The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Summary 10-09-2012 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 C U P E RT I N+C) FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Aarti Shrivastava,Community Development Director Date: October 10, 2012 Subj: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS MADE October 9,2012 Chapter 19.32 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for appeal of decisions made by the Planning Commission 1. Application R-2012-26,Amit Goel and Ruchi Aggarwal, 7738 Huntridge Lane Appeal of a Director's Approval of a Two-Story Permit for a new 2,692 square foot single family residence Action The Planning Commission denied the appeal on a 5-0 vote. Enclosures: Planning Commission Report October 9, 2012 Planning Commission Resolution (s) 6710 Approved Plan Set g:planning/Post Hearing/sumtnary to cc100912 OFFICE OF COMMUNIT'Y DEVELOPMENT CTI'Y HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255 (408)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 • ,planning@cupertino.or� CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Date:October 9,2012 Application: R-2012-26 Applicant: Amit Goel/Ruchi Aggarwal Appellant: Scott Hughes, 7752 Huntridge Lane Location: 7738 Huntridge Lane (APN 359-06-044) APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of the Community Development Director's Approval of a Two-Story Permit(R-2012- 26) to allow a new 2,692 square foot single-family residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P1aru1u1g Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's approval in accordance with the draft resolution (see Attachment 1 for the draft resolution). PROJECT DATA: General Plan desi ation Low Densi Residential 1-5 dwellin units/ oss acre Zoning designation R1-6 (Single Family Residential District,with a minimum lot size of 6,000 s uare feet Environmental review Cate oricall Exem t from CEQA Net lot area 6,000 s uare feet 0.14 acres Pro'ect consistenc with: General Plan Yes Zonin Yes Allowed/Required Proposed Lot coverage 3,000 square feet(45% enclosed area, 2,082 square feet(35%) additional 5% for other covered but unenclosed areas Floor area ratio (FAR) 2,700 s uare feet 45% 2,692 s uare feet 45% 2nd to 15t floor ratio No limit,however design review 42% (792 square foot second re uired if reater than 66% floor/1,900 s uare foot first floor 1St floor building setbacks Front: 20 feet Front: 21 feet,6 inches Rear: 20 feet Rear: 31 feet Side: 15 feet combined (no side yard Side:5 feet and 12 feet,4 inches (17 shall be less than 5 feet feet,4 inches combined 2na floor building setbacks Front: 25 feet Front: 31 feet,8 inches Rear: 25 feet Rear: 34 feet Side: 25 feet combined (no side yard Side: 15 feet and 15 feet,2 inches shall be less than 10 feet,however (30 feet,2 inches combined) desi review re uired if interior side 8 R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9,2012 setback less than 15 feet Height 28 feet from existing grade 25 feet,4 inches from existing rade BACKGROUND: On July 20, 2012, Amit Goel and Ruchi Aggarwal applied for a Two-Story Permit to allow a new 2,692 square foot single-family residence on their property located at 7738 Huntridge Lane. The project property is located in a standard R1 zoning district which permits two-story homes up to 28 feet in height. The project is consistent with all aspects of the R1 Ordinance and other pertinent City ordinances. In addition, the project is not subject to design review requirements since the proposed second floor is less than 66% of the square footage of the first floor and there are 15 foot side yard setbacks on either side of the second floor. During the public review period, staff received several letters, emails and telephone calls from neighbors expressing concerns on the project (See Attachment 2 for neighbor correspondence). The concerns from the neighbors focused primarily on the following: • The compatibility of the proposed two-story residence in a predominantly single-story neighborhood • The apparent bulk,mass,and height of the residence � Privacy