The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-09-2012 Table of Contents Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 l. Draft Minutes of 09-11-2012 Draft Minutes 09-11-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Appeal of a Director's Approval of a Two-Story Permit Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 . Draft Resolution R-2012-26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. Neighbor correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3. Two-Story Permit (R-2012-26) action letter. . . . . . . . . . . 34 4. Appellant's letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5. Applicant's response letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6. Plan set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 1 AGENDA C U P E RT I N O CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, October 9, 2012 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subiect: Draft Minutes of 09-11-2012 Recommended Action: Approve or Modify draft minutes from 09-11-2012 Pa�e: 4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/1ZEMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 2. Subiect: Appeal of a Director's Approval of a Two-Story Permit Recommended Action: Deny the appeal Description: Application: R-2012-26 Applicant: Amit Goel or Ruchi Aggarwal Location: 7738 Huntridge Lane Appeal of a Director's Approval of a Two-Story Permit for a new 2,692 square foot single familv residence Plr�ririirig Coniiiiissiori c�ecisiori firir�l itiriless r�pper�lec� Pa�e: 8 OLD BUSINESS 2 Tuesday, October 09, 2012 Page-2 NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT If yozz challer�ge the actior� of the Planr�ir�g Conanais�s�ior� ir� cozz��t,yozz naay be linaited to��ais�ir�g or�ly thos�e is�s�zzes�yozz o��s�onaeor�e els�e��ais�ed at the pzzblic hea��ir�g des�c��ibed ir� this�ager�da, o�� ir��itter� co��espor�der�ce delive��ed to the City of Czzpe��tir�o at, o��p��io�� tq the pzzblic hea��ir�g. Pleas�e r�ote that Planr�ir�g Conanaiss�ior�policy is�to allo�� ar�applicar�t ar�d g��ozzps�to speak fo�� 10 nair�zztes�ar�d ir�dividzzals� to speak fo�� 3 nair�zztes�. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or plaiuling@cupertino.org. 3 CTTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. September 11, 2012 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regula�Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 2012,��as called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Communit�-Hall, 10350 Toi7e Avenue, Cupertino, CA. b�-Chair Mart�-Miller. There ��as a moment of silence in honor of those ��ho lost theu lives in the 9/11 traged5-in Ne�� Yorlc Cit�-on September 11, 2001. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chauperson: Mart�-Miller Vice Chairperson: Don Sun Commissioner: Paul Brophy- Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Clinton Bro��nlev Staff present: Cit�-Planner: Ga��-Chao Senior Planner: Vera Gil Assistant Planner: Simon Vuong APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 1�1, 2012 Plunning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. DP-2012-04,ASA-2012-09 Development Permit to allo�� the construction John Noori (Apple,Inc.) of a 22,742 sq. ft. cafeteria for Apple employees; 20625 Alves Dr. Architectural and Site Permit approval to allo�� site improvements and the design of a 22,742 sq. ft. cafeteria for Apple employees. 4 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 September 11, 2012 Simon Vuong,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: • Revie��ed the application for Development Permit to allo�� modifications to the previousl�- approved cafeteria building for Apple emplo5-ees, and architectural and site approval associated��ith a ne�� cafeteria for Apple emplo5-ees, as outlined in the staff report. • He refei7ed to an overhead presentation and revie«ed the bacicground of the project, noting that the Planning Commission originally-approved the cafeteria building for 21,468 sq. ft. and the applicant is submitting a modified proposal. A summai�-of the modifications is outlined in the presentation. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval in accordance��ith the draft resolution. • Staff ans��ered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposed project. Vice Chair Sun: • Asked if there��ere an�-significant traffic impacts for the cit�-. Gary Chao: • Said the previous traffic consultant studied the ne�� design��ith the ne�� la�-out, in pa�ticula� the drive��a�- access design, and the conclusion in the supplemental report ��as that there ��ould not be an�- significant traffic impact. He noted that the engineer prefers the proposed circulation��hich��as considered to be more eff�icient and safer. • Staff said it ��as coming to the Planning Commission rather than the Design Revie�� Committee because of the increase in squa�e footage ��hich automaticall�- triggers a development permit ��hich goes to Planning Commission if it is under a certain amount of square footage. • Staff eiplained the suggested landscape improvements. Jason Lungard,Manager of State and Local Government Affairs,Apple: • Discussed their vision«hen redesigning the building; by malcing the changes, they«ere able to talce all the equipment previousl�-on the roof��hich needed screening, and drop it into the roofline, resulting in simpli�-ing the roofline and aclding to the element of elegance throughout the entue design. TheS-��ere also able to create additional space on the roof for increased use of sola� panels or sola� thermal heating, ��hich ��il1 result in a more environmentall�-friendl�-design. Also significant improvements to traffic flo�� b�- sepa�ating the trash picicup and the entrance to the garages; the results being a better design ��ith a building that «ill maiimize the interior use; there is a better flo« inside building and «i11 result in a better eiperience for diners. Com. Sun: • Aslced if further consideration had been given b5- the applicant to open up the cafeteria facilities to the public as visitors to the Apple campus. Mr. Lungard: • Said that Apple's thinlcing hacl not changed much since April and still vie��ed it as a private cafeteria and ��as necessa��-to create an atmosphere��here emplo5-ees��ere��illing to openly- and franld�- discuss business issues; and ha�ing a private facilit�-is a lce�- component of that. He aclded that much hacl been done in the design to visuall�- engage passers-b5-, by adding fountain elements to the eastern side, ��hich ��i11 add an element of visual interest to the guests of the hotel do��n the street. He said the�- did not envision the site as a specific location for visitors to linger at or utilize. 5 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 September 11, 2012 Chair Miller opened the public hea�ing; there��as no one present��ho��ished to spealc; the public hea�ing��as closed. Com. Brownley: • Said he felt the project��as a good project, and��as consistent��ith the General Plan and zoning, consistent��ith the North DeAnza Conceptual Plan, and the additional square footage «as both consistent«ith General Plan procedures and«as being used for good purposes. The change for traffic flo�� in and out of the building is more efficient and a better transportation plan in and out of the building;the5-are planning on using some of the ne�� space to acld elements that«ill malce the building LEED Gold Platinum level certif�ied; and there is plentiful bic�-cle pa�lcing spaces for pedestrian bic�-cle friendl�-transport to and from the building. Vice Chair Sun and Com. Lee: • Said the�-supported the project. Com. Brophy: • Said he supported the project��ith proposed changes. Chair Miller: • Said he supported the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Lee,second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,to approve Application DP-2012-04 and ASA-2012-09 per the model resolutions. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No meeting HOUSING COMMISSION: No meeting MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING: No meeting ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No meeting REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Gary Chao reported: • Cit�-Council considered the Mainstreet Cupertino project; Council approved s��apping out the senior housing component��ith apa�-tments��ith some retail on ground floor and some peripheral ground floor units being liveh�orlc. Council discussed some of the diagonal parlcing along Vallco Parlc�va�- since the�-moved a�va�-from any potential of ha�ing retail along Vallco Pa�lc��a�- and the diagonal stalls originally ��ere intended to support additional retail along Vallco. The end result��as stay-ing��ith it and the applicant offered to provide the cit�- ��ith some funding for the future if the Council finds that diagonal parlcing is disruptive or there a�e concems or negative consequences, the cit�- can use that 6 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 11, 2012 funding to start the project or revert bacic to pa�allel stalls. As a result the Council aslced the applicant to provide more pa�lcing onsite to anticipate for the potential s��ap. • Council also approved the Green Building Ordinance, accepted staff's recommendation, and follo��ing public comment, the�- increased the certification threshold that triggers LEED for multi-famil�-and non-residential projects from 25,000 sq. ft. to 35,000 sq. ft. Adiournment: The meeting ��as acljourned to the neit regula� Planning Commission meeting scheduled on September 25, 2012, at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully-Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretai�- 7 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPEPTINO,CA 9501�-3255 (�08)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 • �lanningr!,cu�ertino.org CUPERTIN4 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 Planning 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 designation Low Densit Residential(1-5 dwellin�units/oross acre) Zoning designation R1-6 (Single Family Residential District,with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet) Environmental review Cate�oricall Exempt from CEQA Net lot area 6,000 square 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 square feet(45%) 2,692 square feet(45%) 2na to 18t floor ratio No limit,however design review 42% (792 square foot second required if oreater than 66% floor/1,900 square foot first floor) 18t 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) desian review required if interior side 8 R-2012-26 A��eal 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 orade 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 modifications 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 insta118 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 Commission'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 Lane October 9, 2012 Staff response: The concerns raised by neighbors during the public comment period were considered by the Director prior to app�roving the project and were noted in the administrative record. The neighbor concerns were also forwarded to the applicant for consideration. Consec�uently, the applicant decided to enhance the privacy planting and the height of the property fencing along the side yards. The proposed project conforms to all aspects of the R1 Ordinance and the non-discretionary two-story permit process. The proposed two-story home is modest in size and is not the only two-story home in the neighborhood. Other etamples of two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood can be found at 7709 Huntridge Lane, 945 Rose Blossom Drive, 927 Rose Blossom Drive, 7803 Lilac Court, 7799 Lilac Way, 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 Jollymr�n Lane, r�nc�si:�of the nine homes on O}�line Coit}�t. See z�icinity mr�p below: �.,� � . -r w � ; , , � �!