The URL can be used to link to this page

11. Jennifer Jodoin appeal 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Commumty Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO.~ AGENDA DATE July 17. 2007 SUBJECT: Consider an. appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a hillside exception . application to construct a 689 square foot second-story addition to an existing residence for a total floor area ratio of 6,980 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500 square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a prominent ridgeline. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal of EXC-2007-02 and deny the Planning Commission's decision; or 2. Uphold the appeal of EXC-2007-02 and modify the Planning Commission's decision; or 3. Deny the appeal of EXC-2007-02 and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. BACKGROUND: On April 24, 2007, the Planning Commission denied a hillside exception application on a 4-1 vote (Wong voted no ) for a second-story addition to an existing residence. The exception was necessary for two reasons: 1. To allow the development to be constructed on a prominent ridgeline, and 2. To exceed the total allowable floor area ratio permitted in the RHS-120 zone. A previous hillside exception (16-EXC-98) was granted by the Planning Commission on January 11, 1999 on the subject property to allow a two-story addition to the residence on a prominent ridgeline. This addition was constructed and is part of the existing residence. The project site is located on the east side of Regnart Canyon Drive, north. of Regnart Road and is surrounded by single-family residential properties to the north and west on upward sloping portions of the hillside, and to the east and south on the downward sloping portions of the hillside. The project site also accommodates a PG&E utility tower and a San Jose Water Company water tank on the west side of the property that are visible from Regnart Canyon Drive. 11 - 1 EXC-2007-02 Appeal 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive ~age 2 July 17, 2007 ----------------------------~-------------------------------~~------ ._------------------------------------~------------------------------ DISCUSSION: ApplicantJs Appeal , 011 May 11, 2007, the applicant submitted an appeal (See Exhibit B) requestu'lg'that the City. Council overturn the Planning Commissi9n'S .decision and approve the hillside exception to allow the second-story addition~ The applical1t states that tIle additioIl is needed to acco~modate tIle U11ique livllLg situation of the family residing on the property and to accommodate tl1e growing family nee.ds of the residents. h1. previous letters to the Planning Commission (See letters in Exhibit D), t11e applicant explained that the property own.er's nephew and his family reside with and help care for the owner. The applicant stated that the family is currently living ,in a portion of tile residence t11at accommodated the needs of. the l1ephew prior to marriage and family, and therefore, currently does not provide enough space to accommodate l1im a11d his .. growing family. . . . Planning Commissiol1. Comments The Commission emphasized the importance of abiding by the Residential Hillside ordinance requirement limiting developlnel1t to a maximum floor area ratio of 6,500 square feet, and tl'lat giving exceptiOl1.S to t~is ordulance would erode the. hillside requirements. The Commission also felt that it was a question of equity al"ld fairness because other requests in the City have been denied to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of the zoning ordi11ance. Additio11ally, the Commission felt that the property owner l'las the option of remodeling the interior of the existing residence to accommodate their needs. An issue Was. also raised about landscape screel1il1g requirements for the existing resideIlce. A conceptual landscape plan (See Exl1.ibit E) was approved in conjunction witl1 the previously approved hillside exception granted in 1999, ll1.dicatitlg that landscaping sho~ld have been ~stalJed ill conjuIlction with the. constructiol1 of this previous addition.. Staff explamed tllat the City could still enforce the landscaping requirement, regardless of the denial or approval of this appeal. T:Ile applicant states that the property owner is willing to plant any additional trees for screening as tIle Coun~il deems necessary. Tile Commissioner who supported the hillside exception request stated that the need for multi-generational families residing together should be taken into consideration al1d is a sufficient reason to justify the exception. Public Conunel1ts The Plannillg Commission heard from two members of the public. One of the comments came from a neighbor residing 011 Regnart Callyol1 Drive who stated that he supports the applicatiol1 and felt that the Commission.should approve the hillside exception with all additional condition to plal1t additional trees around the property to provide proper scr~ening of the site from tIle valley floor. The l1eighbor also stated that he felt the 11 - 2 EXC-2007-02 Appeal 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Page 3 July 17.2007 existing house color does not blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and some thought should be given to repaint the house. Another member of the public objected to . the hillside exception and felt that approving it would set a new precedent in the City to exceed the hillside requirements. . Staff Comments Staff originally recommended denial of the application. There is no new evidence that would support this exception request. Staff also believes that all of the findings for a hillside exception calmot be met in accordance with the Residential Hillside Ordinance (See Exhibit F). Staff does not believe that the proposed addition involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations necessary to accomplish reasonable use of the property (Finding No.4 in Section 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside Ordinance). Staff also believes that the project is not necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts and the size of the structure is the minimum necessary to. allow for reasonable use of the property (Finding No. 8b). Enclosures: EXhibit A: Resolution No. 6457 denying EXC-2007-02 Exhibit B: Appeal submitted by Jennifer Jodoin, applicant, 011 May 11, 2007 Exhibit C: Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 2007 Exhibit D: Planning Commission staff report of April 24, 2007 w / attachments Exhibit E: Previously approved conceptual landscape plan Exhibit F: Residential Hillside Ordinance (Chapter 19.40) Plan Set Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: . " ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Stev Piasecki Director of Community Development G:planning/pdreport/ appeals/EXC-2007-02 Appeal 11 - 3 Exhibit A EXC-2007 -02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6457 (DENIAL) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE, CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION FOR A 689 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE ZONE AND TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON A PROMINENT RIDGELINE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: . Applicant: Property Owner: Location: EXC-2007-02 J~nnifer J adom Janet M. DeCarli 11640 Regnart Canyon Road _ .. r _ ~ _ ... t..' . .. .. .- - ,- ,- \ SECTION. II: - FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission of the City of Cupertin,? received an application for a Hillside ExceptioIl, as. de~cribed on Section II of tIns Resolution; and WHEREASr tIle nec~ssary notices llave_ been~ given in accordance with- the Procedural Ordinal1ce of the City of ~upertino/-and tIle Plaruling Commission l1as held~ one or more Public Hearings .on.tpis matter; and WHEREAS, -the applicant has. not met tIle burden. of proof required to support this application, and has not satisfied all of the following requirements: ' 1. ,The proposed development will- not be. injurious to property or . improvements m the area nor be detril:nental to the public health and safety. 2. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestriaIl or vehicular traffic~ 3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets mid public services are available to serve the development. 4~ The proposed development requires all exception. which involves, the least ,modification of, or devi(~tion from, the development regulations .prescribed in .. this cl'lapter necessary to accomplish a rea~o11able use of the parcel. S. All alternative locations for development on tIle parcel have bee~ considered and have been found to create greater erlvironmental impacts tllan the location of the proposed developmel1t~ 6. The proposed development does not consist of sh"uctures on or near known geological or enviromnental hazards that have been determined by expert 11 -.4 . Resolution No. 6457 . Page 2 . EXC-2007-02 (Denial) Apri124~ 2007 testimony to be unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein. (See General Plan Policies 2-48.) 7. The proposed development includes .grading and drai~age plans that will erisure that erosion and scarril1g of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads, housing sitesr and improvements will be minimized. (See General Plan Policies 2-53, 2-54 and 2-57~) 8. The propbs~d .development .does not consist of structures. whic~ would disrupt tIle llatural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the valley floor unless'either: a. The location of a struch1re on a ridgeline is necessary to avoid greater negative envirormi.ental impacts; or b. . The structure could .not otherw~se be, pllysically located on the parcel. . -- . and the size of the structure is the minimum that is necessary to allow ,fC?r a reasonable use ?f t11e parcel... (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-~7 .ai1.d.2-49.) 9. The proposed development consists of structures illcorporating designs; colors; materials; and outdoor lighting wN-ch blend with the natural hillside envirol1ffient and which are designed. in .such a maImer as to reduce the effe~tive visible mass, lllcluding building heighti as much as possible without. - creating other negative enviroiunental :impacts.. (See General Plan Policies :2- .. 16; 2:50; 2-51 and 2~52.) . '_. . , lq. The pr6:p~s.ed 9.evelopfTLent. i~ l?cate,d on tf1.e pa.rcel as ~ar as possible. from. public open space preserves or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors~ . " and wildlife habitc~ts unless su~h .location, ,will ~reate other; more negative: ~. environmental impacts. (See Gene~al Plan Policies.?~55, 5-14 and 5-28.) , .. 11. The proposed development inCludes a landscape plan that retains as many spe-cimen trees as possible; which utilizes drought-tolerant native plants and ground covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and wInch minimizes lawn areas. (See General PlaIl Policies 2-54, 5-15 and 5-16.) 12. .The proposed development confines solid fencing to th~ areas near a structure rather tItan around the entire site. (See Gelleral Plan Policy 5-17.) .13~ TIle proposed development is otherwise consistent with tIle City'S General Plan and with the purposes of t1us chapter as described in Section 19..40..010. NOW, .THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Tha.t after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in .this matter, applicatiol1 n~. EXC-20o.7-02 is l1ereby denied; and That t~e SUbC011clusions upon which the, fi11dings specified il1 tlus Resolution are based and contau1ed ill the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2007-02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Conunissiol1 Meeting of April 24, 2007, aI1.d are incorporated by referel1ce herein.. 11 - 5 Resolution No. 6457 Page 3 EXC-2007-0~ (Denial) April 24, 2007 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24tll day. of April 2007, at a ~egular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the. following roll.call vote: A YES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Vice Chair Chien, Miller Kaneda COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: 11011.e . COMMISSIONERS: none., NOES: . ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Coriununity Development / s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Planning Commission . . . G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ EXC-2007-02 denial res.doc 11 - 6 Exhibit B City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 . (408) ,777-3223 ~ ~ M:Y ~ : ~:07 ~ ~. CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. Application No. EXC-2007-'02 2& Applicant(s) Name: Jennifer Jodoin 3. Appel1ant(s) Name: Jennifer Jodoin . Address 21710 Stevgns Creek Blvd.. Suite 200,. Cuper~iTIn, CA - 95014 Phone Number . 40R-?S7-?10n. Em ail ,. jjodoin@ktpropertiesinc. com. 4. Please check one: Appeal a deci~ion of Director of Community Development 'x Appeal ,a decision of Planning Commission 5 ~ Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: April 24;' .2007 -, 6~ Basi~ of appeal: . See attach~d letter t .f Signature(s), (~7iruJ! ac;;.-z-.... . . rl .// (/ . , Please complete form, include appeal fee of $.149.00, EU1d return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300. Tbrre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. 