impacts Some neighbors suggested rnodifications to the design, including,but not limited to reducing floor area, building height and number of windows. Other suggestions involved making the windows opaque, relocating the A/C unit, rearranging the floor plan, increasing fence height, limiting construction hours, increasing landscape area,and enhancing the privacy plantings. After considering the neighbors concerns, the applicant agreed to make voluntary revisions to the plans to address potential privacy impacts by proposing additional privacy plantings and agreeing to install 8 foot high fencing on the side yards of the property, pending neighbor approval. The project was approved by the Community Development Director on August 23,2012 (see Attachment 3 for the approval letter). Scott Hughes, the property owner to the west of the project site, appealed the Director's approval on September 4,2012 (see Attachment 4 for the appellant's letter and attachments). The Planning Commissiori s decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Basis of the Appeal The appellant is appealing the decision of the Director of Community Development based on the reasons listed below. The appellant has provided additional reasoning behind these three points and are detailed in Attachment 4. The applicant has provided a response to the appeal in Attachment 5. Each appeal issue is followed by staff discussion in italics. 1. "There is overwhelming neighborhood opposition to the proposed project at 7738 Huntridge Lane. All the noticed neighbors voiced their concerns during the public comment period but the Director seems to have ignored our input." 9 R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge L.ane October 9,2012 Staff response: The concerns raised b� neighbors during the public comment period zvere considered b� the Director prior to approving the project and zvere noted in the administrative record. The neighbor concerns zvere also forzuarded to tlie applicant for consideration. Consequentl�, the applicant decided to enhance the privac�planting ccnd the height of the properh�fencing along the side�ards. The proposed project conforms to all aspects of the R1 Ordinance and the non-discretionar�� tzvo-stor��permit process. The proposed tzvo-ston�home is modest in size and is not the onl�tzvo-stor��home in the neighborhood. Other exc�mples of tzvo-ston�homes in the immediate neighborhood can be found at 7709 Huntridge Lc�ne, 945 Rose Blossom Drive, 927 Rose Blossom Drive, 7803 Lilac Court, 7799 Lilac Wa�, 7759 Lilac Way, 908 Sage Court, 912 Sage Court, 924 Sage Court, 10716 South Stelling Road, all four homes on Tomki Court, nine of the ten homes on Joll�mnn Lane, and six of the nine homes on Orline Court. See vicinih�map belozv: �j�� :�. ew f »+..�1 �}"� '�1 'r"0 _1�.►4 "Y i °'++'�`.: • ��`r-^��kw�- +�s s p�;-,�' a�«��+ 1 �-�� .. , -�. � . `5 .. ( � � ,.....,� ,,.� ��' ��,�"'�,��"`" """'"""°�� (Y�" '+�1��a•��'��a3��"'r t e; „ ,�. �4. .. � �, iY, i . �� . M�� G(y. � X.. a a � M' �t { ♦ cs .wi. %n �.vBVx .w,Yr _ ..�� , •St ��"Y� C'�4+�R��'��P�n !�'y—...—,,,. �,• {�. ...., � :. o ' .. . ,, �� i .. . a �, .��.' �:.�� . .. ` �*��"W� .:y..... i i . �r�i,�.:,,..�� +� . :� Fi\ •,r �r�' �,.. _ . . � x .:y� .�.a � : . $�I�..c � `�4ii�1� �, 10� fly,. > ..�; . . ^ � �:� ,� '"1'i/�� °` �"' �' �;1 h �' . Mt '� �; '" M �"""�"�+.:�'ii' t ,�'S>c�.�t'�" ,,�� ' , •., -s �p F � � �� 4 � 0735� .�1073 � ' ' .+,c. '��+'� t ^r' -� �� --.,.,.�� _ ,�'� ,� .._� . . '�� *i i� � :- �...�,_ "'# � � w��. � �'^ ��' , � ,. . """''�' +r`'R , � m�"�^ �,.�.� ._ �r�.� '�"'�4�'+nr'�t 9� +� ,•„ �� 'U ,�y"� d�x , 7q1�" �d� �� r .'�" -. �..�w,��. � . .�' � ` +r 9.` � �, "'� r �;� ��«., �l;' k. � ...� ��;m ,�,.T.�: €,� n,� '!�. .p�N��-... � . ^� :: ,, "�,�.. � ;� �. �"� �' .-;�B � lUSti��.n ��. � � ��ilr;-� �-t,.,�A�ti ,�2 a�i _ ?� � + '� � '� ».�'` ��t �:.� ��'�° �i ,�� ^�_. � � � � ,M� M ` - e.t� � '� ,,.F �� , ..a_,. rqa�''�� ' � „ � ..� .,,...�,� � . �� t"�°�� .. .-�'�y*�','' ,,, w4 w-" 1�� : ..� "'�" ^p� .. . . �. F � �`\ r - A ,., � .� ` � .�L!WYi�ll. i .��.. .. Mp�� , . � � "T � ... .