� � � �_..— �� „� ��i��.jA �e � �° �! _A��I ..."L R -�,� K � µ - .. � - ' w � ; '� `i�'s` t y .?' x ae � � ' 1 �s�,}� . i�•• s• '` ' tx�.�� '�' -e`��! �T � ±� — - i�i��., .��da a� � r . " �,i{:..� , ��a � �; � `M 071''� ' - . '� �:.,.. i�' � I � , �i. _ �0Y25i - �10T30� ' � �� ! "�'? k'�� W �:'� 1 . . rk ,��,� � .�l a.�! �C{: k fa ir C . � �10748" ��F'.�. ,{� k� . .. �- ,�. .9' 90�`.♦ :.�i�- . ' s� r � � i— �'"�,r, '�, . ,r — _ <• r�-. �"�� .*��r� ��' .'.��e, - u�:.e -- „rw. �' - ; , ' �yi�� .'��• �4 - ✓ � � ."°�.'- �I��t ,.:.� ° .u:. �! . � �,.%d �Y �,' n-�� `�-':'k . . , .. ' �"_ �� ' .�. . . . _ , s� _ � � d:�7A;�... i� . +n� _ �� _`92� + .. 4��.f��a��'dfP � � .{. .\Mw +' epR{� �� `6 'R S � �h 7�' S � { � s ` ��.--r6' 4�'' :��,y�`- .d;-. .,. � �: _ y �n�� -.��:�t 1 f �1� S-�:�� P�y�v v� _ r� � `..,.*" t,Y ?_� 1 1 �i 4a�.� .,( . '�t� s' ti � ; �� P,.y i d '� 1� ,. ;.� 3 ,� A�.��- �� y ��,� �� '.� . � - t��7- ♦ 1 / ��J y •- �4� •;-,�' � ]��r.,:f. ,.,'�.,s . '� ��r z _ ProjCCtSitC —� �,��' - �� °� � .; �,;35� - -� �. �l,- � N .� �-. �`�,� �� -�.-�. '�� ►��. .��- '�. ;� ��. ��,F ;�-�'� ' � =i!�_;� EX�St � ��, _: � �� ,�` '.•.-'�—_ -� ,na�y -:-s, � s rwo- P. �!• } I,��I-,—N • �I�4�#�� R� ��. �tm�{. Zb4�� :�� SL�ry P {T�s '�a� \t �� .'�.' I'�r � ,. �� hOYI"1C r� a� '��,�'�+:� '�L�-., X �'..r Pi �t•.'�91�4,� � -. �! � - ° ' Vicinity map highlighting existing two-story single-farnily 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 life." Staff response: The project is designed to be within the prescriptive building envelope rec�uirements of the R1 Ordinance. Typically, most conventional first and second floor plate heights are between 8-10 feet high, and this project proposes 10 feet for the first floor and nine feet for the second floor. The project proposes a building height of 25'-4" when 28 feet is permitted. In addition, the total proposed floor area ratio, lot coverage, and 1st/2nd floor setbacks are within the limits of the ordinance (please refer to the project data table on page one and two). Staff is not aware of any evidence to support the claim that a new two-story home in a residential neighborhood would negatively impact the value of the neighboring properties. All of the residential homes located in the same R1 zoning district have ec�ual development rights, which include the ability to construct two-story homes. If the entire neighborhood wishes to restrict their ability to construct a second story and/or develop rules to significantly limit any two-story projects, then staff would recommend that the neighborhood formally initiate a rezoning rec�uest with the City to place a zoning overlay on their neighborhood in order to prohibit the development of two-story homes. The City Council has in the past allowed for certain neighborhoods to place a 10 R-2012-26 A��eal oF a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9, 2012 single-story only zoning overlay through a public process and with majority neighbors consenting. A few etamples of such streets include Fallenleaf, Tiptoe, and Colony Hills Lanes Heatherwood Drive; John Way,• 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 1928.140 (B)(4)." "Section 19.28.110 (B)(1)-- Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Principles, Two-Story Design Guidelines. The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction should 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." "Section 19.28.140 (B)(3) and (B)(4)—Findings, Two-Story Permit Findings. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated." Staff response: One of the principal 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 parameters (i.e., matimum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, building setbacks) to curtail development intensity to a level generally accepted by the community. Typically the City has allowed new homes to be matimized within the fi�amework of the R1 Ordinance p�rovided that the design and the style of the home are consistent and/or compliment the neighborhood. The proposed project is consistent with the R1 ordinance and is not subject to design rez�iew. The proposed project consists of a Mediterranean style similar to the etisting two-story homes in the neighborhood on Tomki Court and Jollyman Lane. Further, the project is compatible in terms of mass and bulk with other two-story ranch style homes on Huntridge Lane, Rose Blossom Drive, Lilac Way, and Sage Court. While the proposed project maybe larger than some of the original one-story, ranch-style tract homes in the area that were built in the 1960s, it is modestly designed and no larger than most of the recently app�roved two-story residences in Cupertino. It is not practical to etpect newly developed homes to match the size and height of the etisting single family homes when the neighborhood is in transition and there are similar newer two-story/single-story homes in the area. The proposed home is compatible with etisting homes in the neighborhood due to the fact that the project is within the prescriptive building envelope, height rec�uirements,floor area ratio and all other aspects of the R1 development standards/guidelines. Further, the proposed 34 foot rear yard and 15 foot side yard setbacks on either side of the second floor p�rovide ample clearance and transition fi�om 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 A��eal oF a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9, 2012 Prepared by: George Schroeder,Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Pesolution 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 CUPEPTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,California 95014 DP�AFT PESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPEPTINO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW 2,692 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY PESIDENCE AT 7738 HUNTPIDGE LANE SECTION I: PPOTECT DESCPIPTION 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 FOP A TWO-STOPY PEPMIT: 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 rec�uirements of the R1, Parking, Landscape, and Fence ordinances;and the two-story non-discretionary permit procedural rec�uirements. 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 imp�rovements 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 review. The two-story home is modest in size and is not the only two-story home in the neighborhood. The project design is similar with other two-story homes in the neighborhood on Tomki Court and Jollyman Lane. Further, the project is compatible in terms of mass and bulk with other two-story ranch style homes on Huntridge Lane, 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 generally 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 rec�uirements; is 13 Draft Resolution 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 p�rovide 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 rec�uirements (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 by proposing additional privacy plantings and agreeing to install 8 foot high fencing on the side yards of the property, pending neighbor app�roval. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, e�ibits, 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 ADMINISTEPED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPPOVED PPOTECT 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 APPPOVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans. 3. ACCUPACY OF THE PPOTECT 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. CONSTPUCTION PLAN SET PEVISIONS/CLAPIFICATIONS 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. 5. PPIVACY PLANTING The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 14 Draft Resolution R-2012-26 October 9, 2012 6. PPIVACY PPOTECTION 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 PPIVACY MITIGATION MEASUPES 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 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 OTHEP DEPAPTMENTS 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. EXTEPIOP BUILDING MATEPIALS/TPEATMENTS 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, PESEPVATIONS OP OTHEP 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. 15 Draft Resolution 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: COMMISSIONEP�S: NOES: COMMISSIONEP�S: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONEP�S: ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP�S: ATTEST: APPPOVED: Gary Chao Marty Miller,Chair City Planner Planning Commission 16 George Schroeder From: Hengfu Hsu [hengfu@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:44 PM To: George Schroeder Subject: 7738 Huntridge Lane (R 2012-26) Hi, We live in 7737 Huntridge Lai1e, right in front of the house applying for permit to build 2-story house on 7738 Huntridge Lane. We feel the project is not compatible with the homes in the neighborhood because (1) the homes in the neighborhood are primarily one-story, less than 2000 sq feet. (2) we have privacy concern about inany of the windows on the proposed 2nd level siilce the homes in the neighborhood were not built to prevent the issue. Please aslc the applicant to scale bacic the design or modify the design to address tllese issues. Thanlcs a lot. Regards, Hengfu Hsu Cell Plione: 408-892-1991 Office Phone: 408-916-5689 Fax: 408-608-0054 i 17 , , p � � (� i��i �' f�� auc d � ��T2 CONCERNS REGARDING PROJECT PROPOSAL ON 7738 HUNTRIDGE LANE By This feedback is in response to the letter of notification dated July 31, 2012 regarding an application for a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane. I have spent a fair amount of time discussing this subject with many of my neighbors and I have not found one neighbor in support of the present project proposal at 7738 Huntridge (hereto referred to as the present proposal). More specifically,there is unanimous opposition to the present proposal amongst all 8 of the noticed neighbors (see Appendix A for a copy of the opposition letter; the original will be submitted in person to George Schroeder on 8/14/12). Below I will summarize many of our concerns, with some additional detail about the extreme impact that this present proposal would have on our quality of life. The primary concern is that I completely disagree with the statement"City Staff believes that the project is compatible with homes in the neighborhood"which was stated in our notification letter. I believe that the present proposal is much too big for this neighborhood and especially for this type of location; a b0'x100' lot in the middle of other mostly b0'x100' lots. For supporting evidence, I cite the City of Cupertino's R1 ordinance as follows: (1) Section 19.28.110 (B) 1.states "The mass and bull<of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in term of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights,and entry feature heights." I believe that the present proposal is not even close to compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. If we start by looking at just Huntridge Lane and Carriage Circle(which backs up to 7738 Huntridge), there is only onetwo story home in the 24 properties on these two streets. If you expand your view to include the 6 properties at the end of Rose Blossom Drive which join Huntridge along the bend and are in view from the street in front of 7738 Huntridge,you would still have only 2 two-story homes out of 30 properties. Whether you count 1 of 24 or 2 of 30,there is no reasonable math which would conclude that any two story proposal at 7738 is compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. In addition, the present proposal is disproportionately larger