11' - 7 May 11, 2007 .City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014. Re:. Expansion - -11640 Regnart Canyon Drive, Cupertino Honorable Council Members: We are appealing the. denial frOln _ the Planning Commission for the above referenced project for the follovving reasons -, , , 1. We believe the reason the exception process is in placeis to acco;nmodate the needs of Cupertmo - families who find themselves in unique living situations. The fact that there is an exception process would lead one to believe that small exceptions would be allowed -occasionally with reasonable justification. It is our belief that this situation is the appropriate reason for granting of an . exception. 2. -We are asking for a minimal addition of 688 square feet that is set' back into the hiilside completely hidden by the existing home. We aren't proposing a huge monstrosity of a home. . We are merely asking for additional living space to provide a healthy living environment for the growing family while having no impact on the communitj at large. TIle proposed expansion is in keeping with the scope and texture of the surrounding area, and is harmonious with the exiting houses in the neighborhood. . . 3 · We would be happy to accept a condition that would require us to p1i'lllt any additional trees for screening that the council deems necessary; When the h.om P{),\J: mer rpC".Pl" vpn .-.:!;nnrO'\l Q 1 fAT 'Q n t1 Q("o!oJ np T"\ 1 an c b"=1t"' lr I. T1 1 Q 0 Q "\l.TP brO'l nht ........."-"..t....I....&._........ ,.'~..i...L. .... -.....- -....... '--y.t"..a. .,.. '-"L-..II. .a............ "l;,.1l,..4.L.L'-LLJ'_'-'L.y_ 1-".1. .I.....u ~..t.'Io....1..I..L J..J v, 1'"1'-" ..I. I,..L.6.1. them to San Jose Water requesting they either repair or replace their retaining wall prior to our intrusion in that area. To date, we -have not received any . response from_ San Jose ~ater. Please contact me at (4-08) 257-2100 should you require any additional information at this time~ Thank you~ Sincerely, ~/~r j ennlfer Jodoin Applicant for 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 257-2100 . 11 - 8 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 Exh =- ~ ~t (..;""\ . . . m H~j ~. (~l .. ~ jl.!",,:-o M _.~ ~ April 24, 2007 Com. Wong: . Noted for the record that the site plan referred to for the front, and side setbacks is the plan the .Commissioners received on April 18th. in their packets~ He said he was voting No because the front porch is very large and massive, and although he would support a porch, he does not support a porch that large. . He said that he felt the applicant did a good job at reaching out to the neighbors, although they could not come to an agreement on everything. . He said he agreed with the Planning Commission, but not on the mass of the front porch. (Vote: 3-2-0; Chair Giefer No; Com. Wong No.) Steve Piasecki: . Clarified that a ~echanism exists in Cupertino's ordinance for neighbors to agree amo~gst themselves to set a one story height limit and set a more stringent requirement to changing that' with a Use Permit require.ment to go beyond that Often there are comments that it is a one story neighborhood; but the one story neighborhood could with a majority, rezone then1selves to a height limitation as ,did the neighborhood to the north. The reason it is rarely done is because people perceive it diminishes their property value or limits their property value. . The flexibility exists in the ordinance and people can so choose to opt for that if they wish. Com. Kaneda: . Asked if there were neighborhoods such as Eichler neighborhoods,. where in addition to potentially.a one story requirement, there is a stylistic requirement? Steve Piasecki: . Said that Monte Vista has some design guidelines but they can have one and two story homes~ The Eichler area does not have a one story limitation; they can be designed in a two story format; it does have design standards for Eichler homes, typically the flatter or lower pitched roofs. Chair Giefer declared a short recess. 4. EXC-2007-02 Jennifer Jodoin (DeCarli residence) 11640. Regnart Canyon Drive Hillside Exception to construct a 689 square foot second story addition to an existing residence for a total of 6,870 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500 square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a prolninent ridgeline. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. - Aid Honda Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewe~ the application for a hillside exception to construct a 689 square foot second story addition to an existing home for a total floor area ratio of 6,980 square feet, and an exception to build on a prominent ridgeline, as - outlined in the staff report . She reviewed the background of the item, noting that in the property received a previous hillside exception in 1999 to build on' the prominent ridgeline, which allowed, for a 2,081 square foot, one and two story addition for a total of 6,171 square feet Since then a 120 square foot storage shed was built on the premises, counting toward the FAR. . Staff is concerned that approval of the application may set a precedent for future exceptions to exceed. the FAR .without the application meeting all of the RHS exception findings~ Only on rare occasions has the maximum size been exceeded and only where a new space was internaL 11 ~ 9 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 Apri124~ 2007 . Staff has reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, arid does not find that the proposed addition meets the findings, because the maximum level FAR of.6,500 square feet appears to allow for reasonable usage of the parcel ~nd also the addition is not necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts on the property~ _ e. Staff does not support the project and calU10t state that all of the findings for an exception can be met. Additionally, there are several mature trees around the property, particularly around the. north side of the property which would need significant trimming to accommodate the addition on the north side, which would create some visual impacts on the ridgeline~ . Staff recommends that the Planni~g Commission deny the hillside exception application based on the findings in the model resolution. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the application, staff also recommends that additional landscaping requirements be added to mitigate the visual impacts from the valley floor and also replace the tree removal being proposed. -. . Staff has also added a condition of approval that would require an updated geotechnical report prior to issuance of building permits. Jennifer Jodoin, applicant: . Explained that the need for the second floor addition was to accominodate the owner's nephew and his family, who were caring for the property owner. Currently they are residing in a one room multi-purpose room and the proposal is for two bedrooms and a bath to accommodate the family. Jim Walker, Regnart Canyon Drive: . Supports the application. . Said his home was built 28 years ago, the same time the DeCarli residence was being constructed and he was happy with the neighbo~hood. He said he felt that this is a case where a city Planning Commission can take action to improve an existing condition by granting a variance or exceptions. The property is unique; there is both a water tank and PG&E tower on the property~ If the home did not exist, both structures would be very visible and if the landscaping that .is planted around those structures was not there, those structures. would be even more visible. . It is a very uriique piece of property, with two. very large structures there that the home and landscaping hides. It is a large site, and the coverage as proposed with the addition, amounts to slightly less than 4% of the site, so this is not a case of a large home on a small lot He said most of the landscaping is behind the hOIJse and shields the house around the tower and water t3nks * . He said that the applicant is willing to plant any trees that the Planning Commission deems necessary. ,He said they were not so concerned about the trees behind the house or next to the water tank, but are concerned about the home as it currently exists, and the way it is viewed .from the v~11ey floor. ' . He urged approval of the project, stating that he felt it was a case where granting an exception and a variance if required, with mitigation measures, would be a benefit to the city, including the adjacent neighbors. . He said there may be some issues relating to paint colors, as he felt the house did not blend in with the surroundings. Those conditions are up to the city. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she felt if the exception was approved, it would set a new precedent, with a residence with close to 7,000 square feet, compounded as it is on a ridgeline. 11 - 10 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 Apri124,2007 . Suggested remodeling t~e current residence to accommodate more living quarters or building a cottage on the site for the extra living space. . She said if the exception is granted for additional space and increase in square footage, public hearings should be held and consideration given to increasing the maximum square footag~ for homes to 7,000 square feet. Com. Miller: . Relative to landscaping that was not done the last time, questioned if the city could compel the applicant regardless of the ruling, to plant the landscaping that was supposed to be planted'in the past. Ciddy Wordell: _ . Said that staff would like to work with the property ovmer to do that and the city can require - - that they do th~t . . She recalled that the landscaping requirement followed the arc of the house as it faces the downhill valley, perhaps one-half dozen trees along the front facing arc~ J~nnifer Jodoin: . Reviewed the square footage of the current home, which included 2 bedrooms, an office, living room, a kitchen and dining room, multi- purpose room, 3 car' garage, utility room, laundry room, and 3-1/2 batlrrooms. . . Reiterated that they would accommodate any landscape requirement. . Explained that the second floor addition was being requested to ac~ommodate the caretaking family; Ms. DeCarli and partner resided on the first floor as it was not feasible for them to climb stairs. Com. Wong: . Noted that neighbors did not object to the proposed addition to the home; and said a neighbor was present who supported the request for the exception. . Said he understood the need for multi generations residing together and it seemed sensible to expand the property. . Said that if he supported the application tonight, he would reconnnend a comprehensive landscaping plan that is toward the front of the home; it is important to have some type of, vegetation a~d that can be worked out at,the staff level to make sure the addition does blend in with the neighbors. . Said he could support the variance based on the family's needs. Vice Chair Chien: . Said on the valley floor there is an FAR for single family homes; in the hills there is not only. an FAR but also a maximum cap of 6,500 square feet He s~id he felt it was a question of fairness; they have not in any frequent manner approved additional square footage even in situations where people have asked for sun roon1s;.they have been turned down. . He emphasized that they need to abide by the ordinance~ Com. Kaneda: . Said he conclllTed with Vice Chair Chien and felt that there was room in the plans to make adjustments. in the existing building. He said he felt 6,500 square feet was enough square footage to provide accommodations for two families. . Does not support granting the variance. 11 - 11 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 April 24, 2007 Com. Miller: . Said that the applicant was in before in 1999 for a ridgeline exception which was granted to add square footage. Part of the conditions called for them to do significant landscape planting; however, the owner did not comply. - , . Said it was difficult to accept that the applicant would come back to ask for another addition when they 4id not meet the city requ~enlents on the previous addition~ . He suggested that staff look into whether or not the Commission could require that the applicant comply with adequate landscaping without granting any further additions to the property. If not, he said he would support Jim Walker's suggestion to trade getting the landscaping and some other benefits such as improving the house colors, and also along, with that to ensure that it was done in compliance with the city this time. Based on past performance, there.is no guarantee that the applicant would comply with landscaping~ He said he would insist on seeing the landscape plan, and approve it and also that the applicant provide a bond to cover the full cost of that landscaping as well as a bond to cover any damage to the road that construction vehicles might result in from large heavy construction vehicles moving up and down that relatively narrow f,?ad. Chair Giefer: . Said she concurred with Corns. Chien and Kaneda, and did not want to see the hillside policy eroded, giving exceptions to allow additional structures being built. . Staff said that they can enforce the prior landscaping plan that was submitted regardless of what action is taken tonight; and she felt that the Planning Commissiol1 in the past treated the applicant well and the previous Planning Commission granted them an' exception to add onto a predominant ridgeline with a second story. . Said she did not support the application. . Said it was important to her to uphold the current hillside policy ~ There is a landscape plan that was previously approved and not implemented that staff can enforce today, which may mitigate some of the issues that surfaced regar9ing screening~ She said it was a large structure and she was not willing to further erode the hillside policy. Com. Wong: . Said that if the 120 square foot storage. uriit was removed, there is still 360 square feet remaining~ He asked if there was any possibility of further trimming to allow that addition. Aid Honda Snelling: . Said tllat when the applicant came in for preliminary application meetings, at that time was asked if they could accommodate the addition within that 6,500.square feet. Jlley looked at the plans and could not accommodate it, which is the reason they are on the agenda tonight Ciddy Wordell: . Said if the applicant trimmed it and met the 6,500 square' 'feet, all they needed to do is modify their previous exception; they wouldn't need an exception to keep it at 6,500 square feet. . Said that if it was brought back and if the majority wants to keep it at 6,500 square feet, 'the . direction should be to bring it back at 6,500 square feet with some other configuration, unless. you want the remainder of the Planning Commission to consider more than 6,500 square feet Com. W~ng: . Suggested that the item be continued and staff work with the DeCarli family to see if they can accommodate suggestions or changes. 