�. . � +, °i�r �� M'e 927 ��„ _. .t `�r�_ �, �, '.'� ��"�'�" p16.&'� �„ � ;: ., r � ��,,,�..�, , . � +�-Y " +!x� , , .., �'" �. ,.. � �,�./" y �� s^ .,�T .. � a��.� �, n,�i �� y �; "�fA�`�,°�,�'�A� +',+� - ,". !..,,.''Ir �,�, � . ,,�..y� ' . �x v� ��,��.� �_ t�'� � �r, �"��.«+�, � . ' • � x ` �. , \"?�' �`��r� �"��J'V V �, ..._:.t . . ; ��,:, - �^'�A . +��,,, . ... .... ' . ,� .� . �.,yw �•„� . � • � A�°,s ":�� "'P,F'� ,„,5``�"�,-s° -+t♦� i �wM�^ .,c�+.. ` �� _�•� '"��'�� ..,� # . ,„ � "... . � — .. �...�Ow�w��...�,al�L wfW�w+i 4 �.� �« �.� .,.� '�• `r �. ) .� � �+w �� ,.a S, -R,w . � � . ..-.:� . .. « ° �j '•,i y � e �t p w.�C,\"�'1 7�'S. �� y�,'� .'�, �.� �� t `�� ,� E� �V��[ � ��A�Y� � r • r��0 Y�'. � , � ' 3 �� .�°�1 � �� A��.C� .. } � M� .y.. .�G.� . "� • i �"� Project sitc `� �� " - �9,�.� a�.• :�•" � '�} . """�,^.w;y�.��i� ��F g� � ..... . �., w " ' " . . . . , s . �� "�^'� � . _� �'-'�.� �� 7.M � . .� � 5 • � � .. t �'� ', � S'!'', ..; - "'.`. ... ,qY , �� A Y�' _.,.R1j Mi `�y e .� `� i ��.�t��.�a,r tpfi �.��r�ta�r �, ...,.�,� � :* =�i � EXISt. "*Jt , :. �,. � W _"� .'��"'��'.r;/# . �,. � . ��" � ,:;. ,-.,�-�..��sr►-�. ....,.,� � �, , : �' �,..;..� TWO- .., . m . �".'"..,"��::.''�,� , ."+•� � �t 772p� ��a �� " . � , �', � O ��w . �- �� ria:, ..,r1�.�-�� st ry ,, n .. ♦ r � � `,, l `�A. �� . � �� . �'., x � � h o m , 4 � . . ,, ,, � , �`�, � � w " :,��< , "�„ � - : . �,. "+� �, Tt2,,, e�t., .�..K^myr�^w . ,,,,��,�»�...��..,4 , � � � �� " +� � t .. �' •. y�,��;� � �.� .,_.,_ �.. Vicinity map highlighting existing two-story single-family residences 2. "The project proposal is much too tall, big, and invasive to our neighborhood. In its present form, it will destroy our privacy, decrease our property values, and destroy our quality of lif e." Staff response: T�te project is designed to be zvithin tl�e prescriptive building envelope rec�uirements of the R1 Ordinance. Typically, most conventional first and second floor plate heights are betzueen 8-10 feet high, and this project proposes 10 feet for the first floor and nine feet for the second floor. The project proposes n bLCilding height of 25'-4" zvhen 28 feet is permitted. In addition, the total proposed floor area ratio, lot coverage, and 1st/2nd floor setbacks are zvithin the limits of the ordinc�nce (please refer to the project data table on page one and two). Staff is not azuare of c�n� evidence to support the clair�i thc�t a nezu tzuo-ston� home in a residential neighborhood zvould negatively impact the vahte of the neighboring properties. All of the residential homes located in the same R1 zoning district have equal development rights, zuhich include the abilih� to construct tzvo-ston�horries. If the entire neighborhood zuishes to restrict their abilit�� to construct a second ston� �znd/or develop rules to significantl� limit any tzvo-stor��projects, then staff would recommend thcct the neighborhood formnll� initinte a rezoning request zvith the Cit� to place a zoning overla� on their neighborhood in order to prohibit the developnient of two-stori��iomes. The Cit�� Council has in the pc�st allozved for certc�in neighborhoods to place c� 10 R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9,2012 single-stor�� only zoning overla� through a public process and zuith majority neighbors consenting. A fezu examples of such streets include Fallenleaf, Tiptoe, and Colon� Hills Lanes; Heatherzuood Drive; John Wa�; and portions of Shadowhill Lane. 3. "Further, we believe that this proposal does not meet the City's R1 Ordinance requirements as detailed in Sections 19.28.110 (B)(1), 19.28.140 (B)(3),and 19.28.140 (B)(4)." "Section 19.28.110 (B)(1)-- Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Principles, Two-Ston� Design Guidelines. The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonabl�compatible zuith the predominant neighborhood pattern. Nezu construction should not be disproportionatel� larger than, or out of scale zvith, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches,eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights." "Section 19.28.140 (B)(3)and (B)(4)—Findings, Tzuo-Story Permit Findings. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design zvith the general neighborhood. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonabl�mitigated." Staff response: One of the principal purposes of the R1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of compatibilit�� in scale of structures zuithin a residential neighborhood. This is basicall�achieved b�having developments adhere to a set of specific development parameters (i.e., maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, building setbacks) to curtail development intensih� to a level generally accepted by the communihj. T�ically the Cihj has allozued nezu homes to be maximized zuithin the framezuork of the R1 Ordinance provided that the design and the sftjle of the home are consistent and/or compliment the neighborhood. The proposed project is consistent zuith the R1 ordinance and is not subject to design reviezu. The proposed project consists of a Mediterranean st��le similar to the existing tzvo-ston� homes in the neighborhood on Tomki Court and Joll�man Lane. Further, the project is compatible in terms of mass and bulk zvith other tzuo-ston� ranch style homes on Huntridge Lane, Rose Blossom Drive, Lilac Wa�, and Sage Court. While the proposed project ma�be larger than some of the original one-ston�, ranch-sh�le tract homes in the area that zvere built in the 1960s, it is modestl�designed and no larger than most of the recentl�approved tzuo-story residences in Cupertino. It is not practical to expect nezvl� developed homes to match the size and heiglit of the existing single famil� homes zvhen the neighborhood is in transition and tl�ere are similar nezuer tzuo-stori�/single-stori� homes in the area. The proposed home is compatible zvith existing homes in the neighborhood due to the fact that the project is zuithin the prescriptive building envelope, height requirements,floor area ratio and all other aspects of the R1 development standards/guidelines. Further, the proposed 34 foot rear �ard and 15 foot side �ard setbacks on either side of the second floor provide ample clearance and transition from the neighboring residences. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) per section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined in the staff response sections of this staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to approve the two story permit. The Commission should find that the project is consistent with the City's two-story single-family development requirements. 11 R-2012-26 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit at 7738 Huntridge Lane October 9,2012 Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Gar�y Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Neighbor correspondence 3. Two-Story Permit(R-2012-26) action letter dated August 23,2012 4. Appellant's letter 5. Applicant's response letter 6. Plan Set 12 R-2012-26 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6710 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW 2,692 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 7738 HUNTRIDGE LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: R-2012-26 Applicant/property owner: Amit Goel and Ruchi Aggarwal Appellant: Scott Hughes Location: 7738 Huntridge Lane (APN: 359-06-044) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TWO-STORY PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the Community Development Director's approval of a Two-Story Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Cominission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the appeal; and WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Coinmission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. The project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Cupertino General Plan and Single-Family Residential (R1) Ordinance; meets all prescriptive development requirements of the R1, Parking, Landscape, and Fence ordinances;and the two-story non-discretionary permit procedural requirements. b) The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The