than the neighborhood pattern in all areas; square footage, FAR, heights, pitches, etc. Also note that the present proposal is even much larger than the only existing two-story homes within view and that each of these existing two story homes has unique circumstances which minimize their impact on the neighborhood. For more a more detailed analysis, please see Appendix B. (2) Section 19.28.140 (B) 3. states "The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood." I do not believe that the present proposal is even slightly harmonious with the existing neighborhood. The project applicant himself even stated to me that this is nothing like anything in this neighborhood. The existing neighborhood is a reasonable mix of fairly well kept original dwellings and modest one story remodels which are quite harmonious in scale and design with each other and define the feel of this general neighborhood. I believe that the best way to understand this is to park near the end of Rose Blossom Drive and walk from 7775 Huntridge toward Stelling, across Huntridge and south on Stelling, down and around Carriage Circle, return north on the same side of Stelling, back up Huntridge in front of 7738 all the way to 7794 Huntridge. I believe 18 that this on the ground view provides the best feel for how disruptive the present proposal would be to the harmony of our general neighborhood. (see Appendix C for map) (3) Section 19.28.140(B)4. states"Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated." I do not believe that any two-story home in the middle of a group of mostly 60'x100' lots with all one-story homes on all adjoining lots can ever be mitigated well enough to minimize adverse visual impacts on such adjoining properties, For the present proposal,the size and height prevents even massive mitigation from achieving the intended result. Even if there was a more modest two-story proposal in this location,there would need to significantly more mitigation to reasonably mitigate adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties, protect privacy and preserve quality of life. Please see Appendices C, D and E for more detail. In addition to the above concerns,there are some basic common sense observations which I believe are relevant; - The present proposal is much too big and out of place for this neighborhood; there are no 5 bedroom, 3 bath homes in this immediate vicinity for a reason; on this type of location, a 5/3, 2692 square foot home is not a suburban home; it is an urban design; intended for people who want to live in an urban environment. The 5 adjoining properties were purchased between the years of 1995 through 2003 and we all purchased these homes because we wanted to live in a suburban neighborhood. If the present owner at 7738 had wanted to live an urban environment,then he should have moved there instead of buying this home in 2009 and trying to force his desire for urban living on this suburban neighborhood. Several other nearby neighbors are original owners from 1961 and they expect the city to protect them from urban living in our neighborhood. - The present proposal is much too tall. I live in the adjacent property at 7752 Huntridge just to the west of 7738. At 25-27' height, we will lose a significant amount of natural light and warmth from reaching our home.This will negatively impact our ability to provide heat and light to the 3 bedrooms on the east side of our home and have a financial impact to our gas and electric bills for the rest of our lives.These types of impacts are expected in an urban environment; but are not fair and just when they are forced onto a predominantly one story, suburban neighborhood. - The present proposal includes a first floor room layout which will have significant impact on our quality of life. When neighborhoods are designed, builders and planners tend to do a good job alternating layouts to provide minimal impact from adjacent living areas to adjacent sleeping areas. In the existing layouts, 7738 has bedrooms on the west side and 7752 has bedrooms on the east side. When 7738 has guests in their living rooms or even backyard there is minimal impact to 7752 and vica versa. With the present proposal,there are large, high ceiling, entertaining rooms with large windows on the west side adjacent to our children's bedrooms. This does NOT work. 'We depend on the city to have some common sense when reviewing new project proposals and understand that in the middle of 60'x100' lots,the location of the entertaining areas should not be moved from the original locations to new locations next to adjacent bedrooms. This isjust plain common sense. 19 �P�P�� ; � I oppose the proposed plans for a two-story home at 7738 Huntridge Lane of which I was noticed on July 31, 2012. I do not believe the project is compatible with homes in the neighborhood. Name Address Signature Date -��C�/� -�'�./�c,� i � .�� /' , � /.� i��. Cd.�i/�y��C. �� ..ti,...�c��.-e �',a•� ,�'`� �;�°.�~� .�a 1 z-� 'Yl, - �1� �� I GG � � 1 � '� l �- �/v�� ,e �7 �� 3 �� - � F��v; . �1 I�.,�,� � �, �;�1 �7� � �,�,.: �� ' -�� -� � ` , �� - '°l'� �� C'��v t c�, C;��c��. � �3 2.c�1°� C�vr'✓t �� 77�� r �,n"�f � L��;� . �� c�t Z � ��t'G�LYan�.�n i�an c 773 I �'. .Y�'i a ��c c�c�� , � l 3 2,.e�1 �--- 20 Appendix B: Data Anaivsis supportin�Concern (1) The analysis below uses the raw data from Attachment#1 in Appendix C. This analysis is a simple, statistical analysis of the data available to me via public websites. I believe that all of the data clearly supports the details in Concern (1) above, but the most obvious metric is the FAR distribution data. No matter which analysis you prefer,the present proposal is clearly an outlier which does not belong in the data set. Below is a table of pertinent data from a group of 30 properties representative of our neighborhood. This group of 30 is comprised of all 13 properties on Huntridge Lane, all 11 properties on Carriage Circle and 6 properties from the end of Rose Blossom Drive referred to in Concern (1). It is fairly obvious that the present proposals FAR of 44.9%and square footage of 2692sqft is not compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern and is disproportionately larger than the neighborhood pattern. Figure 1: StreetNum StreetName SF LotSize FAR 7709 Huntridge 2083 6100 34.1% 7723 Huntridge 1392 6000 23.2% 7737 Huntridge 1190 6000 19.8% 7751 Huntridge 1190 6000 19.8% 7765 Huntridge 1523 5900 25.8% 7775 Huntridge 1898 7150 26.5°/a 7710 Huntridge 1404 6200 22.6% 7724 Huntridge 1626 6000 27.1% 7738 Huntridge 1126 6000 18.8% 7752 Huntridge 1449 6000 24.2% 7766 Huntridge 1190 6060 19.6% 7780 Huntridge 1649 6200 26.6% 7794 Huntridge 1190 7244 16.4% 7707 Carriage '1833 6200 29.6% 7719 Carriage 1665 6000 27.8% 7731 Carriage 1889 6100 31.0% 7743 Carriage 1975 7700 25.6% 7747 Carriage 1300 7597 17.1% 7750 Carriage 1115 10890 10.2% 7746 Carriage 1190 7688 15.5% 7744 Carriage 1190 8000 14.9% 7732 Carriage 1126 6098 18.5% 7720 Carriage 1377 6000 23.0% 7708 Carriage 1528 5900 25.9% 948 RoseBlossom 1190 6000 19.8% 940 RoseBlossom 1394 6000 23.2% 949 RoseBlossom 1370 8700 15.7% 945 RoseBlossom 1803 6955 25.9% 943 RoseBlossom 1683 5900 28.5% 939 RoseBlossom 1683 6017 28.0% Statistics number of Sauare samples 30 Footaqe LotSize FAR average '1474 6620 22.8% median '1399 6079 23.2% stdev 288 1113 5.5% min 1115 5900 10.2% max 2083 10890 34.1% ran e 968 4990 23.9% 21 Next is a histogram plot of the FAR data from the previous table in Figure 1. When displayed graphically, it is even more glaring how much the present proposal does not fit in#his neighborhood. Figure 2: Histogram 7 � 30 Neighborhood 6 Properties 5 � 7738 Proposal 4 � 3 2 L,L _ 1 0 1�DOo10 t��O10 t��Oo,o 1'O10 6Oo10 �Oo10 O10 �Oo10 �O10 O10 �• �• 3 �` � P� D�° FAR 22 i If one were to restrict the analysis to only the nearly rectangular lots with lot size between 5900 to 6200 square feet,then we would be left with 21 properties. This group represents the majority of properties in our neighborhood and also some of the unique and extreme challenges when FARs exceed 33%on a lot in the middle of a group of mostly 60'x100' lots. Here again it is obvious that the present proposal is not compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern and is disproportionately larger than the neighborhood pattern. Figure 3: StreetNum StreetName SF LotSize FAR 7709 Huntridge 2083 6100 34.1% 7723 Huntridge 1392 6000 23.2% 7737 Huntridge 1190 6000 19.8% 7751 Huntridge 1190 6000 19.8% 7765 Huntridge 1523 5900 25.8% 7710 Huntridge 1404 6200 22.6% 7724 Huntridge 1626 6000 27.1% 7738 Huntridge 1126 6000 18.8% 7752 Huntridge 1449 6000 24.2% 7766 Huntridge 1190 6060 19.6% 7780 Huntridge 1649 6200 26.6% 7707 Carriage 1833 6200 29.6% 7719 Carriage 1665 6000 27.8°/o 7731 Carriage 1889 6100 31.0% 7732 Carriage 1126 6098 18.5% 7720 Carriage 1377 6000 23.0% 7708 Carriage 1528 5900 25.9% 948 RoseBlossom 1190 6000 19.8% 940 RoseBlossom 1394 6000 23.2% 945 RoseBlossom 1803 6955 25.9% 943 RoseBlossom 1683 5900 28.5% Statistics number of Square samples 21 Footaqe LotSize FAR average 1491 6077 24.5% median 1449 6000 24.2% stdev 274 220 4.3% min 1126 5900 18.5% max 2083 6955 34.1% range 957 1055 15.7% 23 i � Next is a histogram plot of the FAR data from figure 3. Once again, when displayed graphically, it is even more glaring how much the present proposal does not fit in this neighborhood. Figure 4: H istog ram 7 ■ 21 of 30 Properties (Square ; 6 foota e from 5900 to 6200 J ) 5 0 7738 Proposal ; 4 ' ; 3 �. 2 1 0 ��O'O ��O'o ��O'o Oo'o �Oo'O �O,o Oo'o O,o �Oo10 O'o �' ti � �` �' c� c� FAR 24 �+PP�Nai� L ��t�4�"(�-� ��€:"i"`�;�q`v'�'�.� � ��`��,� "� e,,t,�F.' u;i �V'a��''�: �j °6��`y�� Tf"'�. `� �� 4U�t �t m ��,��"��"�T � . Pr��'.c°�,�c�a�. �� '�,� ,� ��'� 1�l��"��°��,,' � t,��L� .�.... ._. , _ _.��,ti�.. �, .W„�,�..�.�,a,�,.� - �� ,:�.�.:�. ...� ..,..��.�—�. 4 .:�� _ _ . °� �''C .-- ,� , , _ -�- ,q �; �.�-. .,�.��... ��r� �� "�� e� � r R�� p,,c1, �i�:�.-y,�. � , ��v��,�..x.�.,,,�,.,�. E�r !� '°"�!`�� a�`��..' a �yl'F`�...,.sf \a^i" v+''�.�-� • /�`7• C"�f�-'� . 'h'q"" N' "•�� - +�.� . . � ' by'F �(�� ,�• ��j �, �� /y�� -� �_� � ��:� ./ I� �'� �� . , °"� i �G� � �l� ti �� °f W �� , 6.`O �� V` (�" � � � � �� c� .. �^" "'"1� �. �` �i ,�t � �«��,�"+ ��' ��y'= �;, � � � '7.�'��ra `-�' � � � !; C2 �6,.�+ N y r� ...�t . ,« .., � . ....... ��N., . . ..�. . . �� r, ��"� / � `�+' �.. _ _��,�i� 1�'�'��"�c�� '�� -°;.��o�.��,.'' �. '° `� � ��-��°��°5=� �, o � �I , � ti � � `y �,� �� 25 �f� � � °� � `� �'� �� °-- 4. t� � l'.7 ,�,•a?<:�"� �+ � � � � ��, �.t�,", `°' � � !�. .� �`�,r.��M`.' .S aS ,- n � , rc�.. �av�.'[-�' ' � /4 !�,'Y y% ��`��-�� //I 2��''� �.� �t'_� ��,Y,.;Y�,�� t� , � 3 �� s�=°�y j� �, � �J��,��?�'� i �' � �� r"�, � '� �`� 21 � �� '�.� . ' � � � � �� ? "' � � :;. . .�. �• f "30Q;cAN-'c�'"� � L`��f•�'?�F�irg �i °,:."�.t h(4�� f4�.., h�.7 � � P'; 1�-' °�d Q� L� � :..._. �. .. . .. .. � ` � 4 � � , � _ '� , , �' p� �"fa ��.+� tl�d R''��.�`� V�1�`� �='I ��'�?�;�� r �,�^ �� Y � .� � a V Y��j/`�'�� n ° � '�'� �, ° � c.a '�e� �� "�';� ��•� � � � � � ��ci ° ��b��,v... � � �t� .r�l�l?ly,.� � � 1�� n t4 �'� � � �y �� '`w �� Ga /Y� (� pt 'C�C. ,t�B r ` . rv �y��'..a,y�f3O�� "P.�'�� .�� Gn. - -�- t� r .� �+ t? fy�,, r .� �Q��,ra��fK.l;��9'�' � 1��C°�r�� ''�`� �1� °� . `t� �4�_ . 'p � � � cyryp� C� � ! �+ /f� .'��,.�5 , �'�� ; ; �;�' n�� , � i I f �� ♦ � ' f ,5 h �I . � ''Lx,� o �• , �� J ��,�,� �, �6 .. .� �;y � ! � f�,' '°? +�o� �,,, .�'� A�"2�.<�_ � �� ,�vt�s� ,; �p \\� �' �:�` r ��, `:�C �" �'�.. . `p � i� � P�'�°�7� 6 � ��` iz�3�a�i�re;' `/� �� CH� � J� ��".��.. `� # ('�E'_ � �q � �i `��"t�� G � ,�,,. �;,� ��dl ° �6' - .-. ;�6� �� '� • � ma° � � J�i � 6' � '�,° .�`., ° i `°y a.�.�`° Gt` � ��,a<�'c�'' . � .