102 SF
J4SF
13SSF
....
W
N
o
o
o
z
..j..
TOTAL PROPOSED OVER HANG:
PROPOSED RATIO:
271 SF
4.5%
o
N
..v
o
N
RAISED FLOOR,
OOUBLE GlAZE, VlNYL@ALLWINDOWS
......
......
......
..v
WALL PERlw;TER WI WRE THAN 6' EXPOSED HEIGHT AND HAS NO
'l U!N OVERLAP FROM 1ST M ROOF TO 2ND FLR WAll
64.5'
CCNC UHDNC.
SEE 'FIRST FlOCIl
I'lAII' !HEET AO-3
TOT.&J.2NOFLRWAllLlNE: 1:1l.6T
50% OF ll-E WAlL PERIMETER: 65J3'
10.~
2ND fL.R 10'
5ElBM:K
Sl/RDlARtE
r-------
I
(N)GAS Il[TtR
,.. I
I '>V 1
.
L~ ' I .
I 0
! ..v I
aN 1 ill
.
.1 I
II) ....
N
, 1
'V .
L
..,
I
~
~
I!!
US
WAll PERIMETER HAS LESS THAN 6' EXPOSED HEIGHT ANO HAS
'l M1N OVERlAP FROM 1ST FlR ROOF TO 200 FlR WALl:
66.1T
1-"0...
ARCHllEClURAL DESIGN AND
STRUClURAL ENGINEERING:
RAY CHEN. P.E. TEL.: (406)524-5488
t
-v
""
THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE SINCE LAST MEETING WI THE NEIGHBORS
'-V
.
N
I
.
-l)l
'.v
'"
""
*
'oV
'It
\If
'-V
'oV
...v
,..
'oV
1) 45. bey wmow assenDly is revised 10 rectangu.1IaI: wildofr MId pop-out depIh rHuced from 24"10 18",
_l'>V
'0,\1
~
'oV
'..j/
.....
2) EaYt at front bay window assembly hes been bwered tQ llush will the rest 01 the 5tructure
54.00' N89"58'W ':~ .:.....,. .... /. :'~, ..... .
______ _ __ _ .. . J.........._
CONC WALKWAY '.~;.<c:.', <~.' ~>'.."~'
, 'lt~ ': ' '.' '"
REV! 51 ON
4) S~ver.eerllasbeenaddedinthelront,portionofsideandsquintokJlmS
STREET PLANT
<.: "<I\~
11'<' </.1 ' I
.". ":.. 1-.
3) Front ennnce has been kMered 6" than b orVilal
These IlJt just ml!lking ls neighbors happy (their comments !rom lest meelIDg)
I wi_give you material board this week, lTIll)be on Thu And ~ is rue to make
Ihe build...g looks much smaler.
~
b
I
~
1) Root wi be slake, 75% py and 25% sort d redish(more IikePIlpIe
tt
....,
I
.10
~ ff. Sf ANFORD PLACE
-L______
OA IT 12/1./1>>
SCALE
ORA W RHC
2) Walwllbesnllnlp(mcnlikeer.thcolor).
3) TMlwOdowsathAA8A~beenCllledb"oon-lranspnnt.
41 Gridhasbeentddedlothewildows.
5) Saaening lrees beck hew been nllMd forward, 10 aboull'llrom the backyan:I fence
6) Saeen stNIlll right PIe ywd is ret'IIOIIed per its neigHIor's request
PLOT PLAN
JOB
12050&
!l1ET
1/8"=1 '-0"
0-1
~
'ho.....
--...--------
.;, 2ND FlR
<v 10.00'
_____ __....:If":-=
----- -~~~
~
gr
2ND Flll 1l:lP PLAT[
lB.Oo"
JIC..::- _
~
1L_~rT
TlIT:
UL!lARD IIN'IL. Dill.. PANE.
COlal: WHIlE. NJlOIC
TYI'.
--+-
~Ol
~TI
fMIn
~~~
~
D D': ------
DO DDDDDD
.- DO ODD
1 ~'17 AMARR S1EI..l
GARAGE DOOR VII
W"OCN WHEll..-lbNG p"Nn.
COLOR: SAND~ OR
WHITE:.
L- VENNER STONE
COlllR: GRAY
T
-4-- 7~' 1HK~CDAT SlUCCo.
01 2-LA GRAIlE "ll" Sll)G
PAPER. DJ Exr. 5lR PLY. TIP.
COlal: eft YSTOtf: a. SNolD TRAP
FlR
0.00'
:=:L...
" 0
lJ>oollJ'o4Jl+tR:
rn Al/ERACE n:
~ --ill:
28 GA. GAlV. WEB> SCREEN. ~
4" MIN ,.SOVE FINISH GRADE OR
:r lAIN ABOVE CONe PAVING. TrP.
Dill PANI: GLAZING L' J/4." lHK SaUD CORD
L- VINYl sa. MILGARD OAK DOOR w/ RAISED
OR TO BE SIMIlAR, TYI'. PANELS STAlf.ED FlNISH.