11 - 12 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 April 24, 2007 Chair Giefer: . Expressed concern that their representative explained that they have been working on this for four. years and' found there was no other way to make acconunodations. If the item is continued, giving them the parameters that they need to fit into the 6,500 square feet maximum home size, it doesn't sound like it is a quick fix. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attor~ey: . Said that if they are expected to come in at 6,500 square feet, it is for an exception to exceed the 6,500 square feet; there would be no point in continuing it if the Planning Commission decides to deny the application~ They can always return for 6,50q square feet later; it would not be continuing the exception because tIle exception would be moot if they come in at 6,500 square feet. Ciddy Wordell: . Restated that although they would be at 6,500 square feet, if they added more square footage on a prominent ridgeline, that also requires an exception; hence it is more than just the maximum square feet Com. Miller: . . Said he felt the applicant has many alternatives; and he was still concerned a~out the impact on the city. He asked staff if they were confident that they .could compe~ the applicant to install the. previous condition for landscaping. (Staff said they w~re certain it could be done.) Com. Wong: . _ Said that if they were willing to come in at 6,500 square feet which I don't see any opposition from the Planning Commission; they still need a public hearing because they are building on a prominent ridgeline to make sure they conform to the ordinance~ In order for them to do that, we have to ask the applicant to come to see if they are wiling to continue the item or ask for a denial and then they would have to go to, City Council to ask for an appeal. They have two options. , Com. Miller: . Even if they came back, we would still have to consider an exception for the ridgeline issue. They would have to get an exception even if they get under the 6,500 square feet limit Com. Wong: . Said that the proposed addition of about 400 square feet, is so small that on a prominent ridgeline it would be very hard to see; and also it could be mitigated by landscaping. It would be a good opportunity to make sure that there is a comprehensive landscaping plan, because if we are go~ng to go back to 1991 when they had their original modification, we are only going to cover that portion; it is not going to cover the entire propertY. He said his goal was to screen . the entire residence so that the whole community would benefit Aid Honda Snelling: . Said the previous exception from 1999 shows a preliminary landscaping plan with some trees on the outside portion of the arc, but the condition of approval required that a final landscape plan be submitted as part of the building permit package. - Com. Miller: - ., He said they could not get complete screening of the residence without requiring a new approval.. He said he might be inclined to explore that, but only under the conditions that the 11 - 13 .Cupertino Planning Co111111ission 18 Apri124,2007 landscaping plan be approved befor~ the .addition to the residence is approved, and that they be required to post a bond to cover the full cost of the landscaping plan as well as other conditions to ensure that the road isn't damaged by construction vehicles as well as changing the colors. Vice Chair Chien: . Said he was concerned when straying too far from the scope of the application presented; the application asks for an exception in square footage and while he agreed with Com. Miller's and Com. Wong's goal of as much screening as possible, it strays too far from the application. He said he felt it could be accomplished through enforcement which is the first step to take to get there. . Said in terms of what they_ were approving, he was not comfortable ~ith that Com. Miller: . Said he concurred, although enforcement would not get screening of the entire structure. He questioned whether it was a greater benefit than what is being given away by doing so. Com. Kaneda: . Said he,agreed with Vice Chair Chien, and questioned if the applicant would entertain a design that completely screens the building, resulting in no views of the val1ey~ Jennifer Jodoin: . Said that the owner is open to accommodating any suggestions made by the Commission; however, she did not have a definitive answer. It would .be unfortunate to lose the entire visual they presently have. She questioned if there was so~ething they could add to the landscaping in front to minimize some of the structure, yet not completely obstruct the view; it should not be all or nothing in terms of the visual. " Com. Miller: . Said. their objective was to screen it from the residents downstream and the rest of the city, and that may not completely block their view. He said he was not prepared to approve the application without having a comprehensive landscape plan that proves they are achieving their goal. Com. Wong: . Asked Ms. Jodoin if it was feasible for the DeCarli family to fit their plans, within the 6,500 square feet.vs. the proposed application of 6,980 square feet? Jennifer Jodoin: . She said it may be possible to go back and try to get to the maximum 6,500 square feet while removing the shed. Without the 120 square foot shed, it would be 6,360 square feet Chair Giefer: . Summarized that there are two different ideas; one to continue the item to try to resolve how the family would fit into the maximum 6,500 square foot floor area ratio allowed, and the other is they would - need to come back for anything they did, because, it is on the. prominent ridgeline, and there have been concerns from several Planning Conunissioners with regards to landscaping which mayor may not be agreeable to the applicant at the time when they return if it is continued. . Said she was not uncomfortable with 6,500 square feet; there are many issues with regard to the view, they have removed the middle branches from one of the redwood trees to ensure they 11 - 14 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 April 24, 2007 have a view. She said she felt when people reside in the hills, they have the righ,t to expect a valley view. Com. Kaneda: . Said that Com. Miller is concerned about screening, and based on what he heard, they will cut the screening. He asked Com. Miller ifhis viewpoint had changed. .Com. Miller: . If we can condition it so that it serves to effectively screen the neighbors, screen the city the way it was intended when the first application was around; and the only way to get that :full screening is to give them their addition, I am willing to make that tradeoff However, as pointed out, they may come back and do something to make that screen ineffective and so under that circumstance, I am less inclined to support that. However, if you cut out the middle, my question is can you see that difference from a mile away or not We can condition it, but " there is no way to make sure "that they are in compliance is the issue, because a year from now, they can cut that .out and we will never know about it, and we have lost our screening. This applicant has not shown a willingness to comply with conditions of approval in the past; therefore I am inclined to not trust the applicant on any future approvals. .Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Kaneda, to deny Application EXC-2007-02. (Vote: 4-1-0;,Com.,Wong No). The decision can be appealed to City Council within 14 days: OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Environmental Review Committee: . . Chair Giefer reported that at the recent meeting, one of the applications for subdivision on this. agenda was reviewed. . Housin2 Commission: '. . Com. Kaneda reported that the meeting was cancelled. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin2 With Commissioners: . No report. Economic Development Committee: . Com. Miller reported on the scheduled opening of the new theater complex. . Ciddy Wordell reported that Kelly Cline was hired as the" new Economic Development staff person and would begin at the end of May. . Gary Chao reviewed the projects recently. approved in Cupertino. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: . Ciddy W orclell reported that Gary Chao was promoted to Senior Planner and would be working with the Economic Development staff person. 11 - 15 Exhibit 0 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: EXC-2007 -02 Agenda Date: April 24, 2007 Applicant: _ Jennifer Jodoin Property Owner: Janet M DeCarli Property Location: 11640 Regnart Canyon Road Project Data: General PJan Designation: Residential, Very Low Density, 5-10 Slope Density. Formula Zoning Designa~ion: RHS-120 Gross .Acres: . 4.1 acres Existing Residence/Garage: 6,171 square feet ~xisting storage shed: 120 squ~e feet Proposed A.ddition: 689 square fe.et Total Proposed SF~ . 6,980 square feet MaximumAl1o~a.bie FAR: 6,500 square feet Maximum Height: 23'feet, 9 inches.- Av~rage ~lope: 31__7% . r _ ~. Project ConsIstency with: General Plan Yes ' Zoning No Environmental Assessment: .Categorically E>sempt. Application Sum~ary: Hillside Exception to construct a 689. square foot second-story addition to an_. existing residence for a total floor area ratio of 6,980 square ~eet, wlnel1 exceeds the 6,500 square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a prominent ridgeline. - RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that tIle Plalming Commission del1Y file 110. EXC-2007-02, subject to the model resolution~ BACKGROUND: 011. Ap~ill0, 2007, the applicant submitted .a.letter requesting continuance of tIle application to the April 24th Plarming COmmiSSiOl1 meeting.~ TIle Plannillg Conunission voted 5-0 to. contillu'e this item to the April 24 meeting. Tllis report is substantially the same report as the April 10 Planni11g Commission staff report, except for the addition of a letter (See Exhibit B) submitted by tIle applicant on Apri118, 2007~ The applicant's letter is a response to the April 10 staff report that , . discusses staff's reasons for reconunending denial of tl1e application. 11 - 16 EXC-2007-02 Page 2 Apri124. 2007 On January 26, 2007, the property owner submitted an application for a hillside exception to request approval of an addition to the residence on the subject property that would exceed the maximum allowable floor area ratio of 6,500 square feet on the property in the Residential Hillside zone. An exception is also requested since the addition is proposed on property that is located on a prominent ridgeline. A previous hillside exception (16-EXC-98) was granted by Planning Conullission on the subject property on January 11, 1999, allowing a two-story addition to the residence. The exception was required because of the property's location on a prominent ridgeIine. The addition consisted of a 537 square foot workshop/utility room on the first floor and a 1,544 square foot living and deck addition on the second floor, for a total of 6,171 square feet. DISCUSSION: The addition is proposed on the second floor of the residenc~ along. the north side of the property and will extend over area that is currently developed with a paved walkvyay that provides access around the north end of the residence and a sloped landscape area that is stabilized by a retaining wall. The area below the proposed second floor addition will be left open and u:nenclosed. This area will consist of support piers for the second floor and maintenance of the paved walkway that provides access to the storage room on the .north side of the property adjacent to the garage. 11-17 EX.C-2007-02 Page 3 April 24) 2007 The 689 square foot additiol1. will consist of two. bedrooms (including a master bedroom), a bathroom and two wa1k~in closets. The applicant submitted a lette! on March 15, 2007 (See Exhibit A) stating that the additional square footage is , needed to acconunodate the property owner's nephew and Ius family who are living with and caring for the property owner. The architectural design of tIle addition is proposed to match the existing residence with a stucco exterior, gable roof and matching colors. Maximum Floor Area The Residential Hillside Ordinance permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of - 4,500 square feet for lots with more tI1.an 10/000 square feet of net lot area, plu~ 59.59 square feet for every 1,000 square ,feet over 10,000 square feet, up to a maximum floor area ratio of 6,500 square feet.. This property has a net lot area of 178,596 square feetai1d is permitted the maximum floor area ratio of 6,500 square feet~' ' , - . I . I - . TIle. applicant is re.ques~1g an': exceptiori. to exceed the maximum allow~ble FAR _-;~ _ .. L .,. in the Residential Hillside. zone by 4.80 square feet... The FAR includes the existing..' ., .