�� ,��'&� �; `' � � � � �k�'�� Qa � i �' �j �'t �,,�,� • ��,v��l A �',,, P�� . � j , � �" o�' '�a�'�'�'LL�� ..�� `� `�� (. �3�,��/� `� �`�`\�:`� . �e r i��1�l��1/C"JC��r��` � c,�� `�N �`, . ��. ,�•.�� ,�' N� �� `1'•�.s �� t`- `v1 5`�7.�1 i� � . _ � ,�� ,�c�,��°�`�J �`�� j�+FGTy?�a� �dfe '`f' t� � ` � U � � � :�� ' � � - q �� '� �� r� `� � G ,�,� '�.�'j \� .°�u` � ^ d rrp �a t.fl� ;E?'"� C`�.� \�V �c4 . . � �[�dn ,� 6! 1 �� `�p, � g�� ti� '!�, � � a� `':`-' �c� � �`� ,;- � M � 4t. � �°� .. � � \ � '5� �} � 0.� �� `\��,¢��0 °�� 9 '� \g�`•�,�� -,� � � ��° � .� �� s,�� `�`��-��Zj �'� N c�"t�`��° �°' �� '� �, ,�� ` � � 6j }_----�--°' �t�,� �� .�o�' ~��'Q�, �°�.�� '� �} �� .c�- �.�� ` �� o�o�- �� rr��°�� .,��., �w,�`�' � ��°�� Q �,�.r�t•✓a w��+��°��::� � �� ,� `\ � ��..a..,y�l�f+d e,. k.h�'��''lt�a � 3� �,��;� ��'�, �.��'��':=:� � � 7 � � �� j � ��;-��s a�F �;,.r-�ta� � g2�,��,�€� • . �� Z.�� fj�� ,�,Sz m��°e.��;� .� � � � ��.> ,,.� `.�,� `� .¢°'' � C�a .`✓ �,� �e `,�� ° t`�' r� �� . �`�y �� .`7_�S ':•4 1� . �,. d 25 1 I Appendix D: An undesirable but possible alternative If the city decides to allow any two story proposal to proceed at 7738 Huntridge, I believe it must be scaled back significantly to avoid introducing urban living iato our suburban neighborhood. Changes which would minimize the impact to adjoining properties might be: 1. Improve the design to bring the FAR below 33%. 2. Reduce the overall square footage significantly. 3. Reduce the height to the absolute minimum; 8 foot room height on 1st floor, less on 2nd floor, lower pitch roofs. 4. Redesign first floor layout to have mostly bedrooms along the west side with entertaining rooms moved to the front and/or bacl<. 5. Minimize windows on the west side to minimize noise impact toward 7752 Huntridge east facing bedrooms. 6. Re- locate outdoorAC unit to the rear of the property and provide significant surrounding, evergreen shrubs to minimize the noise impact on adjoining properties. 7. Frost all second story windows on the west and east sides regardless of height to protect privacy for all adjoining properties. 8. The combination of large windows in the rear, 2°d story, Master Bedroom, at^' 15-20 foot height and the unusually large rear setbacks of 30' 1St floor and 34' 2nd floor, results in a massive privacy issue to the adjacent backyards at 7752 Huntridge, 7724 Huntridge, 7719 Carriage Circle � and 7743 Carriage Circle. Typical rear setbacks on adjoining properties are 10-20'. There needs to be some sort of design change to prevent this issue. 9. 8' fence (7'wood planks, 1' lattice:) similar to existing styles should be included on all 3 sides; east, south, and west. 10. Significantly increased mitigation. Please see Appendix E for details. 26 Appendix E: Improved mitigation If the city decides to allow any two story proposal to proceed at 7738 Huntridge, I believe it must be scaled back significantly; as suggested in Appendix D for a starting point. Even with a more modest second story at this location,there would need to be a significant expansion to the landscaping plan to achieve reasonable mitigation against adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties. (1) Due to the unique location of a 60'x100' lot in the middle of mostly 60'x100' lots,this project should be required to do a full Landscape Project Submittal with landscaping expanded to at least 3000 square feet. (2) The city should take into account the fact that items(E) in the landscape plan of the present proposal (existing Maple and Persimmon)are mature, deciduous trees which will not grow much higher and do not provide any mitigation for half of the year. � (3) Due to the unique issue noted in Appendix D, part(8),the item A in the privacy protection plan of the present proposal (Pittosporum tenufolium), needs to be extended to cover at least a 60 degree view angle in both directions. (4) Extra landscaping and mitigation should be added along the entire west side to improve privacy and noise mitigation from all first floor windows toward east facing bedrooms in 7752 Huntridge. 27 ! From: Kevin and Rochelle Chu 7724 Huntridge Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 D � � � � � � Aug 8, 2012 AUG 1 4 2012 To: George Schroeder SY Assistant Planner City of Cupertino Gear e5 cu �rtina.nr Re: Response to 7738 Huntridge Lane proposed design. Hello George, We are Kevin and Rochelle Chu and live at 7724 Huntridge Lane. We write to you in regards to Cupertino City Planning Division permit application R-2012-26, concerning the renovation of the house adjacent to us, 7738 Huntridge Lane. We are opposed to the plans, as submitted to the Cupertino Planning commision. We would ask the planning commision to take a second look to ensure the plans meet the requirements for the immediate neighborhood. We worry that the loss of privacy by adding a second story to our neighboring home will actually decrease the value of our home. Our master bathroom faces west, towards 7738 Huntridge. It is small and was built at a time when the window was considered adequate ventilation. Thus, the bathroom was buiit without a ventilation fan and we must open the window when using the shower or risk mold and mildew damage. The existing fence and landscaping allow for sufficient privacy when this window is open. However, the proposed plans endanger that privacy. If the plans for a second story go forward we insist on the following changes: 1. Fence a. We request a waiver for replacing the 6 foot fence between the two properties with an 8 foot fence. b. We require that the 8 foot fence be written into the design plans. c. We require that the two flowering vine plants growing on trellises attached to the current fence not be removed. Instead, they should be preserved and allowed to grow on the new fence. The old trellises should be preserved, or new appropriate trellises provided and included on the plans. These plants provide both a scenic view and additional privacy for both the master bedroom and master bathroom. 2. Top story windows a. On the "left side elevation" (i.e. the east side of 7738, facing our property) there are 8 new windows on the proposed second floor. This seems excessive, especially since the only thing that can be seen out of those windows is our house and our property. b. We require that the windows on the bathroom be frosted. 28 c. We require that the east-facing windows on the east bedroom be removed. i. These windows are on the edge of the house and would be unaffected by the fence. ii. This leaves the room with north-facing windows for both light and emergency egress, as marked on the plans. d. We require that the east-facing windows on the south bedroom be removed. i. These windows can only see into our property. ii. The room wil) still have a south-facing window for light and egress, as marked on the plans. e. We do not require any changes to the north bedroom. 3. Hours of construction a. We have a young child who is not yet in school and stays home all day. He requires one to two naps a day. b. Ideally, there would be no construction. c. We request that construction not start before 9AM on any day of the week. We thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or comments. Best regards, Kevin Chu Rochelle Chu 7724 Huntridge Lane 408 446 1633 klchu u�hoo.com rochelle.chu mail,com 29 . „ 10300 Torre Avenue F: Cupertino, California 95014 _� •` t Telephone: (408) 777-3308 �, � C�7Y o� FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPE�TII�IQ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �E�TCE .A.PPRO�A.L � �� 1 z ( ATE) : I am an adjoining property owner of +'�� 5�'- � (Na�� Q wllose property is Iocated at 7 3� �l�n � �'}� �� t T , (ADD SS) I approve (per Section 16.28.040 of the Cupertino Muiucipal Code) the allowance of a _ �2"� foot high fence facing m.y property. (8 FT.MA.XIMLTM) � �SIGNED: Name:_ �o cl�V� �� Address:� �/" �c�nnP,�n� � �S ot�--� � G:IPlanning4l17SCLLLIFe�icelFence Approval For»i.doc Updnted 8/25/1005 30 George Schroeder From: Sandhya Sreepathy[ssreepathy@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 7:05 PM To: George Schroeder Cc: v sree@yahoo.com Subject: File Number R-2012-26 Hi George We would like to object this pennit as neighbors residing at 7743 Carriage Circle. There are ranch style homes(some of them remodeled recently) on carriage circle and Huntridge and if this pennit is approved this would result in a 2 two-story building which would encroach the privacy of not only our home but our neighbor's as well as we spend considerable time in our backyard. If you would like to reach out to us to get inore infonnation, please feel free to contact us at the above email addresses or cell (408)-981-7743 Regards Sandhya i 31 George Schroeder From: Ravi Alladi [ravi.alladi@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:57 PM To: George Schroeder Subject: Plan to build 2 story house at 7738 Huntridge Lane, Cupertino To Mr. Geore Schroeder Assistant planner City of Cupertino Santa Clara Cotiuity, CA From Ravi Alladi 7719 Carriage Circle Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Reference to file# R-2012-26-Objection to build 2 story house at 7738 Huntridge Lane, Cupertino Dear Mr. Schroeder, I am writing to raise our objection to the proposed 2 story building at the above place on the grounds of peace, privacy & aesthetic value . We (Ravi&Renuka Alladi) are the residents living behind tlle proposed Two- story Permit house at 7738 Huntridge Lane. We have been here since 2003 and intend living longer. We would lilce to prevent anything would result in the value of our property daclining. We feel strongly about this . If you grant perinission to t11is structure, others will follow and change the loolc and feel of the neighborhood, even affecting the value of our property. Please record our objection Thanlcs. Ravi Ravi Alladi note new cell number �4OK) �1.4-9690 (mobile) i 32 i George Schroeder From: Bala Mani [bmani@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 8:03 PM To: George Schroeder Cc: Bala Mani " Subject: Objection to build 2 story house at 7738 Huntridge Lane, Cupertino To Date: August 5, 2012 Mr. Geore Schroeder Assistant planner City of Cupertino Santa Glara County, CA From B. Mani 7731 Carriage Circle Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Reference to file# R-2012-26-Objection to build 2 story house at 7738 Huntridge Lane, Cupertino Dear Mr. Schroeder, Per your suggestion on last week (over the phone), I am writitng this e-mail letter in addition to my voice mail and conversation with you. We (Bala & Chitra Mani) are the residents living behind the proposed Two-story Permit house at 7738 Huntridge Lane. We object to build this 2 story building because, because this will disturb our privacy& look odd in this neighborhood i.e, The 6 feet fence is �10 feet away from our windows and the people live at the proposed house shall peek through our property. Also, we do not want to see a big wall infront of us within 10-18 feet(when we look through our windows). This also look ackward when one house standing tall amidst other houses in the 2 blocks. However, we do not have any objection for single story house with expansion. We would apprecaite your kind consideration to reject 2 story and permit single story. Thanks. Bala &Chitra Mani 1 33 l OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM�NT CITY HA�L ---- --- 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 ��j"("�� (408) 777-3308• FAX(408)777-3333• planning�,a�cupertino.orq August 23, 2012 Amit Goel or Ruchi Aggarwal 7738 Hunt�idge Lane Cupertino, Ca 95014 SUBJECT: TWO STORY PERMIT ACTION LETTER- Application R-2012-26 This letter confirins the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on August 23, 2012; �pproving a Two-Story Permit for a new 2,692 square foot single fainily residence, located at 7738 Huntridge Lane,with the following conditions: 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 Tl1e conditions of approval set forth s11a11 be incorporated into and annotated on t11e building plans. 