project will not result in conditions that are detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. c) The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The project is consistent with the R1 ordinance and is not subject to design reviezu. The two-story home is modest in size and is not the only two-story home in the neighborhood. The project design is similar zuith other two-ston�homes in the neighborhood on Tomki Court and Jollyman Lane. Further, the project is compatible in terms of mass and bulk zuith other tzvo-story ranch style homes on Huntridge L�ne, Rose Blossom Drive, Lilac Way, and Sage Court. As with other Cupertino single family residential areas, the neighborhood is in transition and the mass and bulk of new homes and additions in the area generall� reflect that of the proposed project. The mass and bulk of the home is compatible and in scale with other one-story homes in the area due to the fact that the project is within the prescriptive one-story building envelope and height requirements; is Resolution No. 6710 R-2012-26 October 9,2012 consistent with the predominant setback pattern, roof pitches, eave heights, and building forms; and is consistent with the single family residential design guidelines. Moreover, the 34 foot rear yard and 15 foot side yard setbacks on either side of the second floor provide an appropriate transition to the adjoining one-story residences. d) Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. The project complies with all the prescriptive development requirements (i.e. setbacks, height,floor area ratio, privacy screening) of the R1 Ordinance that are intended to mitigate adverse visual impacts to adjoining properties. In addition, in response to neighbor concerns, the applicant has agreed to make voluntary revisions to the plans to address potential privacy impacts b� proposing additional privacy plantings and agreeing to insta118 foot high fencing on the side yards of the property, pending neighbor approval. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof, the application for a Two-Story Permit Permit, Application no. R-2012-26 is hereby approved, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. R-2012-26 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 9, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "A Proposed Remodel Amit Goel and Family, 7738 Huntridge Lane, Cupertino CA" consisting of 6 sheets labeled A-1 to A-4, 1 and 1-1, dated Apri127, 2012, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans. 3. ACCURACY OF THE PROTECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 4. CONSTRUCTION PLAN SET REVISIONS/CLARIFICATIONS Prior to issuance of building permits, the construction plan submittal shall include the following information: a. Show the material of the driveway. Pervious and/or decorative paving material is recommended. b. Completed Water-Efficient Design Checklist(Appendix A of the Landscape Ordinance) c. Incorporate the City's standard tree protection measures (Appendix A of the Protected Tree Ordinance) for the trees to remain. d. The total building height shall be consistent throughout the plan set. e. Construction management plan; including, but not limited to: contact information; allowed hours of construction; schedule; measures to abate noise and dust; staging areas; contractor parking, etc. Resolution No. 6710 R-2012-26 October 9,2012 5. PRIVACY PLANTING The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 6. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 7. ADDITIONAL PRIVACY MITIGATION MEASURES a. The number of second floor windows on the east side of the residence (left side as shown on the plan set) shall be reduced to four (4). b. The second floor bathroom windows shall consist of obscured (frosted) glass. c. The applicant shall be required to plant additional privacy trees and/or shrubs along the side and rear property lines by the house prior to final occupancy. The plantings shall be evergreen. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. Prior to final occupancy, the property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of this requirement. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. This requirement may be waived or modified in writing by the affected property owner. 8. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 9. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood input. 10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020,you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Resolution No. 6710 R-2012-26 October 9,2012 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2012, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino,State of California,by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller,Vice Chair Sun, Brophy, Lee, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Marty Miller Gary Chao Marty Miller,Chair City Planner Planning Commission , U W ❑ � W � � z � � � x w � � � ° 5' P.S.E. a� � — — c� � °�Y� 5' W.C.E. Cp U — — — — — — i C �� I W � Ol� � � �y t� I '� � �N �r-� � — — — �- —.l�r-� . � . .. . % GROUP OF OCCUPANCY: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIUN •% %% Rw�` - - P - - - - -PERSIMMOf� TREE TO REMAIN 16" O.H. TYP. ' l�l'-2" 1 �� oc. � 12'-4" 2ND FLOOR I 15._�� PROPOSED �92 SQ.FT. j � 2(�' X 2�' � I GARAGE INTERIOR PROPOSED / � 1ST FLOOR I 19�� S0. FT. C INCLUDING GAR I.ST FLOOR= 1466' � SG1.FT. -� DRIVEWAY TO BE REP�ACED DRIVE AY � � � � I I o 1 JAPMESE � TO REMAIN � ( � — --�— — — 2�1� SETBACK � � m cv \ .o �� P�ANTER STRIP cuRB ��8 Hu�1TRID�� THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: Q? 0 0 � � U �- � � � U �-~- C � � � Q�� . . . . U Z w 0 w � � Z � � W SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCS. AND DETAILS ll 12 R-3/U-1 : UN � � A PROPOSED REMODEL FOR AMIT GOEL AND �AMILY ��38 HUNTRIDGE L.ANE CUPERTINO. CA A.P.N: 359-�6-�44 5.i?'-8'x 3'- s.3s��.5X�-�_��.� �.21'-4'x 2�-0'=426.6 8.14'-9"x 3'-0'=4425 s.z�-e-x zer-e-=ar�za �.s•-e�X�-e-=ie tt 2�-u-X ie�-�-=s� �.s•-�-x 2•-�e=e.s4 ise� SITEP�.f��l 1/8"=1�_�.. ,�. Y�.'�```":_. � /e—:,7 C.�l�' ��l� . I-`� _ --z -- - - r•� .��:� f�:��1 i i(.�'�'��'" � _-a.-.. __..�--�......... _ _ _ �_ =�`"��'J�i f';�� :.- __ � "� 3—�� , . ,�! ,.: ��.,i _�' .� .� ,�,,- �Ji�n r t =�. �Ici4«I , _ _ _ ,c a�,,,k(::::T::»..,..._�.�... �---�{,-�t�",4,vV.�c . - . >- .,"w,nr. . .. � �L 15'-7'X�'-5'= ll5.44 � �2. 28'-4'X 19'-4'_�6.61, � ;3 1'-9'X lY-8'=�� ./�.O� ' �4. 13'-8'X 8'-0"= 109.� " t � � � � � �:��; �p . . w_ �.._ � _�,:� �. ; ; _. ;�: � :° _.._._._..��._�__.__..�____._ ..s._... j �aA��t��,rrtumt^r � JU� 2 � L�;1Z �. APPLICABLE CODES 2�1� CODE CA B�I�DING CODE VOL. 1 & 2 CA RESIDENTIA� CODE CA PLUMBING CODE CA MECHANICA� CODE CA E�ECTRICAL CODE CA ENERGY CODE CA GREEN B�I�DING CODE CA FIRE CODE CA RE�ERENCE STANDARDS CODE G L GGARWAL RESIDENCE ��35 H�NTRIDGE LANE REM[)V� ' EXISTING RES. S�.FT.= 1126 1ST. FLOOR= 1466 Sa.FT 2ND. FLOOR=�J2 S�. FT. GARAGE SQ.FT.= 434 SL. FT. TOTAL SO.FT. =2.6J2 SQ.FT. ��E SCOPE OF WORK 19�� + 182= 2�82 NEW 2692 S�. FT. RE�IDENCE FAR= 44.8�/ �OT COVERAGE 1ST. TO 2ND. F�OOR _ 6 LOT SIZE=6.�0PJ 2�82 _ 34�� RATIO ZONING R 1 TOTA� S�.FT. 26g2 6��P �92 = 41.68% 1�I��J DESlGNR2 ■ o,,,� 4- 2�-2 D12 Al 2185 ROSSWOOD DR. ,,oe►�: GOEL & AGGARWAL SAN JOSE, CA 95124 oR,,w�►BY: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER DAVID PRUITT ��eY: DESIGNER 4 0 8'�,2 6-9 913 dav�dpru�tt�sbcglobal.net q.� 1/S"-1'-PJ" , 19�(� S�.FT. I . : .r',::i"l l f�`;�!!;�'�;�1_._._ ��:��U �- - -..__�..... ,�I'� ��,,`i i��.�"'��t`��_ _ _ _� --....-. . �_....� . _,.��o..... �,��iG'��i 1�� __ ��_ � ��3.� /.�.� _n ! 1�9.,> _ -�. -s"�"�-' r�� Igna��.�; �� . ,._ __. - _ . � 15T. ��OOR P�f�N THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: � � � � � � 2.6J2 S�.FT. 2�1D. F��OOR PI��E s � (�:��1�2:�6. - � �o —�—�� . , . 9 . . . : ._. __ : .. .____��. .. . � -. �92 Sq.f t. ��8 Huf�TRID�� f��lE DESIGNR2 ■ o,,,�: 6/ 26/12 A� 2185 ROSSWOOD DR. ,,o��o: GOEL & AGGARWAL SAN JOSE, CA 95124 �,,W►.,�: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER DAVID PRUITT ��o�: DESIGNER 4 0�'6 2 6-9 913 da�.idpruitt�sbcglob�l.net �E SCALE: 1/4"=1'-�" � � :, N.G �� ---_..