~.., -.. _ -, .~ residence (including _ garage), proposed addition and,. tIle. existing storage- s11ed. . .Staff does--- not support _this- exception because lllaximuln 11ouse-'sizer.'has '-- _.:. historically. been: treated as. such, citywide... .Only .on rare occasions has -the maximum size, been. exceeded, ap.d in those cases, the l1ew space was interllal. Staff is concerne.d that approval of this app.~icatiqn may set a pr~cedent for future FAR exceptions to be granted. . . ... . Additionally, .staff does not feel ~hat all of tli.e findings. for a hills,ide exception can be met. Finding no. 4 of Section 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance. allows the. exception to b~ granted when the proposed development involves the least modification of, or deviatioll from,. the development regulations l1ecessary to accomplish a reasonable use of _ the property. Additi011ally, findin~ no. 8b permits. an exception allowll1g d~sruptiol1 to the natural silhouette of the ridgelines if t11e development is necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts and the size .of -tIle structure is the minimum necessary to allow for reason~ble use of tIle property. Staff does not believe - these findings can be met since the property owner already has. reasonable use of the. property within the existing parameters of the ~evelopment regulations and, tllerefore, deviation from the. existing developmel1t regulations is not n~cessa!y. Further, the additioll is not necessary to avoid greater nega~ve enviromnental impacts. - 11 - 18 EXC-2007-02 Page 4 April 24, 2007 Prominent Ridgeline: The applicant is also requesting approval of a lilllside exception to add onto property that is located on a prominent ridgeline. The proposed addition will be located on the western side of the north elevation of the ~esidencer which is less visible from t~e valley floor than the existing eastern side of tIle residence. The existing ~astern side of the residence is the most visible porpon of the residence as it is located. on the prominent ridgeline facing the dowllward slope that is visible from the valley floor. Although staff believes that there will be minimal visual. impact to the. valley floor from tIle. addition, staff is concerned tllat the addition will be visible given that some of the existing trees along the north side of the property :will have to be significantly trimmed to accommodate tIle second floor addition... . Landscaping ~ " It appears that at least one, of the ~xisting rnarure, pine trees witlrin the sloped landscape area to. the, west will have to be removed to. accommodate the , addition. Further, additional pine trees.. to the north and west of tIle addition,lnay have to be significantly tripuned. . . . __. . ~r. ,+ . . .' i . Staff is. concerned that the~ trirn.1i1it1g of trees along the n.orth. elevation of the .".J . addition will enllance the visibility of the addition along the. pro~nent ridgeline~ Should the Planning Conunission approve the exceptionf staff recomrnends,that~ '.' ~ condition be required to plant an additional tree.along.the, northeast side..of the,: residence to mitigate the visual impacts from the valley floor and.to replace the.; tree along the West side th~t will have to be ,removed to accoJ;l1ffiodate -the'. ...'. addition~ Geological The applicant states tl1at an updated geo-teclmical report has not yet been prepared for t11e addition at this time. Howeverf the applicant intends to have the updated report prepared and submitted to tIle City for review and approval priqr to issuance of building permits, if the Plannillg Commission approves the 11illside exceptio11. Staff has no objection to th.e applicant submitting an updated geo-teclmical report prior to issuance of buildil1.g permits, since the previous geo-teclmical report prepared for tlus property in 2000. in conjunction witll the previous addition did not find any sigIl.ificant .geotechnical problems on site and concluded that a11Y geoteclulical issues could be mitigated by COl1Sh"uction teclu1iques recomrnended in the report. 11 - 19 EXC-2007-02 ~ Page 5 April 24, 2007 Staff recol111!1ends tllat a condition be required for the applicant to supmit an updated geo-tecluucal report prior to issuance of building permits if the Planning, C~mmission approves the exception. Sanitary District . TIle Cupertino Sanitary District has commented tllat the pro.perty is within the sphere of influence of the Cupertino Sanitary District but is not within the current service area~ .The residence is currently. served. by a septic sewage system; however, the sanitary district states that if there is i~tent to annex into the district, both the subject property and a portion of Regnart Canyon Road will need to be aru1exed to p~ovide service to the property. Submitted by; Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner. . . . e.(} . . Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development V~ (" Enclosures: . .. Model.Resolution of Denial ,. . Model Resolution of Approval (if Planning.. ~o:rnmission apPJ:ove,s the proje~t) ...'.' " ,. Exhibit-A: Project pescription.Letter froln Applicant.dat~d March 15/ 200.7 ._ ,>,:~: . Exhibit B: Letter from Applicant dated. April 18, 2007 ~ .,'<. ... ~ . Exhibit C:.Photos . ,.~. Plan. Set '. . .... ~ F ... \ ~ G: \ Pla:ruring \~PDR:EPORT\ pcEXCreports \ EXC- 2007 -02~ doc 11 - 20 EXC-2007-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO .10300'Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO . 'DENYING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION FOR A 689 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE ZONE AND TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON A PROMINENT RIDGELINE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Ap_plication No.: - EXC~2007-02 Applicant: Je~er Jodoin _ -~Property Owner: Janet M. D.ecaIli Location: 11~40 Regnart Canyon Road SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Plallning Commission of the City of Cupertino received ail application for a fiillside Ex<<;eption, as c.lescribed on Section II ~f this. ~esolution; and I " r I WHEREAS, the .necessary notices ha~ve been given in -accordance with t11e~Procedural: ". '. Or,dinance of the_.City of ~upertino, and_t~le Planning'<;:ohunission ~~~ held- one,or mor,~' ,. Public Heari~gs on this matter; and . WHEREAS, tIle applicant has not met tl1.e burden of. proof required to support this application, and has 110t satisfied all of tIle following requirements: . 1 ~ The propose.d development will Ilot be llljurious to property or improvements in tIle area nor be detrilnental to tIle public l1ealth and safety~' 2~ . The proposed development will. not create a hazardous COl1dition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available ~o serve tIle development~ . 4. TIle proposed development requires a11 exceptiol1' which involves tIle least , lllodification of, or deviation-from, tIle development regulatio11S prescribed in this c11apter l1ecessary to accomplisll a reasonable use of tIle parceL 5~ All alter11ative locatiol1s for development 011 tIle parcel have be~n cOl1Sidered and l1ave been found to create greater envirOluuental impacts than the location of the proposed development~ 6~ The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near kllown geological or environmental hazards that have been determined by expert 11-21 Model Resolution Page 2 EXC-2007-02 (Denial) April 24, 2007 ~ I ~ _ r I ~ testimony to be unsafe or hazardous to strucmres or persons residing therein.. (See General Plan Policies 2-48.) 7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans that will ensure that erosion. and scarring of the hillsides ca,,:!sed by necessary construction of roads, housing sites... a11d improvements will be ~zed.. (See General Platl. Policies 2-53, 2-54 and 2-57.) 8. The proposed development does not consist of structures whicl1 would disrupt tIle natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from establislled vantage points on the valley floor unless either: a. The location 'of a structure 011 a ridgeline is .necessary to avoid greater negative eIlviromnental impacts; or b. The struchtre .cQuld not otl1erwise be physically located on the parcel and the size of th~ structure is the. minimum tllat is l1ecessary to allow for a reasonable use of t11~ parceL. (See General Plan Policies 2-46)' 2-47 and 2-49.) .. 9.~. The proposed developlnent consists of structures incorporating .designs, colors, materials, and outdoor ligllting which ,blend with the naturallUllside environmel1.t .and whicl1 are designe'd ill such a manner as to reduce tlle effective visible.mass, includiIlg building l1eig11t, as much as po~sible witll0Ut creating other negative enviromnental impacts~ (See General Plan Policies,r2- 46, 2-50/.~-51 and 2-5~.) . . . :, : 10. TIle proposed development is lqcated qll. the. parcel as far. ~s possible frqm,.. . public open space p;reserves or parks (if visible tllerefrom), riparian corridors,'. . . and wi~dlife habitats unless such location will creaty Qth~r, nlore negap.ve . .' , enyirl?~ental impact~~ (See General Plan Policies 2-55} ~~14, and 5-:28.) . ~ '. . 11;_ The proposed dev~lopment includes a landscape plan that retains as many ., . . specimel1 trees as possible, which utilizes drougllt-tolerant native plffi'lts ~d ground covers consisterlt with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes lawn areas. (See General PlaIl Policies.2-54, 5-15 and 5-16..) 12. The. proposed development confines solid fencing to tIle areas near a .structure rather .than around tIle entire site.~ (See General PlaIL Policy 5-17.) 13.. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the Cityts General Plan and witl1 the purposes of tIns chapter as described in Section 19~40.010. . . . ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exllibits, testhnony and other evidence submitted in tIns matter, application no~ EXC-2007-02 is hereby denied; and ' That tIle subconcl~sions upon wllicIl the findiI1gS specified in this Resolution are based and COl1tained iri the Public Hearing record cOl1cerning Appiication EXC-2007-02, as set forth ill tIle Minutes of the Plannillg Commission Meeting of April 24, 2007, and are incorporated by refere11ce herein~ . 11 - 22 Model Resolution Page 3 EXC-2007-02 (Denial) April 24, 2007 PASSED AND ApOPTED this 24th day of April 2007/ at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll 'call vote: AYES: NOES: . ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa GieferJ Chairperson eu pertino Planning COrmniSSiOIl G: \ Pla~.znin~,\ P!?REPORT\RES \ EXC-2~07-p2 denial res~~oc ~\.. . ~ I i . ~~ : ~. , . \ . 11 - 23 EXC-2007 -02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue. , Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION FOR A 689 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE ZONE AND TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION ON A . PROMINENT RIDGELINE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRlPTION Application No~: Applicant: " Property Owner: Location: EXC-2007 -02 . Jennifer J odom Janet M. DeCarli . 1164q Regnart Canyon,Road SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Cornrirission of tIle.City of Cupertino receiv.ed an appli~ation . fo~ a Hillsid~ Exceptio~, as desc~ibed on Section II of this Resolution; and ' .." .' 1. WHEREAS, ,the necessary notices l1ave been .given III accordance with the Procedural ~ .," ~ Ordinm1ce of the City of Cupertino, and the Plmming Cornn.i.ission has .held one :or more' ~" Public Hearings on this matter; and , , . : .~", WHEREAS, the applical"lt has met the burden of proof requir~d to support this J application, and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed development will not be Injurious to property or improvements in tIle area nor be detrimental to the public healtl1. aJld safety~ 2~ The proposed development will not create a hazardous COl1ditiOll for pedestrian or vellicular traffic~ 3. TIle proposed development has legal access to public streets and public. services are available to serve the development~ 4. The proposed development requires an exceptioIl .wluch illvolves ..the least modification of, or deviation from, the .development regulations prescribed in this chapt~r necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel~ 5. All alternative locations for development 011 the parcel have been considered and ,have bee11 found to create great~r envirorunental impacts than tIle location of the proposed development. , 6. The' proposed development does not consist of structures on or l1ear known .geological or environmental hazards that 11ave been determined by expert 11 - 24 Model Resolution Page 2 EXC-2007-02 April 24, 2007 testimony to be unsafe or l1azardous to structures or persons residing tllerein. (See General Plall Policies 2-48.) 7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans that will ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads, housing sites, and improvements will be. lninimized. (See General Plan :policies 2-53, 2-54 and 2-57.) 