3. ACCURACY OF THE PROTECT PLANS The a�plicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including l�ut not limited to property boundary locations, Uuilding setbacl<s, property size, building square foot�ge, any relevant easements �nd/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data inay invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 4. CONSTRUCTION PLAN SET REVISIONS/CLARIFICATIONS Prior to issuance of building permits, t11e const�uction plan subinittal sh�ll include the following information: a. Show the material of tlze driveway. Pervious and/or decorative paving material is recommended, b. Completed Water-Efficient Design Checl<list(Appendix A of the L�ndscape Ordin�nce) c. Incorporate the City's standard t�ee protection measures (Appendix A of t11e Protected Tree Ordinance) for the hees to remain. d. The total building height shall be consistent throughout the plan set. 5. PRIVACY PLANTING The fuzal privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building perinits. 6. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inforin future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent wifih the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less fiorn t11e second story finished floor. The precise language will be sul�ject to approval by the Director of Cornmunity 34 Two-Story Perinit Action Letter � Page 2 R-2012-26 Development. Proof of recordation must be suUrnitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 7. ADDITIONAL PRIVACY MITIGATION MEASURES The applicant shall Ue required to plant additional privacy t�ees and/or shrubs along the side and rear property lines by the lzouse prior to final occup�ncy, The plan s11a11 Ue reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. Prior to final occupancy, the property owner shall record � covenant on this property to inform future property owners of this requirement, Tlze precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Con�ununity Developrnent. Proof of recordation must be suUmitted to the Cornrnunity Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. Tlzis requirement may be waived or modified in writing by t11e 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 Cornmunity Development Department. 9. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, inaterial, architectural heatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final Uuilduzg exterior plan shall closely resemUle the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes • deterinined to be suUstantial by the Director of Cornmunity Development shall require a minor inodification approval with neighborhood input. 10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS,RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS Tlze 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 tlze ainount 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 wllich you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has Uegun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying witlz all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will Ue legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Staff received comments from several neighbors not in support of a two-story project. The concerns centered on the compatibility of a two-story residence within a predoininantly single-story neighborhood; the bull<, mass, and height of the residence; and privacy impacts. Some neighbors suggested rnodifications to the design, including, but not limited to, reducing floor aiea, height, and windows;mal<ing windows opaque;relocating the A/C unit;rearranging the floor plan;increasing fence height;limiting construction hours;increasing landscape area; and additional privacy�lantings. The zoning in the neighborhood allows for two-story development and the project meets all the prescriptive requireinents of the R1 Ordinance, including but not limited to, floor area iatio, height, setbacks, and privacy protection. In addition, this project is not subject to design review. In order to help mitigate privacy concerns, the applicant has agreed to a condition to install privacy plantings around the side and rear of the 1louse, even when it is not typically required since most second story windows are at least 5 feet above the finish floor. Additionally, fhe applicant voluntarily agreed to const�uct an 8 foot hig11 fence on both sides of the property (beyond the 20 foot front setbacl< area) pending affected neighbor approval. � 35 Two-Stoiy Pernut Action Letter i Page 3 R-2012-26 The setbacl< of tlle A/C unit conforms to the Accessory Structure Ordinance requirements per Chapter 19.100 of the municipal code. The City does not have any prescriptive location and size requirements for the interior floor plan. The project is not subject to a landscape project submittal per C1lapter 14.15 provided that planting area is less than 2,500 square feet. The project is subject to the const�uction 11our and noise limitations per Chapter 10.48. Please be aware that if this permit is not used within two years,it shall expire on August 23,2014. Staff 11as made all the findings that are required for approval of a Two-Story Permit as required by the Cupertino's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.150 (B). Also,please note that an appeal of this decision can be rnade within 14 calendar days frorn the date of this letter. If this happens,you will be notified of a public hearing,which will be scheduled before the Planning Cornrnission. Sincerely, George Schroeder Assistant Planner City of Cu�ertino 408-777-7601 georges@cupertino.org Enclosures: Approved Plan Set Cc: Scott Hughes,7752 Hunt�idge Lane,Cupertino,CA 95014 Sandhya Sreepathy,7743 Carriage Cir,Cupertino,CA 95014 Balaraman Mani,7731 Carriage Cir,Cupertino,CA 95014 Ravi Alla�i,7719 Carriage Cir,Cupertino,CA 95014 I<evuz and Rochelle Chu,7724 Hunt�idge Lane,Cupertino,CA 95014 Eivie Cant�vell,7751 Hunt�idge Lane,Cupertino,CA 95014 Heng-Fu Hsu,7737 Hunhidge Lane,Cupertvlo,CA 95014 Wenrong Huang,7723 Hunhidge Lane,Cupertino,CA 95014 36 1 � City of Cupertino p � � � � U � 10300 Torre Avenue CUPERTINO Cupertino, CA 95014 S�P - 4 2012 (408) 777-3223 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1, Application No.: �� R �� " �� , - 2. Applicant(s)Name: ��h �'t' ��, ��.� � 3. Appellant(s)Name: 5'��-�° �� C��"� Address: �7 °� � °� 1�V��V�G� iC� �,,f�-(�� Phone Number: �W�� -� � L� �°) Email: � � �.� �r �k�G,!��S��r��'>t��` 4. Please check one: L� Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development ❑ Appeal a decision of Director of PuUlic Worlcs ❑ Appeal a decision of Planning Commission ❑ Appeal a decision of Design Review Committee ❑ Appeal a decision regarding a Tentative Map ❑ Appeal a decision regarding Street Improvements ❑ Appeal a decision of Code Enforcement- Massage 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: �f�� I 'Z 6. Basis of appeal: �., �� k`� `T 1r1�t� i 5 F�v�� 4'�-.�"�°� r, N°��l�i��,�t�1� � c��''�� .� �°'��N L—c c�°�" '�-��3 E��-cuz.�P�r� t��4s�� , t�,�.� -��r5 aa�-c�c,�7J `� R�'�,5� �� T c-� ��!—` z� C&A"Y�m� ,p ��.as-`P •T 1-tcc�ll�= �-�'��S ��'� .� �.'�-i,r..�--� , �tyr�(a`'��CT�S i� •-t'1� t�� r�'�'e•'��'sf.� o� �c.g'21 r'�5� "��%� "��' d>\�-�"� `s�� C�,��v� �d� ��' S�,3�� ti� ` � ►oo.—.r' Signature(s) �% � Please complete form, include appeal fee of$170.00 pursuant to Resolution No, 12-033 ($160.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223 G:\City Clerlc�Appeals�Appeal form.doc 37 _� _� -�-) r -�1-��s ��"ti �a�� s wv��. °r�c� -� �;�� , � �c� , � �. .. .., . ;� ��a � �.�ts,��-��>�-��<-�,. �a� �—�`� �� u�� , ��r��'��r,c��q r�`�.� � �'j � �� .c��— #�� ' c�`( � �. -�.'��'1��G�l� 'D��,�-�-�t� cs� G� �il��' �_� � � �� x r r. 'v �= ` �4 *F ��{ �;-�.� �c�, �� t�-�..,—� � � ��o �..�.��-��-�j ��_:.� � �� ` � c� w�ahs °� .;�c� ��"�'r.7�v�— ��i � �M''� � '�c.. � ��L� � �,� ��,� s 1 ; ; , � {a� ,e �3w�^��L''C� °F—"�va�lr�'�.9"�+Cr �'�'� � �^�F� ."�'C°'C_`'� �".:... � % � � � � ��i�"� .� � � o �--� `. � � � lo,.�� °l . � g' ... � �� ,3� r � � � � , i �� C�� a ,��.��s �� L 1 v��s` �o,� ��-c'.9�!-� �� -`� �t�e�� ''�c�-� C��c�c'�.�`°�� -'�'� -�'�� L..l'arN�'',� �� c-l-�'�+t v� � ��t�1-� ,� �� °''`�'�►' � �� .�� v `� t-(-�'.`�,��c�� "''c� .. � �� ,-�� "� �'G w�`� �� yp{�,�r � � �..�^� w^'1� ��^��sX A � �� °� ' i_• v -~� I 'ei bc,�;.,.c.�c�'�' d��'�-�a.� �, t�si►- .� �w'a'� �� °�'A-`� ��°c �.� t,�,�o„�,�. tf�V�� —v —r� (�`'� � � -�-;�-� , �r�c.,- � �d'i � 38 5catt Hughes From: 5cott Hughes cscottahughes@comcast.net� Sent: Monday, August 13, ZD12 1�.;�4 PM Ta: 'Gearge 5�hraeder' Cc_ kfchuC�yahaa.com; 6ala Mai�i [}�mani@earthlink.net}; ravi.alla�fi@gt�riail,cam;v_sree[]yahoo.cam; scottahughes@comcast.net 5uhject: Comments regarding aplieation R��12-25 at 7738 Huntridge Lane noticed on July 31, �412 Attachments: 7738 �lUNTF2IDGE �A�iE�8131�a.dac GeQrge, Please see the attached file for my input. If you have any issues with this file,�alease call me ASAP and!will deliver a capy on a 1J56 thum�drive. In additian, I will �e dropping off the original hard capies of ihe two scanned-in attachments to yau tomarr�w rriorning. Sasec4 a�t the overwhelming opposition anci significant number af issues,we all expec't that the ❑irector wiil rejeGt i'his�arQjeGt in its present s#ate. Hawever,if for some reasan it is appro�ed on 8f 15,then I will certainiy appeai. W Regards, � S�ott Hu�hes 7752 Huntridge Lane 44fl8j 5Z4-984� COHCERH5 fiEGARDING PROJ�CT PROPUSAL DN 7738 HUNTRIDG£ LANE This feedback is in respflnse ta the letter of notifi�ation dated July 31, 2fl�2 regarding an applicatian for a Two-5tary Permit at 7738 H�ntridge Lane. i have spent a fair amount of tirtTe discussing this suhject with many of my neighbors ar�d f have not found one neighE�or in supporf af t#�e present projec# proposal at 7738 Huntridge {hereto referred ta as the present praposal}. More specificalfy,there is unanimous apposition to the present proposal amongst alf$of the noti�ed neigh#�ors�see Appendix A for a capy of the oppasitian fetter; ihe original will l�e submitted in person#o Gearge Schroeder or� 8�14�12}. Below I wiil sumt�nariae many vf our con�erns,with some additional de#ail a�nut the extreme impact thaC this present prnposal would ha�e on our quaiity of life. The primary�or�cern is tha#I�ompfetely di5agree with the statemen# "City Staff believes that Ef�e project is campatit�le with homes in the neighborhoor#"which was stated in our notificatinn letter. i belie�e that the present propasal is much to❑ big for thES neight�o�'hood ar�d espec�ally far this type of lacation; a 6�'x100' lot in the middle of other mosCly 50'x100' lots. Far supporting evidence, E cite the City af Cupertin�'s R1 ordinance as follaws: [1y 5ecfion 19.28.1ID�By 1. states"The mass and bulk o#the design should be reasonably�ompatible with the predominant neighborhoad pattern. New�anstructinn should not be disproportianateky larger than,ar vut of sca�e with, the neighborhood pattern in term of building forms, rnaf pitches, ea�e heights, ridge heights,and entry feature heights." I belie�e tha#t�re present proposai is nat e�en close ta compatiE��e with the predomir�ant neighl��rhood pa#tern. If we Start hy fooking at just Huntriclge Lane and Carriage Circle{which backs up tn 7738 Huntridge�,there is only ane twa stary hame in the 24 praperties on these two streets. �f you expand your�iew to include the 5 properties at the end af Rose Biossom Dri�e which joir� Huntridge along the hend and are in�iew fram the street in front af 7738 