COLOR: ~ITE OR COI..CR: a-lDlRY
AlM(JIlD
FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
Q/ eN: LAg JIlt faT,
Q/ ,~. 00.. SIR. R.Y. lVP.
CXIUR GllAY
.- III II II 12
"" 1I1I 1111 1111 I If II II :IUTYP.
...... II II II II II II
~ II II II II II IIIJ,..1 "JJ1 111 I 2ND FLR TOP PlATE:
of'l:~1I III II III I IJoo II II II 1111l"I1I1 r I ___~~__
~ lffiI I Ir " "'
~ '" ___ ___ __L___ SP"RK AfftSTCR
RDIJ' ~ ~
~. DOWI FROM DET'"
2ND TOP PLATE. if'r1 I · -
;;; rtl'. II 1111 II ,.,. rr II II
;- ------ - - -.....". II -+- 1111 II 11111 II lilT II 111111 111111 II '1111
i l.Af' II II II II III II II III II IoL I T II II I II II I' II IT I ~!lr....
. lu...C
~ ~111"11 I 1111 I 1'1 II 1111 _II II _ _ _ lill_ ~ - -- -......,.~~~
,I II II . II -. r II :-0... ".. ~u
- -- - -
EUJ EIJ] - - ~ ~\ ~I
.1-.
L.I'"'1..M .J'" 0.00 F
.. _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __I"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y~
-
Dj' 2-I.I.YER C1RA1lE '0" Ill..DG
PAPER. oj Exr. S1R PlY. T'IP.
CClORo CIllo YSlDI€
LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
Nore EXlERIOR PMNT Will SE
KEll.. Y MOORE PAINTS.
.-rr-...
ot1 111T 1't~...
.....r1' II III
FlR fa> PLA"'........r11T II II II ~ i"I"IoJl II II II II II 1Il'l-....
ri l"'111111 III I II I IJ..W' II 1I1'H.l1NU.11I 111111 III f"'h.
:;-.=Y_
m ~ . II. ~]LL":"' ~
~ III I"h.... 12
III I II II n"" -,i.:) .
O'FlR II lilT II II Ill'!"-,... 7
::::::!!_ .....,.., . II II II II IIlllf II II " III II II I I r III fl'l-..... CEl~~~ ~
- - - - - - -~-~-
[EJJ] m D ~
fUl
o.oiL
== == == == _ _ = _ == _ _ '-_ ___:lL
2N)
1
2N)
,
18" SQURE
COWMN$, TrP
REAR ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'_0"
l'IP. ~.a~ 11 ~
II II lIlT III I1II ,.,.
1IIIIIIIIIIIIJJAnTII I II II II
11111 IIII .......-rllll 111111 rT I "n~
II II 11 II II II 1111 II II '"""--,..,., ..
II II IIII~ ~:.~ofUl'
x::-
i" " '" " II " " ':" Iml IDOl"
III "IT II n
_ ~ ,1ioR I'li'" "
r 1IT1 II 2ND
..l " "" " '"'I''' "" "" >oJ uo
0= " " ",,'fT" ".>=
'-I . -
~ .~: ~ ~.~ . _ ~ 8 8
\ == ==
== ==
-,
FlR
o,~
wi/Z TYP.
RIGHT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'_0"
CElUNG
~g.oo"
LR
FtA TE
lR
I
~ z
:J
Z ..
Vl
~ ~
is ~
a ~
;0: ~
~
PLATE
U)
!
F=
~
REVISION
DA TE 12
SCALE
DRAW If-
JOEl 12
:SlEET
Ao-
l:t-CJ" t,.-CJ"
~~~-~=~-----~~------------~ ~~~~:~p
15040 51.
.c
.1
b ~~~I I BI~
"T Cinh J'-I1'YS-!>"
-
lIMIIII"lUII!
W/ g'-IS" RAISED 1I~~ G) t ,
CElUNG '"
I
, (13'-9"Xll'-II1') b
'" G) ...
I
;... I ~ ~
24':.1 """"""";:
IN ,\
0
B 000
-'
'"
:il
:& o 0
J~III~~ I a-
il ~l. 0
B
I
,
I
. :or B
CD
~ H- li~] II~ft I ~ ~
b III
~
..411 2
(10'-2"X10'-4") ~ (10'-8"X9'-8")
I 1'-~0
b
t---.
"or 5040 SL ~-~
I
;., .!, ~'~tl.II:c~'iv~~
5040 ll...
'1'-0" 10'-0. ,
'i ICBO 12301 OR EO
,... NXJC
0- W/ la' RAISEO eEl
(l1'-2")(11'-J")
~
to
ijii~
i~
~
~
'"
I
2
B
DlI
ICCI
ICCI
DlI
,------------_.
I
I
r--J
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I AIIILY IIOOM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Sl>4O 51.
",
I
'"
~
zt!
1II!r'[ I"l
i"'IJ IilI
~")(1B'-;j
~1 u ci~LNG, TYf".
10'-0.
b
.I
~
BI~
GAS FUItlANCE
11'1' CARRIER
CONI:
LNICNI:
31 ....