8.. The proposed development does not consist of structures WruCl1 would disrupt the natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established . vantage points on the va1~ey floor unless either: . a.. The location of a structure on a ridgeline is necessary to. avoid greater negative envrromne11tal ir!t-pacts; or ' b. The stru~ture could 110t otherwise be physically ~ocated on tIle parcel and the size of the structure is the rrrinimum that is necessary to allow ,for a reasonable use of th~ parcel. (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-47 and 2~49.) , 9. The proposed development consists of structures inc<?rporating desigIls, colors, materials, and outdoor ligh~g whi~h .ble~d with the natural hillside <. environment and. which are designed in SU~ll a mcumer as to reduce the...' effective visible mass, inclu~ing buildirtg height, as much as possible without : .creatin'g ot11er negative ellvil"onInental impacts. (See General Plan Policies 2~ . .46, 2~?O~ 2-?1 ClP-~ 2-52.) .10. The propos.ed development is .lo~ated on the. par~el as faT as p,ossible, from. ,-,. public open space preserv.es ar.p.arks (if v,isible therefrom), riparian corridors, 'anq.. wildlife l;tabitats unles~. .stich location will, create other". mpre. negative _ enviro~ental iinpacts. (See General Plan Policies 2-55, 5-14 and 5-28.) 11. The. propos~d d~ve~()pment i1l;dudes a)andscape plan tnat retains as mahy specimen rrees as possible, wl1.ich utilizes drought-tolerant native plants and ground covers C011sistent with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes lawn areas. (See General Plan Policies 2-54, 5-15 and 5-16.) 12. The proposed developmel1t confines solid fencing to the areas near a structure rat11er tl1an aroul1d the entire .site. (See General PlaIl. Policy 5-1.7.) 13. TIle proposed developmel1t is otherwise COl1sistent with the Cityts General Plan and with the purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010. l t : ~ - ~ -! '!r J .,.. - It... ... NOW, THEREFORE,.BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, factsr exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. EXC-2007-02 is hereby approved; and That the subcol1clusions upon wl1icl1 tIle findings and conditions specified in tlns Resolution are based a11d contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2007-,02, as. set fortI1 in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 200,7, and are incorporated by reference llerein. 11 - 25 Model Resolution Page 3 EXC-2007-02 , April 24, 2007 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Ap.proval is based on tIle plan set titled: #DeCarli Residence Interior Remodel" dated received January 26, 2007 and consisting of seven pages labeled A-O, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-Sf A-6 and A-7, except as may be amended by this resolution. , , 2. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) Approval is, based upon a 689 square foot addition to .th.e existing .6,171 square foot residence, bringing the tota1 maximum allowable floor area ratio ~o 6,980 square feet, inc.1uding the existing residence with garage, addition and sto;rage shed. . 3. TREE PROTECTION Existing trees not.proposed to be remo~ed shall be. protected durulg grading and COl1Struction witll cpain-link f~ncil1g around the qrip-line.' ~T~le City Arborist-wilt , '. review and approve. tIle. final landscape plan prior to. issuance of building r l. permits.~,. A. bond in tIle amOu11t of $10,000 shall be s.ubrrUtted to. ells'ure ..tree protection. ,The. bond may be. released fo~lowing, receipt of a report py an . internationally certified ~borist that the trees have been adequately protected.. during development an~ are. expected to S1irvive~ . 4~.. .LANDSCAPE PLAN . ,; . . . . A landscapi~g plan. srall:.be' subqUtted for .revi~w and approvaJ. by the Planning .' " Department prior to .issuance l?f. building~ per:mits~ In additi~n to t11e ex~sting rrees to be maintained, the landscaping plan. shall also include tIle planting of a 24-inch box replacement .tree along the westerl1 sloped landscape area to replace the proposed relnoval of ~e pine tree to accommodate the addition. Further, an additional tree shall be planted along the northeast side of tIle residence to mip.gate t~1e visual impacts from the valley floor~ 5. SANITARY DISTRICT If tllere is any interlt for almexation into tl1e Cupertino Sanitary .District, both the . subject property and a portion of Regnart Canyon Road shall be a:pllexed into tIle sanitary district to provide service to the property.. 6. . GEO-TECHNICAL REPORT Prior to issuance of buildillg permits, the applical1t shall submit an updated geo- teclmical report of the proposed addition on the subject property to be reviewed and approved by the City~. The applica11t shall be required to implemei1t the requirements of the updated geo-teclmical report as deterlnined by the City. 11 - 26 Model Resolution Page 4 EXC-2007-02 Aptj124,2007 7. NOTICE OF FEES~ DEDICATIONS! RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,. dedication requirements,. reservation requirements, a11d other exactions. , Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such feesJ and a 'description of the dedications, reservations, aJ.ld other exactions. Yau are hereby further notifIed that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, ~edications)' reservations, and .other exactionsJ pursuant to Government ,Code Section 66020(a)I has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period. complying witll all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITION.S ADMINISTERED. BY .THE .PUBLIC WORKS . DEPARTIvrnNT. , . 8. .' FIRE HYDRANT. . ~ire hydrants sIlall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County. Fire. as'needed. 9. ,GRADING ' , .. . .". . Gra'ding shall be as. approved and, requir.ed, by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of tIle Cupertino. Mumcipal Code. 401 Certifications and~ 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional . Water Quality Control Boarq as. appr~priate~ ... .10~ DRAINAGE Drainage sllall be provided to tIle sati~faction of the .City Engineer. ' 1~. FIRE PROTECTION . Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any l1ew cotlstruction to the approv:al of the City a~ l1eeded. . 12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall co.inply with th~ requirements of the Under~ound Utilities Ordinance No. 331 al1d other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility provider~ for installation of underground utility devices~ The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility ul1dergroul1d provisiollS.. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer s11all enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, includiI1g but not ~imited to checking and inspection fees, storm drai11 fees, park de.dicatiol1 fees and fees for under 11 - 27 . . Model Resolution Page 5 EXC-2007-02 April 24, 2007 groUllding of utilities.. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.. Fees: a.. Checking & Il1Spection Fees: b. Grading Permit: . $515 $ 6 % of. Site Improvement Cost or $2/060~OO minimum $ 1,OOO~OO $ 5~289~OO NJA N/A NjA By Developer c~ Development Maintenance Deposit: d~ Storm Drainage Fee: . e. Power Cost: f.. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tr~e Bonds: a. c.. Faithful Performance 'Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Inrrprovernents . Labor' & Material Bond: 100% .of Off-site and 'On-site Imp~ovement On-site Grading Bond: 100 % of site improvements. . 1- ~ ~-. j. b~ . ; -The fees describ.ed above are imposed .based-. upon the current fee .schedule ... adopted by the ,City Council.. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time 'of recordation of ,a final map or issuance of a building permit in the .. event of said change or cllanges, the fees cllaJ.lged at that-time will rel1ect the then current fee schedule. . 14~ AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a~ Permallent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required . In accordance with cl"lapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection} of tile City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of storrnwater runoff from the entITe site for the life of the project~ b~ Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall SUblnit a, Stormwater Managemel1t Plan for this project. The . permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance Witll chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running 'with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property.owners(s)~ In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreemellt 11 - 28 Model Resolution Page 6 EXC-2007-02 April 24, 2007 and covenant running with the land allowing City ac~ess at the site for BMP inspection. . . d. Hydromoclification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control my combination of on- site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated mtq specific redevelopment. projects in order to reduce stprmwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving waterco.urse over the pre-project c~ndition" . PASSED AND . ADOPTED this 24th day .of April, 2007r at a Regular Meeting of the Plannhlg Commission of the City of.Cupertino .by t;he following roll call vote: A YES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: . . .COMMISSIONERS:.. . ., l .. . ~ATTEST: APPRoVED: Steve Piasecki" Director. 'of Comill1~~-uty Development , Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Cupertin() P1aru:ring Cormnission . . + G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ EXC-?-007-02res.doc 11 - 29 March IS, 2007 Ciddy Wordell City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 . Re: Expansion - 11640 Re~ Canyon Drive, Cupertino Dear Ciddy: Exhibit A As we discussed, please accept this letter as the Written Statement of Justification for the . expansion of the above referenced property. J an DeCarli has been a resident in Cupe$o for over 30 years. When J an lost her husband Gordon 20 years ago, her nephew Ken moved in so he could look after her thr~ughout her twilight years. When they remodeled ~e house 6 years ago, Ken was a bachelor and they designed the remodel to the appropriate, space required to accommodate that lifestyle.. Fortunately, subsequent to that time, Ken met a wonderful woman whom he married and was blessed wi~ two beautiful children. As you can imagine, two adults and two children living in a . space that was created for one person has made the living situ.ation extremely cramped. This brings us to our current space refinement request. We need to convert the bachelor pad into space large enough to accommodate a family offour~ This is why we are requesting to add 688 square feet for 2 bedrooms and.1 small bathroom. This small alteration Will provide space wJ;1ere the . children can sleep, yet. still keep Ken in close proximity to Jan. Ian has battled preast cancer and though she has won numerous tirp.es, she still needs family to look after her and to provide a healthy living envu"onment. . As you can see from the plans, the addition will set back into the hillside completely hidden by the existing home. We have taken great pains to design a minimal additional with no physical or visual impact on the community. 11 - 30 The proposed expansion is in keeping with the scope and texture of the surrounding area, and is harmonious with the exiting houses in the neighborhood. We are proposing to use a mixture of natural materials to maintain a blending of color with the site vegetation. Years ago, Ken attended a Commission meeting regarding the changes made to the allowable square footage on. hillside properties in Cupertino~ It was his understanding that the 6,500 maximum for a hillside home of this type was set as a benchmark. Anything above and beyond this allowable square footage would require going through an exception process. The fact that there is an exception process would lead one to . believe that small exceptions would be allowed occasionally wi~ reasonable justification. We believe this request falls within that scopell As you can see from the plailS, we are asking for a very minimal addition of 688 square feet.. Of the 688 square feet, only 370 is above the current maximum allowed. We aren't proposing a huge monstrosity of a home. We are merely asking for additional living space to provide a healthy living environment for the growing family. Please contact me at (408) 257-2100 should you require any additional informatio~ at this time. Thank YOU4 Sincerely, ~~~~ Jennifer Jodoin Applicant for J an M. DeCarli 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-9125 11-31 Exhibit B April 18, 2007 The Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Expansion - .11640 Regnart Canyon Drive, Cupertino Dear Honorable Comnlissioners: . i : . '. This is m response to concerns address by the Planning Department in the Staff report. ' . dated April 10, 2007. . 1. Staff is concerned that approval of this application may set a precedent for future . FAR exceptions t9 be granted. We are. rather perpldxed a1)out staff's COlle-em that. approval of this a~plicaticHl nlay set prec.eden~ ,fOl.. furtlre ~ AR exceptiOJ1S~ . """'i: ~ We believe the reason the exc_eptiqJ~ pro-c~ss exist~.is to accOlmnodatl':: the needs of Cupertmo resid'ellts ..