Ffuntridge,you wauld s#il! have only Z two-sEory homes out of 3� praperties. Whether you caunt 1 of 24 or 2 of 30,Ehere is n❑ reasvnable math which wauld canclude that any two stary propasal at 7738 is campatible with the predominan#neighi�orhoad pat#ern. In addi#ion, the present proposal is dispropartionately larger than the neighl�orhood pattern in all areas; square foa#age, FAR, heigh#s, pitch�s,etc. Also note that the present propasal is e�en much larger than the only existing twa-story homes within�iew and that each af these existing two story homes has unique cir�umstances which minimize their impa�t on th2 neighborhood. For more a mare detaifed analysis, piease see Appendix B. (2j 5ectian 19.28.140�B} 3. states"The proposed pr4�ect is harmanious in s�ale and design with th2 general neighborhood." !do nflt belie�e that the present proposal is even slightly harmonious with #he existing neighharhood. The project applicant himself even stated t❑ me ti�at this is nothing fike anything in this neighborhaod. The exist+ng neighborhaod is a reasanai�ie mix nf fiairly well kept ❑riginal dwellings and modest ane story rem�dels which are quite harmoniQUS in scale and design with each ather and define the feel of this general neighbnrl�ood. I belie�e that tF�e hest way to understand this is to park near the end af Rose Blossom ❑ri�e and walk fram 7775 Huntridge toward 5telling, across Huntridge and south on Stelfir�g, down and arouncf Carriage Circle, return north an t#�e same side of StelGng, back up Huntridge in front Qf 7738 all the way to 7794 Huntridge. I belie�e 40 that this on the grounc�view provides the best feel for how disrupti�e the prese�t prnposal w�uld k�e to the harrnany af our general neighhorhood. �see Appendix C far ma�a} [3} Section 19.2$.14��6J 4. sta#es"Ad�erse visual impa�Cs an adjoining{�roperties have been reasQnably mitigated." I d❑ not helieve thaC anytwo-stary home in the middle of a group af mas#ly GD'x10�' fots with ail ane-story homes on all adjoining lots can e�er f�e mitigated well enough to minitr�ize ad�erse�isual impacts an s�ch adjoining praperties. For the present pr�posa4,the size and height pre�ents e�en massive mitigatian fram a�hie�ing the inCended resu�t. E�en if there was a more modes#two-story proposal in this locatian,there wauld need to signifirantiy rrEOre mitigatian to reasona#�ly mitigate ad�erse visuaf impacts on adjoining proper#ies, pratect pri�acy and preserve quality af life. Please see Appendices C, D and E for mor�de#ail. !n addition to the abo�e cancerns,there are some krasic cammon sense observa#ions whi�h I believ2 are rele�ant; - The present proposal is much toa big and out of pface fQrthis neighborhood; there are na 5 hedroom,3 bath hornes in this immediate�icinity for a reasan; on thris type af l�cation,a 5/3, 2592 sq�are fovt hnme is not a suEaur€�an hame; it is an urban design; intended far peopie who want to fi�e in an urban en�ironmenE. The S adjoining properties were pur�hased between the years of 1995 through 2003 and we all purchased these homes qecause we wanted t❑ li�e in a suburban neighborhnod. If the present awner at 7738 had wanted ta li�e an urban environment,then he should ha�e ma�ed there instead of buying this ftame in 2D09 and tryir�g ta for�e his desire far url�an fi�ing on this suburban neighbnritaod. Se�eral other nearby neighbars are original owners from 1957.and tf�ey expec#the city to protect them fr�m urban ii�ing in our neighk�orhood. - The present prnposal is much too talL I live in the ad�a�ent property at 7752 Hunt�idge just ta Che west of 7738. At 25-27' height, we will lase a significant amount�f naturai light and warmth fram reaching our home.This will negati�eEy impact aur ability to provide heat and light to the 3 hedroams on the east side o€our hame and ha�e a financial impact ta our gas ar►d eiectri� k�iils for the rest of ot�r lives.These types of impacts are expected in an urban environment; but are nat fair and just when they are forced anto a predaminantly ane stQry,suburt�an neighborh�od. - The present proposal includes a first flonr room layout which will have Significant impaGt an aur quality of life. When r�eighbarhoods are designed, builders and pfanners tend ta do a gaod job alternating layQUts to pro�ide minimal fmpact from adjacent living areas ta adjacent sle2ping areas. In the existing layouts, 7738 has�iedroams on the west side and 7752 has bedrooms on the east 5ide. When 7738 h�s gue5ts in their fi�ing rooms ar e�en backyard there is minimal impact to 7752 and vi�a�ersa. With the present praposal, there are large, high ceiiing, entertaining roart�s with large windaws an the west side adjaGent to aur�hildren's bedraoms. This does NOT work. We depenr�nn the city to have same�omman sense when re�iewing new project prapasaEs and ur�derstand that in#he middle af 6�'x1QD' lots,the lacation of#he enEertaining areas should not be mo�ed from the original locations tn new lacations nex#ta adjacent bedr�oms. 1"his isjust plain �nmmon sense. 41 Appendix A: Unanimaus o pp nsit+an o#afl noticed nei�hbnr5 �ap�ase the prapqsed pians for a twa-stvey home at 773$ HUntridge Lane�f whi�h f was nvticetf vrt July 31, 201Z. I da not belie�e the project is eampaYible with hames in the neigf�barhond. Name _ Address _ 5i�nature _ �ate � 1 - r'T`: Ci�`s/ �r'S - _7� - � � '_ �-J.� ��3.�. `� 1�' � ' �C-�L`�. �GtLL•%L�t.�.L�t ��'�� I�4L�..._�C7Q-� V'�i+r� . J � �` �7�•� � A � � � � � } � �� '� �'r'S�:Z � �� j ��i I1 j?L•. .1��".v" �°.t,�:` � � 7 �"L•�� ' •'1 -! .. � � 1 �' 7 �+-j�larl7r�� : :�� I i��-1? J -��'�� i�.� f `� l L�� Jl 1/'� G� �� -`' � +l�.r,:�I -7 71`T [,.:��-�� Y i�LL;ay.f�� '�� i - ,-. } �� -:'_-e z �r_, � _2""?��, C'�..-�W� �, �� r ,� ��-�v.� ��--=�-�--- �E��3i 2�T�-� �,��,�� 7?�.�! c�l��— �!� ��L;:,� L-�— �li� �� :"��'�Y��rr^.GrY! IVjcM, �J3+ L�'_r�'i�,�j�<<r�� :3;r 7 ��_� � � 7' • , � 42 Apqendix B: Data Analysis su�partin�Cancern t1] The analysis belnw uses the raw data fram Attachment#1 in Appendix C, This analysis is a sirriplQ, statistical analysis of#he daia availahle to me via public websites. I t�eiieve that all of the data clearly supparts�he detaii5 in Concern �1J afaove, hut the most ohvious metric is the FAR distri6utinn rfata. Np matter which analysis yau prefer,the present prpposal is ciear�y an autlier whiGh does nat belang in the data set. 8elaw is a tahle nf pertinent data from a graup of 34 properties representative of our neigh�Qrhoad. 1'his group af 3� is cnmprised oi all 13 praperties an Huntridge Lane, ail 11 praperties an Carriage Cir��e and 6 properti�s from the end af Rase Biossom qrive referred to in Concern �1}, It is#airiy a��ious that the present proposals FAR of 4�.93'o and square faatage of 2692sqft is no#cor��atihle with the predaminant neighbarhoad pattern and is d+sproportionately larger than the neighborhaad patterrs. Figure 1: StreetNum S��ih}�me SF LotSixe FAR T7�9 Huntridge 2Q83 61 O� 34.1% 7723 Huntndge �392 BOQO 23.2% 773� Nuntrfdge �19� SOpD i9.g°/n 775'1 F-luntridge 919� 60dD 19.8% 7755 Huntridge 1523 59pQ 25.8% 7775 He�ntridge 1898 79 5Q 25.5% 771� Hunfridge 14Q� 8��0 22.5% 7724 f�Untridge "1626 60D0 27.9°/� 7738 l�untridge 7 125 6�D� 1$.$°/� 7752 Huntridge 'f4�49 5d00 24.2°/n 77$6 HuntriGge '�19� 60�U 99.5°/n 778� Huntridge 9649 �200 26.6% 7794 Huntridge 199Q 72�44 18.4% 77U7 Carnage 1833 8204 29.5% 77T9 Carriage 1665 BO�Q �7.c�q�p 773'f Carriage 9889 fi70D 31_p°/❑ �743 Carriag� 1975 7i0� 25_6% 7747 C�rriage `I3�fl 7597 17_1% �75fl Carriage 11'15 �Q89p 10.2% 7746 Carriage 1190 T6gg 15_5% �744 Carriage 119D BppQ 14.9°Jo 7732 C�rriage 't 9�6 609$ 18.5% 772❑ Carriage 1377 Bp0❑ 23.0°!0 7708 Carriage 1528 59Dg 25.9°fa 948 F2aseSlossom 179p 60DQ 99.8°/0 94� RvseBlossam 1394 6�p4 23.�°/0 949 Rvse6lossom 137d 87pD 15.7% 945 RaseBloss�m 18�3 6955 25.9% 943 RoseBl�ssom 1683 590Q �8.5% 939 RoseStossom 9583 6077 28.Q°/d sta iskics number�f Sauare samples 30 Faotas�e LotSi�e FAR a��ra9e 1474 fi620 22.8% median 1399 �079 23.2°/a stdeW 2$$ 1 1�3 5.5°/0 min ��75 59�Q 10.2°/u max 2083 9 U89a 34.1% ran e 968 �t99g 23.9% 43 Next is a histogram plot of the FAR data frnrrr the previous ta�ile in Figure 1. When displayed graphicaily, it is e�en more glaring how mucF�the present proposal does not fit in this neighbarhood. Figure �: � Histagram � � 3� Neighbarhvod s Praperties � ■ 7738 Prapasal � 4 � 3 LL � � I I — � — � � �-- • -. -- - , . • -- . . - � 1 �QOa,� ^��o h�ao�� `� �Qv�� Oolp �l� Ola eYoo,o Oo,u �' '1• �� `` �' D� �°' FAR 44 If a�e were to restrict the analysis ta anly the nearly rectangular Eots with !ot siae i�etween 59��to 62flfl square feet�then we wauld 6e left with 21 prnperties. This group represenCs the majority af properties in Qur neighborhoad ancf alsa some ofthe unique and extreme chaNenges when FARs exceed 33°�on a lot in the rniddle of a group nf mostly bD'xI00' lots. Here again it is obvious that the present proposai is not�ompati6le with the predomin�nt neighborhaod patCern and is disproportionately larger than the neighborhoQd pattern. Figure 3: StreetNum StreetNatne SF LotSize FAR 770g Huntridge 2a83 6100 34.1°/0 T723 Huntridge 1392 BDQa 23.2°/fl 7737 Huntridge 1'19D 6�0� 19.8°/0 775'I huntridge 119� 600Q 19.$°/0 7755 Huntridge 1523 59D0 25.8°/0 771Q Huntridge 140�# 62f]� 22.fi°/o �724 Huntridge 1526 6QQQ 27.1°/o 7T38 Huntridge 11�� B�aD 1$.$°/a 775� Hur7tridge 1449 fia00 �A.�°Io 776� Hu�tridg�: 'i 194 SQCQ 'f 9.5°/0 778Q Huntridge 'f�49 6200 G�,V4Ip 77�7 Carriage 1833 620a 28.fi°Io 7719 Carriage 1 fi65 6D00 27.8°/fl 7731 Carriage 1889 61�Q 31.0°/0 7732 Carriage 1126 6�98 18.5°Io 7720 Carriage �377 BOD� 23.0°Ia 7748 Carriage 1528 59�0 25.9°/a 948 RaseBlQSSOm 19 90 fi�dQ 19.8°/a 94d RoS�BlQSSOm �394 6�00 23.2°/0 945 FioseBfossom 1803 5955 25.9°/a 943 RaseBlossom 1583 590� 28.5°/a Statistics number af S uare samples 21 Fn❑tage LatSize FAR average 'i491 5fl77 24.5°/0 m�Clf2�n 1449 fiOD� 24.2°/0 stdev 274 22Q 4.3°In min 1 Z26 590Q T8.5°/0 max 2�83 fi955 34.1°/o ran e 957 1055 15.7°Io 45 Next is a histogram plot of the FAR data fram figure 3. ❑nce again,whert displayed graphi�ally, it is e�en more glarir�g haw much the present praposal daes nnt fit it�this neighborhaod. Figure 4: � Histogram � � � 21 af 3� Praperties �5quare � fQata�ge fram 59�0 tv �ZDq) � ■ 7738 Prvposal 4 � , 3 � 2 � i � � f -- : -• - - J � � �a�`a ��10 +��Iv �,o �1a �1� °fo °,o �`o �lD '�° �y°� ,�Q' ,�p`� ,.�'� ��: Dz°' � FAR 46 Appendix C: Raw Data_used fvr the analysis in Ap�endix B �-�-�-'�'�°'�[?�='+ F` `:r�;�' -- . �-�' r _ �.=�r:. _ �e-i}•_. �t.-� , ri rrG S� '� k�c� 1�1�1 �1l. =-.r.�� . � - � r`�r�y'�•�`�C3. , °� _.. , ��:� [�:.•,'�.' „i� V r=�k�� , � - - � . _........._ _. . _. w�,�__........_. -•.-•- _"�---7 :� i TRQCT N° 24D6 �---,��'_` �.. I '��'��' :r 4� l�:. f)' r,`f�4^. •,� .� -. .� 't'��.1�;• e, � �'�''''�� .: ^•` /::= ;... Is2£z%-- �e�> . A � 20 � y, ,� := �B ,23." z� 4� �� w � �' S7 �� - J- .. � �Cf:�.;. '4 � r ?_2 �;.. {..rl:-_ � ti ti ' �y� y: y �: :t:c: ric 3:. --} �_ � 4,a� r. W ' 1�'��i� � �:C � i�� .. :� �.- Y�F. ._ _-�_, .. -� � � /5;��.`r�:�•_.: i � G I r.7 a �. ,n � � � ^ :; 45 22 �s �f B n � ry �: 56 �� - ,- ti J `� ' , �� . ' �- - - - °-.,,- : -�.j '2..;�,:�,_ r. .� ,_3... :. s r :C]C 93�� /�'I' �r=�e:C` tf26�t-�, —=•-^ � ^�r ,.: '.:lr .., t�+ -�r ' - � ;_: 1.�„[ � .., r�, �/:�<� -�_ � �` 3 22 � � � r 4 4 z� a. 2s 49 ^ h � � m 53 3 2 � � � � r.:i.' . � .: �,q. [,, ' '. / �— ^ 1. Q '_"+.'•��ri. � i �•:�� t �. "' 9'�J.3F3 ��I'�:_• ,t.:.�7..-�i_ � ' r��-�r'� ��''�'- r � � r kS LL 7�{�'=��.7�'";l , ' ;� � 2.3 � 4,3 �� ' ' '� 'L^ ,? v .,, _ ._ � r,�, . � � " -1�• , ; 3 � � � � ,� �4. ...�;° G:. �7«' i - �• ��77'SQ'E�� c+ /e;.. . . �I a' , . ,,�., . �»°�"� .+39�._. _ _ � _..'! �� ' . �� y�' � ;� ' C: " � �n �r`3�'��` `. � � rt 'z6.35 , /z ''? ,� 24 �' � � 42 t. ` _ '' 5! �,_: _.a �� .