I
I
I
V VENT IlRYEll DJlSIllE
SNOOlH ""'- llUeT ~
BACKIlRAn DAMPER,
14 Fl I.lAX.
I L 2N0 5ltRY
---- --:~~rNr----j
i"~~.,; ~ 1:~[
SDE ~ l-Ifl, la'ER.\llDN
b
.I
N
~
r---------------
I
AU. AIR DUCIS PEI€1R,t,llNC
AREA liEPARATlON WAIL o!t l1O.
SlALL ~ 2J 10.... IIIN.
-----1
I
I
IDi
!D
,,'-3"
21'-0.
~
o.
No1E: a:a SUBFLOOR VENnLAlIQIl
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1/"" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1/4. = 1'-0"
ROOF PIlCH: ~.!inP.
ROOF DIAGRAM
NT!;
I
~ Z~.
11.1 =:i :5 i
Z -~,
~ ~~~
::i:04
....
a:i!
is ZI-'i
<(VII
,I')I
Q a:::~!
~~::i:~i
""-
""-~
~a.
i!~
~O~
~m~
REVISION
DA IE 12/1e,
SCAlE
DRAW fH:
JOB 1201i11f
:SlEET
Ao-2
I-----~---;---I
I
0)
I-
I 0
I
I
I
I
(0
o
I
I
~ /S--L__ I
-----J ____J
N<1rr: 2ND FLR N?CA. <D - 109 SF INCLUDINC STAIRCASE, DOUBLE CCUmN~ AREA
@ - 728 SF INCLUDING SECQ.ID fLOOR, BAY-WINDOW
1 ST fLR N'€.A. 0 - 1 +30 SF INCLUDING nRST FLOOR, BAY-WINDOW, PORCH
@ = 42B SF INCLUDING GARAGE
FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
N1S
2ND FLR lOP PlAlE
18.50'
__-=:x..
2ND FLR
10.00'
"=:::l!_
~/I--
,..,...- --
~- ---~-
I WALl. A-;------
r~~~5E
'b
I
0.
DUNa
R-IS IN:lULAllllN
....sm FLR. TYP_
or IKIE
WINDOW
SLL
10
I
10
UASII!R .
r
.
o
I
ill
F....r
A-ll) INSLLA 110N
...me, TlP.
R-13 INSLUl110N
1EXf.. WAU.. T'IP.
10
I
bel
IRa
...
2ND FlR
10.00'
--"!': --
~
'0
I
~
I'VWIII
BEYlN)
~
1ST FLR
0.00'
__'1'.:--
SECTION A-A
1/4" = 1'-0"
IW.lWlY
Ir~D
I
I HM1.WlY
MWJE
~~---
-------=-N
I
I
I
I
I
R-'" IN:lULAllllN
.cAAAlE CElLNC
SECTION B-B
1/4- = 1'-0.
..,
~
~
~ ~lj....
ILl ....J<~
Z .~:8
(I) 01
;a! ~~~
~ aZci
~~~
li~~
!I ~"':J
.. ......CJ
ct:
a=~
~
~
~i
5
u!
REVlSICN
DATE lZ,/111/05
SCALE
DRA W /tiC
JOB 1mlO11
SHEET
Ao-3
f:F SHEETS
STYRENE TRIM,
AT ALL WINDOWS
230 Graystone
23
Swiss Cotiee
COLOR:
SWISS COFFEE,
TYP.
-J~
--
---
-J--------f -
26 GA GAL V'O GU T
0/ 2X FASCIA BOARD
COLOR:
MATCH STUCCO
OR SWISS OFFEE.
TYP.
~fTPlYT
2ND FLR TOP PLAT
18.50'
le=16~1 HT
I
MILGARD VINYL, DBL PI
COLOR: WHITE. ALMONC
TYP.
BUILDING ENVELOP
II
2ND
10.0
I _____ _\7r---=~
1
n
1
~
~I~
FLR
0.00'
-~.<.:.;~
,::.-
----
D
I::7l' I 'f::::::7'
16'1 IIBBB B8B BEE BEE BEE BEE
TYPf 'DDDDDD
DDDDDD
-w DDCDDDD ~
7/8" THK t-COA T STL.
0/ 2-LA YE GRADE "c
PAPER, 0/ EXT. STR P
COLOR: GR YSTONE or
AVERAGE FG
1.17'
~
26 GA. GAL V. WEEP SCREEN. -
4" MIN ABOVE FINISH GRADE OR
2" MIN ABOVE CONC PAVING. TYP.
DBL PANE GLAZING L 1 3/4" THK SOLID CORD
L- VINYL SET, MILGARD OAK DOOR W/ RAISED
OR TO BE SIMILAR, TYP. PANELS STAINED FINISH.
COLOR: WHITE OR COLOR: CHERRY
ALMOND
16'X7' AMARR STELL
L- GARAGE DOOR W/ L-
WAGON WHELL-LONG PANEL.
COLOR: SANDTONE OR
WHITE.
VENNER STONE
COLOR: GRAY
FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"