~ "V~~lO firitJ th~~elv~es ill tlnique livi11g sitllatiol1S with;atyplcal needs.. . _ ~'. .,: . .. . JaIl and Ken have been acti,re lllenlbers ill the cOlmnllnity for ov-er .'30 . years 8l1d l1ave Inailltallled lllultil).le bllSll1esses ill Cupertlllo for 20 years~ TIley are requesting an exc.el)tiol1 to acconmiotiate the growing fftll1ily \vhlle still l'}eing able to provide care to Jan. "Tl1e addition vvil] 113've absolutely no inlpact on the conmluluty. This is the ideal situation for \Vllich exceptions are Inade. It is uI1Iike]y that th.is situation co~tld be cited as a IJreced.enL , . 2.. Additiollally, staff does not feel that all the findings for a hillside exceptiO!l can be n1et Section 19.40.140 ordinallce allows the exception to be gratlted. wilen tile proposed developmel1t il1volves the least modification 04 or deviatiol1 from, the. development regulations necessary to acc.olnplisl1 a reasonable use of the. . property. Additionally, finding no. 8b permits an exception allowil1g disruption to . the natural. silhouette of the ridgeline .if the development. is necessary to avoid , greater negative enviro mn ental impacts and tIle size of the structUre is tile minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. Staff does not 11 - 32 . believe these findillgS can be inet since the property owner already has reasonable use of tIle property .within the existing parameters of the development regulations and, therefore. deviation from the existing development regulations is not necessary. Further, the addition is not necessary to avoid greater negative . envirolID1ental impacts~ I'he pro~)osed addition 11a8 1he Inulill1al alTIOU11t of lTIodificatiol1 possible. \Ve bave takell great paills to desigIl a nlillllnaI additiol1 VJitll no pllysic.aI or ViSllUl in1l)act on the cOll1n1unity~ Reasona111e llse of the property valies depellding on the faI11iJy livillg 011 it Tl1is 5111a]1 ad~itioll vviil provide space \Vllere the cllildren Call sleep, yet ' still keep Kell in close IJfOXinlity to JaIl,,' . 'vVe . di sa.gree \VitIl staff and believe the addition \vill have a nlinlll1al l1eg~tive el1viroIIDlelltalu11pac-t. 2. The.proposed addition will be located on the westenl side of the north elevatiou;of tIle residence, which is less visible from valley floor than the existing eastern side of the residel1ce.. TIle existing eastern side of t~e residence is the most visible portion of the residence as it is lo~ated 011 tile prominent ridgeline facing do~nward slope that is visib~e fro~ the valley f1o?r~ The proposed addition has zero visibility ti-om the valley 11oor. The "Vest, East alld SOUtll elevations wip ~e.hidden by t]1e existillg hou.se or by trees.. .TIle North i-ear ele"vatlon is 'vtsib le 'fio111 .o'n.e nei ghbor \vho j sari the ,adjacent prolninellt ridge.1jne~ Additional ~ee$.can 'be plmlted a~. a screerL 3. Staff. is concerned the trimming. of the'. trees along . the nort11 elevation of the addition will enhance the visibility of tIle addition along the prominent ridgeline. \Ve vv-culd be haJ)py to accept a COl1ditioll 1113t \\Jotlld reqllire us to plal1t any additiollal trees the COD1TIlissiol1 Clee111S n.ecessary. . Sincerely, . J ennifer Jodoin Applicant for J an M.. DeCarli 21710 Stevens Cre~k Blvd~, Suite 200 Cupertin~, CA 95014 11 - 33 View looking north of the west elevation of residence t .,. r -r,'h.!",' ,..t,;..,; ,,~ '. 'Of. '~A' , View looking south of the west elevation of residence Exhibit C 11-34 -- View from second floor deck looking west where addition is, propose4 -- -- View of valley floor looking east from the second floor deck 11 _ 35 ~.~_/~ :.~-:~ ~.:~.;:-,~.\:l . .:i"~n ;..~-:.:,:~',;" ,.. -"~ :~' <, _.~;~~;~ .~.::-, !,"., -n:;:.:....>..-.:... . "If. -.;, ",..;,..~ : .'...' . . - _ .- "f".... - .........~ ..:t~~~~ :'.l~j: ~<;:;: :., f .~;. I ~..- l' ,- ' , E:--;.~ Exhibit E . :: '. <-.~..,<~.~::;:.::~.: "~~<,;?;::'::, }o .. ~ ~, ,'" ~ ~. ,.' ,. " :- ";: :~~:{~;,~{::--':,':'~:~~''-'::~~ ~:: ::~' . . ". ',.> " ',:: :" ~ ,',~' .'1 : 1: ~, ~i ~; , ~ ',:. ' ' .'. . .t.' " - . : > "'. . '}i!:~:;'~lr':: :.:~. ~,.~.: , :: - 'i'l\~,~:.:~'~\<.~ -"t'r ':. ...-;. :,:,: i~~' .,:,.:~ I-' \\:.:--:,.',,;:::;:.;.; :,:':~ . ,8 , III ~' ,I' i[ - "' 'II" , , . " ~ ~, ~ f ~ ,~ -ll .' __ '. '~__ ~ W, .!.i.! ., '. . ~ . .'. ~. , :,:~;:: ,:. . f ::Hj '~:, :::;1 &,ffi. ',:.~:.f: :',: ~ f,il~lJ :~;..~:t-.:~ ~:~:~]~"~;~~.'~'<~ rt:~ ~ ' . . ": '::;' : .:' .:" ":,'~ : ,.' . . fl.. . ~,,;i:: . It.: (J ,. bj '.' ~ ~ ,.. II!! t. ~:"'~"'" S ~ -~,l<ll t< E ~ ~ ~ "-," 'C,p ':J" ", ~__ . . >:::';, ::.," ":~,, t~ .: .~: f.: . ' " :."!:~ ,'~ ~ ~.,(i'~;;,: r ~ '% ~ ~'; ~. ,;:) i" e '1i.~' ,~: !?,L:. dl ~t." >!l.ll:' .: : -' ' ' ',-:, .:,::,; " ',' "&~ .ll~, :t' ~ ' ~ " ~ ".\ - '.: t1!j.: {"",,;;)' :J"'~--' ~,~: ~ ~ tt. ".j? t,~,~ t t ~; ~ ~ ~ ~,s-- .Eg, ':' "~i':,-:)",:' ,: ~~:~:,tF~'" '::,' "..,)~~, ~ ~~ t ~.~~;~. :'i,:g' ':~ ;!;:tt~,,~' ,';:'lt~l.no ~::'.:t' ~\:;, ' <.~', :,:~'.;...~.fJ1 ~'~@ ~.~::.t.< "~':-:~.~~'..'~:J" ~ ..~ .~.~:}-!, ~'.~.)~.:~".1:'" ~{." ~:~:;~J'~'''i ~,-K>>(~:: '~~,., M: ~:; ".~ .:';, , "'~' ~ () , ">_~~ ' '. ., ;," ',co,;:: ill ,'r '\1. , ~. ~__' '~_ ' .f.;: , "::I:, ,,-- "', _)\\ ',' "'. ,~ ,.,"1:1 'f ," III P.!. .)I :cI, ~ t- _ ~ :,!-... ~l'''-~ ,~.. ..ll!.: L ~ ". ~ 1il , , " .' ?,,' " ' . I', '.':1"&" . ill )-:'.. ~ '~., \~. 1 .. , ,..c... ....A.\I~... .~ . ~:.~ -~<t.,~ . ~J ': . K.... .J: ).. i ~ .~.r':'~ W.,.:1 - :!:::,l!.}, . ,lSD- " ;":' :.' ::;'-?;~:o}~;r:,:~::~-,t'<,t . 4: ".:ti 5,'~; "~; ~:.t~h~ .l~~;':t_ t~:,~,::~:,~ ~. '.;~':rt~l~ '~f ", , : ; .'iu'~ " . ~,:~:>: " . ./. . " ,". p ('\" /) Q ):. .J.. . ilJ lll,~ l "~;n f1). ' 'u :2 . ~. u ~ ~ _ ~. ~.. ~ (~ . '1) ~ '. .~. ~ I I _ I:~ ~ ~ . 'L - - _ . ..". ., l~:~\" ~ . . ~ :.' ~ I ! I' :~'_;. . Section. 19.40.010 19..40.020 19.40.030 19..40JMO 19.40.050 191040..060 191040.070 19.40,,080 19.40.090 19..40.100 1.9.40.110 19.40.120 19.40..130. 19.40.140. 19.40~14S Jl~ o~@b<<Jl @ Exhibit F CHAPTER Jl.904@: RESIDENTIAL m:LLSIDE (liUKS) ZONES* PtrrpOse6 Applicability of regulatioD.8.. Permitted uses. Conditional uses. Site development regulations. Building coverage, setbacks and height restrictioDSIO . Design s~dards. Fencing. . Permitted yard encroachment. Geologic and'soils report procedures. Private roads and driveways. Solar design. ' Interpretation of pl~g . director .. Exceptions for development of certain individual hillside lots. Applicability . $: Prior history: .Ord. 1601. 19D40.010 Purpose. . The purpose of the RHS zoning district is to regulate development commensurate with community goals, as described in the General Plan, to preserve the natUral setting in the hillsides. This chapter utilizes performance standards an4 specific regulationS to ensure that the utilization of land for residential uses is balariced with the need to conserve natural resources and protect life and property from natural hazards. Specifically ~ this chapter is intended to accomplish the following objectives: A.. Enhance the identity of residential neighbo~hoods; :8.. Ensure the provision of light and air to individual residential parcels; . C. Ensure a re~nable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Maintain spatial relationship between structures and within neighborhoods; . E. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting of the community; F ~ Maintain a balance between residential development and preserv ation of the natural hillside setting; G.. Promote compatibility of cOllors and materials of structures and the surrounding Dal1J1'ai setting" (Ord. 163411 . (paxt)~ 1993) 1L9(>4Ot~020 AppMcaTm~ty of JRegn.nJlatioIDi$Q No b~ding or structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erectedJ structurally altered or enlarged in a residential hillside (RHS) zone, otherwise t4an in conformance with the provisions of, this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title.. Notwiths.tanding any other provision of this chapter to the C01)trary, structures which were legally constructed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be deemed legally conforming; provided, h~wever, that any structural alteration, enlarge~ent or remodeling of such existing structure shall either comply with the site development regulations (building coverage, setbacks, . height restrictions and design standardS) of this chapter or shall obtain an exception as provided in Section .19 ..40..140. (Ord~ 1725, (part), 1996; Ord~ 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.030 Permitted Uses~ The following uses shall be permitted in .an RHS zoning district: A~ Single-family dwelling w:iits with. not more than one dwelling unit per lot; B.. A second dwelling unit which conforms t~ the procedure, standards and requirements of Chapter 19.84 of this code; C. Home occupations whicb conform to the procedure'. standards and requirements of Chapter 19.92 of this code; ~ D. Accessory buildings which conform to the procedures. standards and requirements ofChaprer 19..80 of this code; ]E. Sm.all-family day care home; F.. . Residential care facility with six. or less residents not including the provider, provider family.or staff. that has a licei1se from. the. appropriate State, County agency or. department;. G. The keeping of animals 8:8 follows: 1. HouSehold pets limited to one animal per three thousand square feet of lot area except: . 51 11 - 37 l~Q~,JIDJ@ CWlpertfumW. c Z$ID!iq 52 &. . Adult dogs are limited to a maximum of two for lots .less tbm one acre and foUr for lots greater than one acre, b. The nwnber of geese, ducks, chickens, rabbits and other farm animalg are not limited on a site greater than one acre p 2. Small household pets, 3.. Large an;mal,;, such as horsest cows, sheep" and: goats i limited as follows: 8la Two huge ~Vlim~ls. for ilie first forty thousand , square feet of land area.v except mules and donkeys which require eighty thousand sqmre feet.for the first animal, b. One additional large animal fOlr eaCh twenty thousmd square feet of land area, c. One additional large animal if said animal is raised for a 4H project, 3; project sponsored by.recognized agricultural organization or a school project, 4. The required lot area for a large animal shall not be included in the required lot area for a household pet or vice versa, except that a maximum of two household pets may be kept with large animals, , 5.. All animals must be kept and inaintained in accordance with other Cupertino or Santa Clara County codes and ordinances, ,6. No animal~ kept and maintained in an RHS - zoning district may be raised for commercial purposes, 7. Crop, tree or horticultural farming for personal use. Produce. grown on the site ~y be spld if the business activity is con~ucted in a manner consistent with the home occupation ordinance; H~ Large family day care home .which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100, and .which is at least three hundred feet from any other large-family day care home. The Director of Community Development or hislher designee .shall administratively approve large day, care .homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; I. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (prd. 1658, (part), 1995; Ord. 1688, ~ 3 (part), 1995; Old. 16~7, (part), 1994; Ord. .1634, (part), -1993) 19040.040 Conditional U~Q The following uses may be concUtionally allowed in the RHS zoning district subject to the issuance of a conditional use pe~t: A... Issued by, the Director of. ,Community Development: 1. Temporary uses subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.128 of this code, 2. Large-family day care home which otherwise does not meet the criteria. for a pemrltted use~ The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15971146(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code, 3. The keeping of any animal not otb.exwise permitted in Section 19.40..0300, 4. aome occupations that require a conditional use, permit pmsu,ant to Chapter 19.92 of this code, ,5. BUildings or st:rucmres '\.vmch incorporate solar design features that :require variations from setbacks~. upon a determination by. the Director that the design feature 'or . features will not result in privacy impacts. shadowing) or intensive lIlOis.ep 000))1" 1I (\)lIt ofue~ adv~ impact3 to the .surrounding aiX'e2J.~ 6. Second dwelling units wbich require a conditiolllaJi use permit pursuant w Chapter 19..84 of this oodell 7. Crop, tree Oil' horticultural raxmID.g for commercial purposes; l:1~ Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Limited commercial recreation uses ~ such as riding clubs and related. stables and trails, golf courses~ swimnling and picnic grounds. ' 2. Residential care facility, that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or departnlent and has six or less residents, not including the provider. provider family or staff, 3. Residential care facility, that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and has seven. or greater residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff, is. a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility , 4. Residential care facility, that is not required to obtain a permit from the State, County. agency ,or department license and has .seven or greater residents. not including the provider, provider family 9f staff, is a mininnuYl distance of five hundred. feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant, ' 5. 'Congregate residence with eleven .or more residents, is a minimum of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy...five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant.. (Ordll 1658. (part). 1995; Ordot 1688, ' ~ 3 (part)" 1995.; Ord. 1657 t (part), 1994; Ord. 1634". (pm}t 1993). ' 19.40~050 - Site Development Regulationa. The following guidelines are a compilation of policies described in the General Plan and are intended to govern the preparation of development plans in RHS zones. All + provisions of this section, except subsectioDS A, B and C) may .be deviated from upon an exception granted by the . Planning Commission in accordance. with Section 19.40~140. A. Dwelling Unit Density. 