��k��.� ..f � p R � I�;�,�Y, . �ti�� _ , ;� 53 '�,�� r 7`�:�'. � � �� -i <;� �t. p ;r 1$�' - ' l �,j ' a � J��t_ 25 � �, �� s�'� �� 4! . ?�sx --��52 � �. 'r f a i . '�'' o � � � Y: . -` _ � t8�q �'p� }�� ,�` ra- tin � � i r•a% , �a��;��a U� � -�� 6 � •' �•l ''s•, � ` =.� -� ''� �'- �{' i�D -�.- `��c�� . N -.� � _�. $ ��` �� fl 2 � �:, -�,�.�� . � l��`-� ''r �� a x �- . • _ ��. � .'f+ � ,�v.R�i.� y �%� .p J y.�'–' . • \ i3 � `�f 2�,��' '� � � ;_-� =' - °�' ?p ' � � �P� _ '• �"� �� y � .r� �_� -:. ��P e. r.�. ♦ ,� . 9 q �x'.-- i5 J- 2� , �, i v � .P.. � � �S 9, r � • :`� �'S+�� e�� $ �ka�` 59tiy $ ,�� >,ti � �_ t.q �_?� '7� _ 4��: � 9 y`• ..�' .� '��j �.i �c�_ � , a �'�r 4�D g a•�s"._.t�� ,` �"�'7 �� F ��'r.=��. � M�-" ',,`i&�r.._�-.. . � DA:[A �.��c'�T�is� i 3'� ti - -�p \6` 'j �t 2�- . � .:�� 1 03�7`. ♦ q �-r7.-:^�. w�-��-- ti � �� _".� h � �a r 1��..-..__c-..... 9'� ,,�� 's,=z7.'�7..-. _ . a� 6 • �A' \ O• r� ` `�r,-ti.e'•c'. -•- . g:.r. '`r ' �� _^� ��y �� r V! � � ��1•« s�c.- . .. ,�r. � ' L " ' � �.f �',� 34 � ti'�A � � ,� '�, .�" �' � 3• !� _ 33 � ti•qy � . . �'° .4 I 47 Aqpendix ❑: An undesirable but p�ssible alternative If#he city decides to ailaw any twa story prnpasa�to proceed at 7738 Huntridge, I helieve it must�e scaied back significantly tn a�oid introducing urban li�ing into our suburban neighhorhaad. Changes which wauid minimize the impact to adjQinir�g properties might be: 1. �mprove the design#a �ring the FAR helQw 33%. 2. fteduce the overall square foniage significantly. 3. Reduce the height to the absolute minimum; 8 foot room height on 1st flnflr, less an 2"d floor, fower pitch raafs. 4. Redesign first fEaar layout ta ha�e mostly bedrooms aiang the west side with entertaining raams ma�ed to the frnnt and�or hack. S. Minimize windaws on the west side to minimixe noise impact taward 77�2 Huntridge east facing bedrnoms. 5. Re- locate outdoor AC unit to the r�ar of the property and provide significant surrounding, e�ergreen shrubs to minimixe th2 naise impact on adjaining properties. 7. Frost all second story windows on the west and east sides regardEess nf height t❑ pratect privacy for ali adjoining pr�perties. 8. 7he camt�ination of large wincfows in#he rear,2°a story, Master Bedroom,at^' 15-2a fant height a�rd the unusually large rear setbacEcs af 30' 1S`floor and 34'2nd floor, results in a massiv2 pri�acy issue to the adjacent backyards at 7752 Huntridge, 7724 Huntridge,777.9 Carriage Circie and 7743 Carriage Circle. Typical rear sethacks on adjaining properties are 1�-2�'. There needs to t�e same sort nf design change to pre�ent this issue. 9. 8'fence [7' wood planks, 1' lattice}sirr�ila�ta existing styles should be ineluded an all 3 si�fes; east,sauth, and west. 10. Significantly increased mitigatian. Please see Appendix E�or details. 48 A endix E: Im rave� miti ation If the city decides ta allow any twa story pro}�asal to proceed at 7�38 H�ntridge, 1 helieve it must be scaied 6ack si�nifi�antly;as suggested in Appendix�for a starting point. Ev�n with a more modest secand story a#this lacatinn,there wauld need to be a significant expansion to#he landscaping plan to achieve reasona�ie mitigatian against ad�erse�isual impacts on adjoining properties. �1y d�e to the unique I�cati�n af a 6Q'x1�i�' Ipt in the middle af mostly 60'x1�a' lats,this praject shauid k�e rec{uired ta da a fuH Lancisca�e Projec#Suhmittal with lands�aping expanded to at least 3�Q0 square feet. {2J The ci#y shauld take inta�ccaunt the fact that items�� in the landscape plan of the present proposal [existing Maple ancf Persimmon�are mature, deciduous trees which will not grow much higher and da not prnvide any mitigation for half af the year. {3� f}ue ta the unique issue noted ir�Appendix[7,part{SJ,the item A in the pri�acy protectian plan of the pr�sent proposal [Pittasparum tenufoli�m}, needs to he extended ta cover at leasE a 5� tiegree�iew angle in bath dire�tions. �4y Extra landscaping and mitigatian should be added along the entir�west side to improve privacy and noise mi#igation from all first flaor windows tnward east facing hedrfloms in 775� Huntrid�e. 49 Response to Appeal Regarding Construction on 7738 Huntridge Lane 13 September 2012 This is in response to concerns raised by our neighbor regarding the construction of 2-story house at 7738 Huntridge Lane. As you already know, Cupertino city is a mix of old and new homes with many single and double story homes built adjacent to each other. Cupertino city allows 2-story homes to be built in the R1 zone as long as the design meets their requirements. We have taken great care in designing our proposed house in a way that meets ALL requirements of the city, and we have voluntarily gone beyond the requirements to mitigate the impact of the 2-story house on our neighbors. Section 1. Details of the proposed house Stories: 2 First floor: 1900 sq ft Includes garage Second floor: 792 sq ft Includes 30 sq ft of double-counting areas over 16' high Living area: 2228 sq ft Actual living floor area Garage size: 434 sq ft Double-counted area: 30 sq ft Area over the staircase Total square footage: 2692 sq ft Includes garage and double-counted area Floor area ratio: 44.87% Includes garage and double-counted area Section 2. Square footage of living area a) Our total proposed square footage of 2692 includes the garage (434 sq ft) and the double-counting that the city does for any height over 16'from the finished first floor(30 sq ft). b) The actual living floor area will be 2228 sq ft. This is the square footage we will use when we list the house for sale, and so we should use 2228 sq ft as the basis for comparing with neighboring homes. Section 3. FAR calculations a) The FAR of our proposed house is 44.87%. FAR is the ratio of the building's total floor area on all floors to the lot size. FAR calculations must take into account the garage and other attached/detached structures, as well as double-count any areas with height over 16'from the finished first floor. b) The FAR calculations shown in Appendix B in the appeal document are incorrect because they take into account only the living space of our neighbors' properties, not their garages and double-counting. If we include the garages in the FAR calculations,then assuming a 20x20 garage with a water heater, and taking thickness of garage walls into account, we can assume a garage size of 434 sq ft. Response to Appeal, 7738 Huntridge Lane Page 1 of 3 50 c) If any of these neighbors has a garage size larger than 434 sq ft, or they have other structures on their lots, or if they have areas over 16' in height, their FAR will be even higher than what is shown below. d) Below are FARs for some neighbors. The Living Area and Lot Size values have been taken from zillow.com. e) As you can see, our FAR of 44.87%compares well with our neighbors. Neighbor Stories Living Area Garage Size Double- Total Lot Size FAR (assumed) counting Floor (assumed) Area 7709 Huntridge 2 2083 sq ft 434 sq ft 30 sq ft 2547 sq ft 6100 sq ft 41.75% 927 Rose Blossom 2 2830 sq ft 434 sq ft 30 sq ft 3294 sq ft 8308 sq ft 39.65% 930 Rose Blossom 1 2410 sq ft 434 sq ft Don't I<now 2844 sq ft 6695 sq ft 42.48% Our proposed house 2 2228 sq ft 434 sq ft 30 sq ft 2692 sq ft 6000 sq ft 44.87% Section 4. Other 2-story homes nearby a) The first house on Huntridge Lane, two homes away from our home and across the street, is a 4-bedroom, 3-bath, 2-story house with 2083 sq ft of living area. b) The house at 927 Rose Blossom Drive is a 7-bedroom, 4-bath, 2-story house with 2830 sq ft of living area. c) The house at 945 Rose Blossom Drive is a 3-bedroom, 3-bath, 2-story house with 1803 sq ft of living area. Section 5. How are we mitigating impact on neighbors? a) We have voluntarily raised most second-floor windows to 5' or 6' above the floor. b) We have rear setbacks of 31' and 34' on the first floor, which is more than the allowed 20'. c) We have a first floor side setback of 12'6" on the west, which is more than the allowed 10'. d) We have voluntarily agreed to raise the fence along both side property lines to 8' height. e) We will be planting trees along the 30-degree view angle from the rear window on the second floor. f) We have voluntarily agreed to plant more trees on the side and rear, as required, to enhance privacy. g) We are not cutting any existing trees. h) We are not encroaching on the easement, which is 20' from the front property line. i) We are meeting ALL the requirements outlined in Cupertino city's R1 ordinance, which is the published guideline from the city for objectively evaluating that new homes and additions are generally compatible in scale within residential neighborhoods. Section 6. Neighbors' bedrooms need not face each other a) This is in response to our west neighbor's (7752 Huntridge Lane) comment regarding our proposed entertainment areas being close to their bedrooms. b) Our existing family room directly faces the east neighbor's (7724 Huntridge Lane) master bedroom along the same property line with only a 5' setback on each side. This is by design. Response to Appeal, 7738 Huntridge Lane Page 2 of 3 51 c) Given the permission to inspect some homes in the neighborhood, I am quite certain we will find other homes where neighbors' bedrooms and entertainment areas are near each other's properties as well. This is expected in the R1-6 zone with lot sizes of only 6,000 sq ft. d) With our first floor setbacl<at 12'6" on the west side, by planting trees on the west property line, and by agreeing to an 8' high fence on the west side, we have voluntarily gone beyond the city's requirements to address the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy and noise levels. Section 7. Final remarks a) We are complying with ALL requirements of the city, and even going beyond in many cases,to ensure that intrusion into our neighbors' privacy is minimized. b) To give our neighbors a fair chance of being heard, we complied with their request to re-schedule the Appeal Hearing Date with the Planning Commission from 25 Sep to 9 Oct, even though that further delayed our construction plans. c) I hope Cupertino city will evaluate this application objectively using factual information and the rules outlined in the R1 ordinance. Best Regards, Amit Goel and Ruchi Aggarwal (408)966-9002 goel@amitgoel.com Response to Appeal, 7738 Huntridge Lane Page 3 of 3 52 ' ' - ��,r ryx, >�. �' �C�l�-�� - . CUPANCY: R-3/lJ-1 `� �,`.:� � � ;`i=��_� � :�. G R O U P O� O C �r., ��i��._.��.�... . TYPE OF C�NSTRUCTION: UN �`��r�'v�� -_��??��!�.��-�. �ignaiur� -,_ _ -__ - - - -_ . �C�s��.�?n�..9�' G Sel.�Qd�w' � 1 1. 15'-7'X 7'-5"= 115.44 � � 1I ��_0, 119C��_ • �, ROOM 8E� 2. 2fi'-4'X 19'-4"=546.61 � "X 14'-2" �. 1'-9'X ll'-8"=20.A2 0 6�.�� o i s eA-�.+ z 4. 13'-8'X 8'-0"= 109.36 �--------- � Q 5' P.S.E. o-------------- ; 3 �� UCl � - - - - - � � (.�] 0_. ATH �q y INING � � �T0�ANJ� 5' W.C.E. 2 RW p � � ,z �:: a_ A (� (] - - - - - - - - -PERSIMMON N U �DR� [ TREE �-�- IPJ'- ' if-0' � � � TO REMA[N C j_(')� I � , � � LIVING ` _ � 4- 2f-0'X -5 :X 1�' �(D � � � �� w::.. ;`. I � I m �� FOYER 5.17'-B'x 3'-0"=53.01 4 N m 16" O,H. a•x -0• s.ss�-�.�-x zz'-0•=es�.zs � TYP. 9 gEpR00 8.t�4'-9'x�0=44�6 �• - - - � � �/ STIDY- 0.6-0,x 0 8=18 A2724 D � � � � � � 11-2" 12 3'-0'x 2'-l0=8.6A c� z � 3I I L�UNIT U 10 8 JUL 2� Z�i2 W is� ° � I � 15�-�° 12�-4�� ° A PROPOSED REMODEL. BY - W 2ND FLOOR ( � � � PROPOSED 15'-2" � FOR Hi � �92 SQ.FT. � z FAMILY APPLICABLE CODES 2�1� CODE � I � AMIT GOEL AND CA BLIILDING CODE VOL. 1 & 2 � I o � CA RESIDENTIAL CODE W � o�� W ��38 HUNTRIDGE LANE CA PLUMBING CODE � � 2f�' X 2�' � C�PERTINO, CA CA E�ECTRICAL CODE � I N E RIOR � A.P.N: 359-�6-�44 CA ENERGY CODE I � CA GREEN BIJILDING CODE — — � CA FIRE CODE — — — — — -�— — �' CA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE DRIVE AY 2P' SETBACK PROPOSED i � 00 � 1ST FLOOR , m � 19�� S0. FT. � � cv INCLl.1DING GAR N GOEL & AGGARWAL RESIDENCE I.ST F�OOR= 1466; � �r 38 HLINTRIDGE LANE F�EMC)VF S�.FT. ------- �--J-�---- EXISTING RES. S�.FT.