__l � • F.F. + 12'-4" � � � � F.F. + l._4.. - —�------�-----�-- 0 0 � � ; ! I i TILE ROOF � � � � � � � --- � � f STUCCO ( TYPICA� I , :;.�.�Y,; � ��o��-�� ,� r �� . , . �: < .o'a - --- � — —- _r_sses._�s�-n=-.� ��'S y��r,��i��°¢�l`,` _ <. . .�.t I a��.r: , � _:a�s.=:-9rx im-".:._....,.—u�-a�,—.yrn.�e-.-. 1Y .�4,;;r�'y�l :��,�: _ _ � `�3�,:1�... . _.z..=�� .ti: ��i�i�i;��f r, _ __.� ,�,_,.,��-,a; —�, � . ��T SID� E��P�TI04� EAST REP�R ��UATI0�1 SOUTH STUCCO TRIM TYP. ALL WINDOWS ARE OPENAB�E EXCEPT FOR SOME FIXED IN THE KITCHEN ,!� � � � � + � � .F. ------------ � ST�CCO ' TYPICAL o� TILE ROOF � � � F.F. + �•_4., -----o-----o----o-----o--- o---o N.G. RIGHT SIDE E��f�TIO�I WEST THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: ��v�Tlo�s � i� �i� � I �, � �� -� vE�ux 4�� 12 FS P'!08 TYP. PITCH 4 �� ' �� .�.�:r...�� __ �� , ; �� , �__ 11 II _._,.--__.� . �� i .� � �_��—�. �� — 15'-2" � � � � � � 25° � 11'-2" � � i � �i� � ,�-�o/�-� :� : le:-�- � �� I � . -.: � .. STUCCO STONE �R��T ��,�TI0�1 NORTH TPY. ��8 Hu�1TRID�� NE __. _ DESIGNR2 ■ o,,� 6/ 2�/12 A•3 2185 ROSSWODD DR. .,�,� GOE� & AGGARWAL SAN JOSE, CA 95124 �►��: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER DAVID PRUITT ��: DESIGNER 4�8'�2 6-9 913 devidpru�tt�sbcglobal.net �,�; SCALE; 1/4"=1'-PJ" � � � i � �. t ± R00� P�P�(� TI�� R00� TYPICf�� 4:12 PITCH THIS SHEET CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: R00� P�f�f� DESlGNR2 2185 ROSSWOOD DR. SAN JOSE, CA 95124 DAViD PRUiTT DESIGNER :........................................................................... �.� � �i.�. . . . . . 2� � � I �I.� ,' r,�.`�7�.(. .. .�i __ . . �r�_ /cT�-�C�.- °� ± ` . f. � ?' ,� ��-� ;y,'j(`'��;` j ,� .� �i:,�►J��;�.. , _�` �-�-�-r�=�_ z. :��:. � :A',M��G`a��l W;��`; ___ �'��-��.� -- _� '�: ��I�`'•.�su��;-- ---_ _ .__ . . ^_, . .. . ............................................... , ��.��.,��-,� , ......................... ....,, . .;. . 12 __. _ . � � ._ . . . , . _ . _. _._.V.. � , : 4 � d �_ PA _ � � �_ . . a� + '— " ...�_ � - � � !d_-�-� 12 4 _ � � . � i � � �. , . : :.� �____.. �- �, : ._ _ __�� _ ,¢ _' � i � „ i �.�. 1 ��— i �� u �—� S�CTI0�1 � � 12 � Pf�RTIf�� S�CTI0�1 ��8 Huf�TRID�� I�f��l� ■ .-. �„E 6/21/12 A� ��,: GOEL & AGGARWAL �,,�,�: DAVID PRUITT - DESIGNER - -9 13 �� 4 0 8 6 2 6 � davidpruitt�sbcglobel.net �E SCALE; 1/4"=1'-�" � � . HUNTRIDGE LAN� � •-, ._`T.. �,_� CUNCEPTUAL LA,N3)��APE�SCAPE PLAN 1�gn—��-0� . waw w...�... AGGARWALJGOER RESID Nc�NOTES AND CALCLn ATIONS Conceutual Landacaoe Hardtcaoe Plan* The following calculadons provide a breakdown of the propoaed hardscape and landscape aceas, QAt least a 2'cleazance from paving to thc property line sha11 be maintained. Site : 6000 sf Provosed Hardscane: Proposod Residence(first floor and gazage): 1900 sf Driveway: 478 sf Front walks,side yard waik,rear patio: 1142 sf Total Hardsca�e�. 3520 sf Q Total Landscane Area: 2480 sf Below the 2500 sf dvethold for iandscape plan requirement Lawn Area Calcula'ons: 25%of 2480 sf= IQ 620 sf or maximum lawn atlowed � Proposed landscape azea 'Reference to item#S–city plaiming comments May 29,2012 Privacv Protection Plan• Required 30 degree view angies from second story windows have beex►noted on the plan.The following plant selecrion has bcen made,taken from the city pref ' of plant material. v—y✓ A Pittosporum tenufolium @ 5'-0"ce 15 gallon size/min.6'tall Q f � 'Reference to item#9–city planning comments May 29,2012 �--�� Front Yard Imcervions Snrface Area Cakalations* Total area is 20'x 60'width of property=1200 sf. 40%oC 1200 sf=480 sf. Proposed impervious surface area: Driveway 390 sf Front entry/walks 56 sf Total: 446 sf or 37%(below the regulated 40%) 'Reference to item#16–city planning comments May 29,2012 Front Yard Tree The following u�ee has been located in the front yard. T-I Lagestrcemia Tuscorora standazd/Ctape Myrtle 24"box •Refen,mce to item#23–city planning comments May 29,2012 �_► r •y/� '/�/ �� 'i �9 `i(",-�1 �'�i ^...,/�%,L��E'/ . . !"�� , ��1-� :�� ;`_� _,_.�„a,v.� � �,.� � t �-- -..� --. -- �:�I'!; • � ._ - � r��l�� ,...,._..�.�. `. �.