1 " The. residential density for developD;lent within an 11 - 38 53 Iite~ii(dleImtm ~mIe (RBS) Z<J]m1~ 1l.~ ~AJ@ (> 6.>>~@ RHS zonfumg district .shall be determined by the General Plan, based upon. slope d.ensity standards described therem. . . 2.. Upon recordation of a subdivision Dl.l.ap OIr parcel map in alll RHS zom.iD.g district, density credits derived from . application of a. slope denslty formwa. ro a lot or group of lots may. not be transferred to property: outside the su.bdivision or parcel map ooundaIry. lB.. lLot Arem.. Jl ~ The minimurram ]o~ Mea fOIr a sp~ific: prropeEty shill correspond to the ID!~ber followmg the RHS roning symbol (multiplied by one thousand square feet).. Example$ are 31S follows: ZonfiImg S~R N l11l1llrnOO1f Mfum]mllllIDDllIAt A1!m IIm SqWlle JF~ RHS IlliS RHS RHS. RHS RHS RHS 20 40 80 120 180. 200. 400 ' 20,000 40.000 80,000 120,000 180,. 000 200,000 400.000 2. For purposes of subdivision, the minimum lot area shall be the average' lot area computation for a zero percent slope gradient as contained in Appendix E of the General Plan, unless cluste~ed in accordance with Section 18~52~030 (Hillside Subdivisions).. These lot sizes are approximately tWelve thousand square feet for the Foothill Modified, twenty-one thousand square feetfor the Foothill 1/2 acre modified and two hundred eighteen thousand square feet for the 5-20. Tbe minimum lot size in a clustered subdivision is ten thousand square feet. Lots which potentially are subdividable will ~ assigned a lot size number at the. time of subdivision. 3. The minimum lot area for legally...created,& developed lots, wmch are not subdividable, shall reflect the existing lot size. C.' lot Width MinimUm.~ The minimum lot width in an RHS zoning district is seventy feet, me~ed at the front. setback line; provided I however~ that there is no minimum lot width for lots served by a private driveway and which do not adjoin a public street. D. Development on Substandard Lots. No structures or improvements proposed on existing, vacant legal lots in the Foothill Modified and Foothill Modified Half Acre slope density designations of the General Plan which are substandard in size, shall occur unless an exception i.$ granted ~ E~ lLots Adjoining Public 0pe111 Spacestr FOIL notes adjaceliIlt to public open space. preserves or parks p the driveway and building shall be located in a man.mer to be set as far as feasible from tb.e preseIrVe or park md desiped nn a maD1IleX' to minimi::r,t impacts OIn the preserve or ]p8!X'llc. . .. FD Site Grading. . 1. All site grading shall be limited. to at cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards 1I cut plus fill.. The t\vo thousand five hundred rubnc j!arrds in.cludles gX"adlmg fOIL bUlil.ding pad S! yard areas to dilli ve~vv3!Y 8lK1ldl ill oilier areM requiring grading; but does not inchJ.de basemenm.. The graded area shall be limited to the building pad aurem. to ilie greatest exrent possibleG Grading quan.tities fOIl! mMltiple . driveways shall be divided equally among the participating lots~ e..g. ~ two. lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in half. The divid~ share will be charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot . development. A maximum of two thousand squ~ feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, . may be grzded.~ All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping whicb moots the requirements in Section 19..40~05OG.. ' 2. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and,. in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, shall submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes.. ~. Landscaping. 1. A licensed landscape architect shall prepare a tree planting plan for the site which will screen grading areas, and residential structures, to the greatest possible ~xtent, as well as to reintroduce trees on barren slopes which were denuded by prior agricultuIal activities~ 2. Landscape improv~ent shall meet the requirements as established En. the Xenscape Landscaping Ord.inance, Chapter 14 ~ 15 of this code. 3. Landscape in;1provements shall be installed poor to occupancy unless such installation is impracticable, in , which case, the applicant sball post a bond, cash or other security to insure installation within. an eighteen- month period from occupancy. All such landscape areas shall be 'properly maintWmed.. 4.. No specime1rl sized trees may be removed without a permit as provided for in the Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance,. Chapter 14~ 18 of this rode.. Native trees should. be integrated into the site design to the greatest extent possible. H. Watercourse Protection. 1. Any watercourse identified in Figure 6-J of the . Cupertino General Plan and its existing riparian vegetation must be sho\vn on 'all development plans. 2. All new. development. including structures, grading and clearing, must be set back at least fifty feet on. lots which are less than one acre in size and one hundred 11 - 39 19a4@JlISO ClUlpelrtimHLn Q) Zo~ feet on lots which are greatet thm one acre. The setback shall be measured from the top of bank of the watercourses or from existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The setback from riparian. vegetation will be'me3!SUled from the drip line perimeter. I.. Development Near Prominent Ridgelines: 1. The development of new, independent structures shall not disrupt a fifteen percent site line from a prominent ridge 8lS identified iml Appendix A a The fifteen percent sire line s~aU be measured from fue IDP of ridge at the c~oseslt pomt from. the strncture~ . 2. Additions to legally existing homes located witb.in the fifteen percent site line of a prominent ridge line may n.ot further encroach into the site line, e.. g . J the addition may not add height or bulk which may increase the dis:l'"Q.ption to the fifteen percent ridgeline site line. 3. Should these requirements become impractical, alternatives will be considered through the exception process. J . D~velopment on' Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater to 1 to Site. plans for all development proposals shall include topographical information at contour intervals not to exceed ten feet and a' horizontal map scale of one inch equals two hundred feet. or larger,,' Areas where slopes exceed thirty. percent shall be identified on the site development plan.. 2. No strUcture or improvements shall occur on slopes greater than thirty percent unless an exception is .granted or unless no more than five hundred square feet of . development. including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope greater than thirty percent.. Kti Trail Linkages. . 1. Among otb.er items required to be identified. on the site plant the site plan shall. identify trail linkages as shown in the General Plan Trail Plan, on and adjacent to the site. 2. If a traillirikage, as - sho\VD. in the General ~lan Trail Plan, is identifiect across a property being developed, no development shall take place within that area except if approved through the exception process. L~ Views and Privacy" It is not the responsibility of City Government to ensure the priva~y protection of the. building permit applicant or owners of surrounding properties that. may be affected ~y the structure under construction" However. the Director of Community pevelopment may confer with the building permit applicant to discuss alternate means of preventing privacy intrUSion and preserving views" (Ord. 1725 t (part) t 1996; Ord. 1.658 t (part), 1995; Ord. 1634? (part). 1'993) 19.40.,060 Bull~ Coverage,. ~tbacks and Height Restrictions. ' All-provisions of this section may be deviated .from 54 upon an exception granted by the PlaJ1lID.in.g Commission in accordance with Section 19.40.140. A. Floor Area. l.a" For lots with less than ten thousand square feet of . net lot area the ~um floor- area ratio shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area" Formwa: A = 0..45 B . A == l\tilaximm.m allowable house sitzem I3 ~ Net lot area" 10" For lots with more than ren thousand square feet of net lot area \the maximum. floor area shall be four thousand five hundred square feet plus 59.59 square feet folt every on.e thousand squ2ii'e feet over ten thousand square feet of net lot area. In all cases the maximum.' 'floor area shall Dot exceed six thousand five hundred. sqtw'e feet without an exception. ]Formwa.: A = ((B...l 0, OOJ))/l ~ OOO)(S905~) + 49500 A = Maximum allowable house size - prior to instituting the maximum. 6,500 square foot building size. B = Net lot aremo 2. . Lots Within Clustered Subdivisions Co~taining Common Open Space. Lots within c~ustered subdivisions in which land is reserved as common open space., may count a: proportionate amount of the reserved private open space for calculating the allowable house size, except that no developable lot would be subject to greater than a forty-five- percent floor area ratio prior to slope consideration" The average slope of a lot within a clustered subdivision shall-be calculated on the developable lot. 3.. Slope Adjustment Criteria. For lots with an average slope greater than ten percent, the allowable .floor area, prior to instituting the maximum six thousand five hundred square foot allowable. building size. shall be reduced by one and one..half percent for each percent of slope over ~n percent. For lots with an average slope over thirty percent ~e allowable floor area shall be reduced by a constant thirty percent.. Formula: C = A= c-= D= A x (le>(l~S x (D ~ 0.1))) Maximum a11ow~ble house size based . on subsection 1 abOve prior to instituting the maximum . 6,500 square foot building size.. Maximum allowable building for lots with greater than 10%. average s~ope~ _ Average percent slope of net lot area. 11 - 40 55 Ji?temfdlemntmJl IHfiill.lJsll~e ~ ZoIID~ Jl~ ()&2(tl~tnY"~ , AvJf~o sl$pe ~1UldiolDl 10% or less 11% 12% 13% . 14% 15% 16% 17% .18% ,19% 20% 21% 22% 23% 24% 25% . 26% 27% 28% 29% 30 % or greater 0% 1~5% 3% 4.5% 6% 7.5% 9% 10.5% 12% 13~5% 15% 16.5% 18% 19.5% 21% 22.5% 24.% 25.5% 27% 28.5% 30% B. Setbacks-First Floor. 1. Front Yard. The minim~ front yard setback is twenty feet, except that if the grade exceeds twenty percent withim. the first twenty feet from the street elevation, the minimum front yard setback may be ten feet. The driveway. and garage must be designed to .enable vehicles to park off- street. . 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet, provided that a minimum of fifteen feet shall be provided on the street side of a comer lot. 3. Rear Yard.. The minimum rear yard setback shall he twenty feet. C * Setbacks-Second Floor. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty-five feet. 2. Side Y Md. The minimum side yard setback shall be fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum. rear yard setback shall be twenty-five feet. , 4. Downhill Elevation. The downhill elevation shall be offset in the following manner: at least seventy...five percent of the second story do~ f.acing wall plane shall be set back an average of seven and one-half feet and in no case less than five feet from the first story downhill wall plane~ The remaining twenty-five percent may not extend. past the first story wall plane. , 5. Should the doVVll1hill contours not be ooH1fined to one elevatloIrl, then the downhill offset sbatll be applicable to the primary setback affec~. 6. A second story offset may be meumro from the outside perimeter of frhe first-story roofed pol!"cb.es~ The roof of the porch must match, in pitch and style. the roof of the main strnctw'e~ The porch must also be at least five feet in width and. exten.d the length of the w~ on which it is located" D ~ Setback-Habitable Thirdl IPlo0E.. I'lfhe mIDjffil.]]ll setbacks for 2i habitable thilrdl floor shill be fue same 215) those for a second floor ~ except th2lt the minimu.m slidle Y&Irdl setback shall be twenty feet. IE.. Height of Princip21 IBuildings and Strucmresm 1. The maximum height of a principal bIDlding in m RHS zone shall be thirty feet (excluding chimn.eys~ antennae. or other app~nances). 2~ Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to the setback regulations prescribed in Section 19~40.060D and E~ 3~ The -maximum wall beight on the downhill elevation shaU. be fifteen feet~ (Ord. 1725,. (part)t 1996; Ordo 1658, (part), 1995; Ord~ 1634l' (part)? 1993) 19.40G010 Design StWmdmrdso All provisionS of this section may be deviated. from. upon an exception granted by the Planning Commission. in accordance with Section 19.40.140.. A. Building ~d Roof Forms. 