= 1126 SW 6�.8�' SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 1ST. FLOOR- 1466 S�.FT DRIVEWAY TO BE PLANTER STRIP FOR IMPERVIOIJS S I T E P�P��l 2ND. FLOOR=�9� Sa. FT. REPLACED COVERAGE CALCS. GARAGE SQ.FT.= 434 S�. FT. AND DETAILS 1/8"_�'_�" TOTAL SQ.FT. =2,692 S�.FT. CuRB ��8 H u N T R I D�E �A f�E SCOPE OF WORK � 19�PJ �+- 182= 2082 NEW 2692 S�. FT, RESIDENCE I �1 FAR= 44.8`�/ LOT COVERAGE 1ST. TO 2ND. FLOOR LOT SIZE=6,�� 2�82 ^ 34�� RATIO ZONING R-16 TOTAL S�.FT.=2692 6��0 ig�� = 41.68% DESIGNR2 ■ oA-�: 4- 2�-2f�12 Al THIS SHEET CONTAZNS THE FOLLOWING: 2185 ROSSWOOD DR. ,,oe r�: GOEL & AGGARWAL SAN JOSE, CA 95124 oRnwN aY: DAVID PRUITT - �ESIGNER � I T � P I� f� DAVID ERUITT 9 913 ��ED BY: DESIGN 4 0 8` 2 6�- davtdpru�ttoasbcglobal.net �A�: 1/8"=1'-�" . � . —�� . � / � �` �;�rr`��f�'�c � . � � .!'t r�a_ _,��'/.�.x.,�n,-,.��, ,-.�-�., �� 1��IICd'�1�_L��.-� .. .�.�.<�...,�.-� �,�pr��l ��,_ ��--�2?��. �__ _� � - � __�_ . �ign�iu�_�at,_T�� _-�-�.��. _- __ �__T.��T r ��as�� - BE OOM o KITCHEN 11'-�" 10'-�I" 0 11'-9" X 13'- " FAMILY ROOM M. BE ROOM 18'-2"X 14'-2" O O 15'-�" X 12'-6" BATH ODINING v�ux Fs r�me ATH LA NDRY L. ATH� � � ::�...:: 1J�� SO.FT. BED OM l�l'- " X 11'-B" LIVING R00 �92 �q.f't. 21._�,. X 22._ „ ,�............... . . � BEDR 0 11._�,. _�„ uP i�........ , . GARAGE F"0 ER 2 _�..X _�,. BEDR M STLlDY 12'-PJ" X 10'-� 1ST. ��OOR P�f��l �ND. F�I�OOR PI�AN 2,692 SQ.FT, `��8 HuNTRID�E �f�NE THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: DESIGNR2 ■ on�: 6/ 26/12 2185 I�OSSWOOD DR. ,:�oe Na GOEL & AGGARWAL A�"' SAN JOS�, CA 95124 ow,wr�BY: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER ��.00R P�f�N pESIGNERUITT 408—(�6-9913 "�c'��`: davidprusttC�]sbcglobal.net 5�,�� SCALE; 1/4"=1'-�" � � � 9�� 'i�Sf '?�'�%"�:' �/�`�f4' �1;!"o�� ::Y;�I i____- ___��_- _ - ,.._.a e h��+� ��IiG��1��? �� _ - -- ;��aprG"J�I ��LL_ _-�'��..�._:_ � � � TILE ROOF �I��1�CU��.� _ ._ _ . _ .__-_-� -- - - - - �Case'��an��, -_ —- _.� ❑ o o EGR SS , � � � , � � � - . - �r' F,F. + 12._4„ _ ,� "� -----m - - -------�'' ---- ------------- ---- ------ � --- - - � - — — � -------------------- �. � � � STI.JCCO � � TYPICAL I ( � F.F. + l,_4,. --- ---�- -�-----o__.._._ - ---�------o-----o-- o �, �E�T SIDE E�EVf�TIOf� EAST RE/�R E�E�ATIO(� SOUTH STl.1CC0 TRIM TYP. � ALL WINDOWS ARE OPENABLE EXCEPT FOR SOME FIXED IN THE KITCMEN vE�ux 4�� 12 TILE ROOF FS M� — TYP, PITCH q 15._�,. 15, 2., � STUCCO EG SS EG ES i� � � TYPICAL �' � i� 'to � '' � � � � .F. + — -------------- -�-------- ---------- 2 � �-------------�r- - ------- - _ --��,__----- � � 25° � - � 3 �, N , � 11,_2,. � �� oa oo � � i � � o0 00 � � � � � �� o0 oa � � �..� F.F. + 1._4„ � �� 0� � N.G - -�-�-a-----�----o-----o--- o---o N.G. ----- ----- --- - I RIGHT SIDE E�.E�f�TION WEST STUCCO STONE �R��T ��.E�/�TIOf� NORTH TPY. ��g HuNTRID�E ��NE THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: DESIGNR2 ■ on-rE: 6/ 2�/12 � 2185 R(JSSWOOD DR. �oa No: GOEL & AGGARWAL �3 SAN JOSE, CA 95124 oRnwr�BY: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER DAVID PRUITT Q c�c�o eY: E�E�/�T�0 N S DESIGNER 4 o p�'��6-9 913 davidpruitt�sbcglobal.net scn�E: SCALE; 1/4"=1'-�J" II ` '�S` �Ft 'ai'°¢. //^ �, � i K � y y��fi �+ i��+� /` _��1�-s��c._=:. _.��: . ��i�,��6G'.S+F�.�_.c__ � -.- —.-.-�._d--�-.�a�.�+ea�-r.,o�w_ �apr�Cd'J�� '�"��'_� _=`��'�'�� , , � �Ignatu�� - __-__�_��-�_� --__�_ _ __ - ___- :.............................................................................. ......................................................................., c��a��,�� -- ; , 1� � ; : B — � P. 4 �.� +12'—q.,, — -�--, ..; _ .�� ;�� i � m i � , � �, � i� i �.�. 1'— i .�. � �1.�. PARTI/�� SECTION � � @r 1� �� P. 4 � , �� s � , � Fo , -- ' N F�.�. +12'-4S \ � � 25 , � o 2� � � � �m � m � ' `—' 9 '�' i9 I i9�� .`� - �'i F�.�. -�--1' 4" �l.G. � R00� PI�/�N N.G - - - - - - - - - � TI�E R00� TYPICf�� 4:12 PITCH -�— PARTI/�� SECTION `��38 Hu�1TRID�E �..A�IE ■ oA�: 6/21/12 � THIS SHE�T CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: 2 85' ROSSWOOD DR. ,,oe No; GOEL & AGGARWAL A S A N J O S E, C A 9 5 1 2 4 o w,w r,B Y: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER �O O I P I�/ \ DESIGNERUITT 40�—�Z6�9913 P ��o�Y: dav�d ru�tt�sbcglabal.net S�E SCALE; 1/4"=1'-�" � � - REVISIONS BY I �` . ��J�fa��rj�k,� __�-- ✓r"��°7-�.�? ,,::-..�,;, �� J. �M �►�piica��._� �--°--.'_' L� � C� ��,c � �.�"�� 0 � d � �pprov�i ��t� ��-�,_-l�_� .� � — JUL 2 q 2012 �ig�a��u�� ——�_r�,___� ._ _ -_.�..{-��. i�aso M�n�� —r�.�,-.-_.__-_ By 5 � • r Y Y � _ ` a°5. ' � � w 6S=w "8= ' .-... . _- - >:-. _..:._ . . ____.. . p e.,o, a�•� . ... .._:_ .:.. 4 ,� � nai . w 3 °---:':"" '� � AGGARWAIJGOERRESIDENC�NOTES�kNDCALG[R.ATIONS :.;�a°.i 3 . e�4W,o:; � � Conceufuel Landsenoe Hardscane Plan* The following calculations provide a breakdo�m of the proposed�hazdscepe and landscape nreas. �� Q At leest a 2'clearance Gom paving to ihe property line shall be mainiained. � . . . . . . . . Si�eArea: 6000sf • � - � � -.,.�_..... -._,_�...,.._ , ::'.,; ..,-,-,--,. :_.._._. .. .. . � .: � - --- -- - - � - Yr000sed Hardsce� � �� y . " -,�� ` _ _ _ ProposedAesidence(firstfloorandgxrage): 1900sf � � '� �� -� � "-'�. ' � _ . - DrivewaY� 478.sf � ��'-" _,:__::_s..._,. - - . ' '. `y ., -:�+- ` �� .. �� Prontwalks,sideyardwalk,rearpatio: 1142sf - -- . O ' w _ _ . TotalHaFdsce�e�. 3520sF tQ � �.�' °!� ° . . . .. �`��r� � ' Totel Lendscape Area• -2480 sf � . . . . . ' . . . ` y�' Delowthe2500sftivesholdforlandscapeplanrequirement . .�� ((( - . Lawn Area Calcolat_�ions: � < ��r �,,,; . � 25%of 2460 sf= nl 620 sf or maximum lawn ellowed � �� - - � Proposed landscape area - . 1 'Reference to item#8-city planning commenis May 29,2012 _ �•" Privncv�Protecfion Plan* � �,�"�' 'Jjy°�v16�J J r`; � JN„16i 1 Y/� � Required 30 degree view angles�hom secoud smry windows have been noted on the plen.The � ��•� _ , .:a:� '. following plent selection lias been made,token from O�e city prefeRe ^of plant maleriaL . _ I, - f�S .a - _ . . . -.�_ ... _ �,��:. A Piftosporum tenufolium Q 5'-0°.oc IS gallonsize/mia G tall Q. -. . . : �, d�,� I "Reference to item N9-city planning wmments May 29,2012 ~-^-J`� , �� . I _ � � � - Front Ynrd Lunervloux Surface Area Calculat�ons" I � � - �- � � �, Total azea is20'x 60'width of properly=1200 sf, � , z"-- - � � . - - � - 40%of1200sf=480s£ � ,\- { � - � t��'k�, _� Proposed impervious sudace area: .�.;_- �a � - �` " " � � � ,: Drivewey 390 sf � .-.� , v,r��:' � � . . :� ... r „�-:: _� :` ._ - . .. . . nte try alks 56sf - . �� . .'. . . �. .._.- __ j��/J_f� ,. ,__. ,�. ��,'s. Total. 446 sf or 37°/a(below Uie regulated 40%) . . .. Fro n /w � . � , - ._ *2eference ro item#1G-city planning commenls May 29,2012 , . .- ; . . . - �� _ - , - . � . � . . . � �'- .. :�,- .. � - -�- .�.�.. .�.; �; ' The follo g ee has been located m Ihe fro y d. . ... _ Front Yard Tree r 1 Win ff nt e� T j , \y/ ti � .. � � - � � T-I LugestrcemiaTuswrorastandard/CrapeMyrile 24"box � - F-� � � - . . " "Reference to item#29-city planning commenis Mey 29,2012 �� WA � � ;�� - ,, . ... . - � . -... �� _ , _ M� �,�.�.` - -°. . � .....: '`TM�'1'�� . ' ' . ...._._ . . .__._,... .._ _..__. . . . � I��, _ � � - � �. . : ' � � . F � a � . �� . �� t�. :- ��... - -. �. . ,�� - . , ` ...__ � . '�: -,. , r ,. ,� .,. � . _ . _ � _ -- < � - :�, � � W � ��... `- . : , � � _�:_.. , : ^ :=: ° - -- . W� -::.-:..� . �� "-� .' � .�� HARDSCAPECALCULATIONS nf ` ... .._. ..: . :; �. .... . .:: >. ..- . �, ,�- ._- :, .� � i - . . : ; � ,� � , . .. •�� -. .�. ._ . . AreeAl-Drivewny-19'6"x2' - _ - rh .. ' ��p(iPy' . . �?�: " �. � . . " -478sf 19 6 x5 . ... �� _..;- , :: .. , ,., . r g � �� - c' •- ; " _..:.. _... - t ..;.� -.._° r�° I - • � 1 `- Ara�N2-EnlryWalk andLeuding-6,x4" - . �� . —�tit',�+.� �� 9'x4' . ��'"--_._.... ... •,�• ._ � �� . � -, � • =60sf � � . �/ h��.1i - ��'�� - -. . � � � : AreeN3-FrontYardSidewalk-3'x10' � � h. , � ' �,/t��'� .. , ' �(%,-:�� =30sf m ..:,. � .::,'�i!'', . ... . '..'_.� .:-.:' .,-.. � - �'.,• . . � Areak4-RearYaidSidewalk-3'x46' . � ' - � � ; � - ��-;: � . - . =138 sf � . _ . . _ - .._ �.e<�:� `- . , � . . � � - ' - - - AreaHS-RearYardWalk-4'xl6' � .3�. � . � . � . � � � , . . - I .., .2�. =64 sf a _::; . . . _.. � �� AteuN6-RearPatio-2Px34' - �-�'�� Oata - -, . � .__.._... , ` ��:k�ino�l'-rNN�' � [� t�� , ' =ssosf VJJ10.9 soa�e t r i HUNTRTDGE LAl�E • g,��yFnEv 'Cp,, �' HUNTRiDGE LANE � � � - � � Total Herdseupc-1620 sf �g ��"¢. . �.orewn �� CQNG�PTUAL LAN��AP�/HA_RDSCAFE PLAN' � HARDSCAPE CALCULATIONS �a `" � ,y shae�� vs�_��-o�� , _- - ,PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN ,,� - vs„=,,_a,> , ��A , • � Of �; Sh98[e �x� �,«�. 57 / I ��/ • I - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- -- - - -- - - I:; : � I � II JUL 2 � �u1Z � ul� U ' ey � N 89'59'38"W 301.00� �— — — _ 73.90, _ — _ I_ _ — _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ 227.10' — _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ — I HUNTRIDGE LANE (60' R/W) Basis of Bearings i i � -, i � �i�'s��!'��'��i _ C' °o�l)/v'�_�-� G� M� ��i� �pplica��- - �---- _ - � .. _ .�.�� - .4 � ��prov�l i�� - ��a3 y 1� � , .--� - � ryry �I IJ 89'S9'38" W 60.00' �I��^��`"�� -- ---�- - -- - - -- -- -- - - -- -- -- --I -- -- ---� ({.�s�Manar�u� =y_- -.T.-_ --- __,-. -____,__�<.�_ i `. i � i \ I j I LEGAL DESCRIPTION � � I I N ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITIIATE IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO,COl1NTY OF ' �N V I ' SANTA CIARA,STAIE OF CALIPORNIA,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: � � I BEING LOT 21,AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN TRACT MAP N0.2406 RECOROEO IN I BOOK 132 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17,fILEO MAY 3,1961,RECOROS OF SANTA CIARA I � _ _ _ _ 20'SEiBACK LINE I i COUNTY. I - - - - - - - - 5.1p � I � BASIS OF BEARINGS I � I THE BEARIN6 OF N 89'S9'38"W,BEING 7HE CENTERIME OF HUNTRIDGE LANE AS � �vW'I SHD'MJ ON TRACT MAP N0.2406 RECORDEO IN BOOK 132 OF AIAPS AT PAGE 17, I � �u � FlLED MAY 3.1961,RECOR�S OF SANTA�CLARA COUNTY. I n � �� \ I I 0' 10' 20' 30� � I � � I � �g,p� i � � SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT �O I � ° � � � I C� � THIS�MAP REPFESENTS A SURVEY.MA�E 6Y ME OR UNDER MY SVPER`ASION AT 7HE I N I � I� � REWEST OF AM1T GOEL W fEBRUARY OF 2011. � � Q � i a OI 6 8' � I3 TOM H.MILO,lS 6438 �I �' o I �N uCENSE EXPIRES: 12-31-2012 N � �Q,, �I LOT 21 j I°p �O � on�: � o Z I � N TR N0. 2406 I °o T � � °o J 2 0 N BK. 132 PG. 17 I �n 2 2 �I w o� APN: 359-06-044 � I � N� I � � I � LEGEND � � I I s,y� I I � S.�I� • FWND BRA55 PIN MONIIAIENT I 15.2 I I � ' O SET 5/8"XI8'REBAR W/CAP LS 643B I _ __ _ _ _ I I W.C.E. W1RE CIEARANCE EASEMENT I I 20'SEIBACK LWE I � I P.S.E. 'PU6UC SERVICE EASEMENT I io m � I N N � -- PR�PERN LINE � � � ------- -- ------------- —'�' EASEMENT LWE I _—___ � �5'W.C.E. � � I I �0.6�_____ _______ �_____ J I - - AOJOINERLOTIJNE I i.o. o.z' I-1 5'P.S.E. � �;Q' ti -� WOOD FENCE - - - - - - - ° 1- � � S 89'59'38°E 60.00' 1.0 0 3 0.2 4 —— ——� — _ —— � ��T ' < ' ��T 2> � �T � 2S 26 � ' _—1 I �_— — — — — — — — — — — N 89'59'38"W 250.00' — — — — — — — — — CARRIAGE CIRCLE 60' R/W) I BOUNDARY SURVEY T� K � M � doe No. SHEET DRANM BY THM PREPARED FOR � I AMIT GOEL � CKD. BY THM 7738 HUNTRIOGE LANE Land Surveyors 22 Bohann n Drive pq�FEBRUARY 10, 2011 LOT 21, TRACT 2406 S ta Clara P 95050 • FILE N0. �F� SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS 408.615.8 5 hane / SCALE 1"= 10' CUPER71N0 CALIFORNIA 408.615. 56 fax