��.._..._ ____._ � __r _.__��.._ ��+� ��-_- _� _ ��;- . -:�� :; �. �... ;�ig�la�u��_--T.- - - _.-�.: __. . _ �_ . � , , _ � �. ��h'C�.C�F�'l�� ' • �" .,........� �i�' '��-�:�' � . � a � � c� a � � JUL 2 0 2012 � y ; �. : � � � �- ...�-�01.��.... .. - . . � � � _ ; ., �� _ F�. _ .. , �;� l D..��l.�� , ;, i`,i,+ f HARDSCAPE CALCUL.ATIONS�f Area#1–Driveway–19'6"x 2' »�-��X s> =478 sf Area#2–Entry Walk and Landing–6'x� 9'x4 =60 sf Atea#3–Front Yard Sidewalk–3'x 10' =30 sf Area#4–Rear Yard Sidewalk–3'x 4b' =138 sf Area#5–Rear Yard Walk–4'x 16' =64 sf Area#6–Rear ratio–2s'x3a' =850 sf Total Hardscape–1620 af m AARDSCAPE CALCULATIONS � HUNTRIDGE LANE PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN 1/8"=1'-0>, �� .�,�� 1-.,..�,r L�� ,. REVISION8 a e _ � C i Y 1 � WT� V�j. � IC-, .�r h W °� AU ~O �z � a w c+. W U � � �z a > � Q �I r °.a J 9.t� � �-,�r�' ��. � �� sn.n 1 ot b �s / � / I / � I � � _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— — — — — — — .- � I ' i I �� JUL 2 � �ui1 � U ay. I _ - � N 89'S9'38"W 301.00' �-- — — — 73.90' — — — i— — — — — — — — — — — 227.10. — — — — — — — — — — — i HUNTRIDGE LANE (60' R/W) Basis of Bearings i i ' � i ; -�,- ,.. —� /� � ' �: r-.� ::�y��:��::"�t � o; } .� � ---_--� _ ,.� �.�.�:.�.__ .:�: M; .��,t; r��liC��,�? _�_.,.�.�.�� ' ��r0'J�! ��f � -�3 -- i� ; �.,�, .__ _ _�.�_.:�._„�,.-......�.�.�..._� � v� — — — — — — —— N 89i59'38" W 60.00' '`�I, ��J — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - -� � _,..-_. ., _ � I �\ I�',;?��r-��%�<>1 -.._.. ., -- -_.-_:.._--.. ..� ..� :-:�- .. .��,,,_ � I I J�..N.I�f.L . ...�.. "�' • � � . .... .� . _ _. ...... I � I LEGAL DESCRIPTION \ � •� � � I A�L THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO,COUNTY OF I N N I ' SANTA CLARA,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,DESCRIBEO AS FOLLOWS: � : � 2 BEING L07 21.AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN TRACT MAP N0.2406 RECORDED IN ' � ". . . - � . _ /��+•`•'�� I BOOK 132 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17,FILED MAY 3,1961,RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA ' ' � � � � ( � � COUNTY. ' � � � � � I _ _ _ _ 20'SETHACK UNE _ _ _ _ _ _ � I I 5.,� /� � I � BASIS OF BEARINGS � - . '— � � � _ _ � �,�b�-_�_ .. ( � I .. . I �vi I SHOWN AONNTR�CTNMAP�N082 068EREC0 Dm ENTBOLq(E7�2 OF MA S AT PAGE S7, I I �a FILED MAY 3,1961,RECOROS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. . n I IN I I � 3 I ; I 0' 10' 20' 30' � � I � . , I '" . . _ .,__.... � ' � � t .. . .__.:__....,_-.,..�.N_......_ � i5.2' � SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT ; - �,•a�f- I a � I C� I THIS MAP REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE 8Y ME OR UNDER MY SUPERNSION AT 7HE I . � �, � / i I� � REQUEST OF AMIT GOEL W FEBRUARY OF 2017. � ' N Q �' i � Q d I 3 � ; � e I �I 6.8' � I I TOM H.MILO,LS 6438 t = I � ' p i �N LICENSE EXPIRES: 12-31-2012 ` 'p 4 � ��,, � LOT 21 i Q �O I DA7E: � � P z „n,,w�_,�-. A TR N0. 2406 I °o %� .�,..-...-<<--.... - 3 � �� N BK. 132 PG. 17 I N �2 � I �..� .,.__..,...,. ..,-.... ..._ NI w I o� APN: 359-06-044 � � I o� I ~ � � IN I ' � � LEGEND � � I � 6.9' I I I 5.1i I I �5 2 • FOUND BRASS PIN MONUMENT I I ( I O SET 5/8"X18'REBAR W/CAP LS 6438 � � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I W.C.E. WIRE CLEARANCE EASEMENT � I 20'SETBACK UNE I � I P.S.E. PUBUC SERVICE EASEMENT I 00 Of � I I N N � �� PROPERTY LINE I I ——————— ———————————————————— —I � I —————————— T EASEMENT LINE � �5'W.C.E � _ � I -- ADJOINER LOT LINE I I � 0.6�----- --------�---- 0.2� I I �•�� WOOD FENCE 1 s�PS.E � ,.o� 1 _ �= - - - - - -- - - „ S 89'S9'38 E 60.00' 1.0 0. 0.2 � i <�T � ^ � C�T 2� � �� ( 2S I �6 � ' - �I — — — — — N 89'S9'38"W 250.00' — — — — — — — — ~ CARRIAGE CIRCLE (60' R/W) I � � IBOUNDARY SURVEY � � • � DRAWN BY THAA AMITRGOELR T K M JOB N0. SHEET � CKD.BY THAA 7738 HUNTRIDGE LANE Land Surveyors 22 Bohan Drlve � / I �AJE FEBRUARY 10, 2011 LOT 21, TRACT 2406 ta Clara CA 95050 FlLE N0. /� SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS �08.615. 5 phone � 1 SCALE �� CUPERTiNO CALIFORNIA 408.615. 56 faX