110 The. building shall follow as closely as possible the primary. natural contour of the lot~ The main building mass shall be on the upslope side of the building and the roof pitches shall trend dOWDSlope~ , 2. Second story dormers are permitted viithin the second story setbacks as long as they are ~or in. shape and! size~ 3. The downhill elevation ofth_e ma.m strUc~e sha1l.l have a minimum of four offset building and roof elements. These requirements are intended to provide v~ed building forms t9 produce shadow patterns which reduce the impact of visual mass. 4. Wall planes exceeding one story or twentY feet in height, whichever is more restrictive, must contain architectural elements which provide relief and break: up expansive wall planes. B. Colors. Exterior colors of all structures on the lot shall use natural earth tone and/or vegetation colors which complement the natural surroundings and shall not. exceed a reflectivity value of sixty on a flat surface. Natural earth-tone and vegetation colors include natural hues of brown, green and shades of gray It C. Outdoor Ligbtirig. All outdoor lighting shall be identified on the site development plan. No high-intensity lights are permitted for tennis courts or other recreatio~ 11 -41 19 g~O <<ri0 CID1~(i) ~ ZomUrrm~ , 56 pwrposes. Movement-activated security lights, ootto exceed one hundred w3lttS. are permiued but muSt be shielded to avoid all off-site ~trusioRl. All other lights must be directed to meet the par,ticula.r need. (Ord.. 17~5. (part), 1996; OrdIl 1634, (part)t 1993) 19 ~ 40.080 Femcirrng. All provisions of this section may be deviated from Ul)?O[1! an, eitr..epoolffi granted by the Plann-mg CorrnnissiolTIl in accordance with Section 19. 40 .140~ Ail fences i!tan RHS zoning.district shall be governed by the following regu.1atio~: Ao Solid board fencing shall: 1. Not be limited on lots of less than thirty thousand. square feet net area; , 2. Be limited to a five thousand square foot area (excluding the principal building) for lots exceeding thirty thousand square feet in oot lot area. . B. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in 3.. minimnm of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be constructed within the front yard setbSCL (Ord. 1634)1 (part), 1993) 19.40.090 Permitted Yard EncroacbmelDlt~ All provisions of this section may be deviated from upon an exception granted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 19.40.140. A. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided~ that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or accessory structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. B.' Additions to Existing StmctureslI Except for structures located within the prominent ridgeline site line, where a single-family dwelling legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards. one encroaching side of the existing structure may be extended along the existing building lines even when the existing first floor setb~ks do not meet the requirements of this chapter. Only one. such extension shall be permitted for the life of such building~ .This applies to the first story only~ This section shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building which is the result of the granting of a variance, either before or after such building becomes part -of the City. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback; e.g., a single story may be extended along an existing five- foot side yard setback even though the other side yard does not equal ten feet. However, in no case shall any wall plane of a first story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. (Oed. 1634, (part), 1993) Jl9~40cl00 GooRo~c ~mudi Soils Re]iIDrt P1r(fOO:oownr~&. A. A goologic311 report prepared by a certified engineering geolQgist. and a soils report prepared. by a registered. civil engineer qualified in soils mechanics by the state shall be submitted. prior to the issuance of a building permit for constniction of any building or structure which.:. 1" Is located on property in an RHS zoning Wstnct which has been designmted by the General Plan to be wit:b.imt at geological haz:mrd area; an€! . 2~ Where aHl1 additiolffi\l aillteration or repili of aIDl existing bWldim.g or structure include alt least Olile;: of tbte following: . a. The improvements me-lude mcreasing the occupancy capacity of the dwelling such as .melding ~ bedroom 011' secondary unit, or b.. The cost of the completed additiont alteration or repairs will, during any period of twelve months, exceed. twenty-five. percent of the value of the . existing Dnprovements as determined by the building official based on current per foot value of the proposed structure to the existing structure's value on a parcel of property. For the purposes of this section). the value of existing improvements shall be deemed to be the estimated cost to rebuild the improvements in kind, which value shall be detemrlned by the building official. . B. These reports shall ~ filed in conjunction with a site development plan and, in addition to the requirements of Chapter 16.12 of this code, shall contain: 1. All pertinent data, interpretations and evaluations. based upon the most current professionally recognized soils and geologic data; 2. The significance of the interpretations and evaluations with respect to the actual development or implementation' of the. intended land use through identification of any significant geologic problems, critically expansive soils or other unstable soil conditions which ~ not corrected may lead to stroctural damage or aggravation of these geologic problems both on.. and off-site; , .3. Recommendations for corrective measures deemed necessary to prevent or significantly mitigate potential dam.ages to the proposed project and adjacent properties or to otherWise insure safe development of the property; 4. Recotnmendations .for additional investigations that should be made to insure safe development of the property; . 5. . Any other.intormationdeemed appropriate by the City Engineer. C.. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or st;ructure on property which is subject to regulation un~er this section. unless the building and site plans incorporate the a~ve<<scribed corrective measures and unless the plans are approved by the City Engineer. (Ord~ 1634t (part). 1993) 11 .- 42 57 1R~deID1t1imll mIDlsftdle (JlUBiS) Z<DIffi~ 19 ~~~ llUI>> 19c.4@oll(J) hiva~e ]R@eudls gumoci :DrHvewmys~ All provisioHlS of this section. may be deviated from upon an exception granted by the JPl:m.nin.g Commission in . accordance with Section 19.40.1400 A.. lPavemem Width and Design_ The pavement width and design for a private road or common driveway 'serving two to five ~ots and a single-lot driveway shall comply with development standards contained in the Hillside Subdivision. O[diinanre~ ChapteIr tga52 of tills codeL B.. Reciprocal! mgress/Egress.. An applicant for 2i . building permit for a noa served boY a private roa1d lOr common driveway shall record an .appropriate deed restriction guarmreemg reciprocal ingress/egress easement to adjoining property owners wbo utilize the private road or common driveway for the primary access- to their lot(s). c. Reciprocal Maintenance Agreeme~. The applicant for a building permit for a lot served bY.2 private road or common driveway shall record an appropriate deed restriction guaranteeing participation in a' reciprocal maintenance. agreement with other lot owners utilizing the private road or common driveway for primary access. D. Gates. Gates may be used to control access to private roads and driveways provided. that the design of the gate, including location, dimension and the locking devices, are approved by the Director of Community Development after consultation with the Central Fire District.. (Ord. 1184, (pmrt), 1998;~d. 1634J(P~), 1993) 19.40.120 Solar DesiBlL The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or . active solar purposes; provided., that no such structure shall . infringe upon solar access or pr~perty rights of adjoining property owners. Any solar structure which requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be permitted upon issuance of an exception by the Planning Commission. (Or4. 1634, (part), 1993) 19040.130 llmtelfpretSlnolil of Pl~n1l1i1lllg Director ~ The Director of Corpmunity Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter, consistent with the legislative intent ther~f.. Persons aggrieved. by an iriterpretation of this chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in .writing for review of the interpretation. (Ordl' 1634 t (part), 1993) . 19_4O.14@ Exception for Development of Certain fumvidaml Hillside Lots. A.. With respect to a request for development of a legally created individual hillside lot which does not meet the development requirements contained in Sections 19.40.050D through M and 19.401'060 through 19.40.090 and, 19..40.110 tbxougJm. 19.42..120 of this chapter!! the Planni:mg Commission shall grmt m exception to allow development if the subject property cannot be merged with adjacent property pursu.ant to GoveIrrJlXD1em Cooe Sections 66451.10 - 66451.21 and if the commission, based upon. substantial evidence. makes all of the folloWing findings: 1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public hea1ili md safety ~ 29 The proposed develiopment V'J ill 1Ilott create at hazmrdolJ1iS condition fOIl pedestrian or vehicular traffic 0) 3.. The proposed development has legal access .to public streets md public services are available to serve the development. 4.. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification. of, or deviation from~ the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomPlish a reasonable use o_f the parcel~ 5. All alternative locations for development on the - parcel have been considered and have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the . proposed development. _ 6.. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near mown geological or environmental hazards which have been determined by expert testimony to be unsafe or hazardous. to structures or persons residing therein. (See General Plan Policies 2-49..) 7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans which will ensure that e~osion and sea.rrip.g of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads, housing sites, and improvements will be m;nimi~ed.. (See General Plan Policies 2-53, 2-54 and ~-57'.) 8. The proposed 'development does not consist of . structures which would disrupt the natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage pomts o~ the valley floor unless either: a. The location of a strUcture on a ridgeline _is necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts; or bl' The structure could not otherwise be physically located on the parcel and the size of the structure is the minimum which is necessary to allow for a reasonable use of the parcel.. (See General1?lan Policies 2-46~ 2-47 and.- 2-48w) 9.. The proposed development consists of stro9tures incorporating designs,' colors, materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environinent . and which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effeCtive visible mass, incl~ding building height, as much as possible without creating other negative enviromnental impacts" (See General Plan Policies 246, 2-50. 2-51 and 2-52.) 10. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible ,from public open space preserves 11. - 43 1t9t>4001~ Cunpertmo a 7AbImfum~ 58 or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats unless such location will create other, more negative environmental impacts" (See General Plan Policies 2-55, 5-14 and 5-28..) . . 11. The proposed development includes alandscape plan which retains as many specimen trees. as pOssible, which utilizes drought-tolerant native plants and grolli'ld covers consistent with. nearby vegetation, and which DJifJjmize~ 12VtIU 3LreZiS.. (See GelJer311 Plan Policies 2-54~ 5-15 and 5-16.) . 12.. The proposed development confines solid fencing to the areas near a structure rather than around the entire sire!> (See General Plan Policy 5-17 ~) 13. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the Cirytg General Plan and with the purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010. B. An application for exception must be .submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution~ no part of which shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue a Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning. Commission . for an exception under this chapter in the. same manner as provided in Section 19 ..120 ~ 060 (relating to zoning changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application in conjlinction with the mandatory fD;1dings contained in subsection A above, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally ~pprove or deny the application for an exception. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section 19.136.060.. C. An exception which has not been used within two years following the effective date thereof. shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall . specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such permit or variance~ An exception permit shall be deemed to have been "used" in the event of the erection of a structure or stroctures when sufficient building activity has occurred and contin~es to occur in a diligent manner oa p. In. addition to any other remedies, the City Attorney is authorized to commence ~d maintain a civil action to enforce the provisions of this chapter or any co,nditions attached. to the granting of any pem;Ut or excePtion. granted under thiS chapter.. (Ord.. 1725t (part), 1996; Ord~ 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.145 Applicability. . This chapter shall apply to any permit filed after April 8~ 1996, provided, however.. that an exception previously granted) and for which building permits are obtained two years after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, is exempt.. (Ord.. 1725t (part), 1996) . 11 - 44 . f\PPENDIX.A PROM_TNENT RI.DGEI-1INES Chapt e.r 19.'10 of (he Cupertino Iv111~jdpnr Code Adoplc.r by {he Cily Coundl Hilder Ordinnncc l6J4~ OClDbc.r )1 ~ 1993 11 - 45 . -~ RECEIVED ~AU 6 ZOO7 BY it ~.".~.,',-' . ~. . '. a."'.~~'.'" ,I ~i ,., E' ,r.". " RE~""" . E. ~C'E D, : ~R,LI =,_: SlO" ~N,~,~"o '~ [."N'.'.TE'."..(t.'.' 'I' '"*. -It....., [M,' o.....n.......e.... .~ ., ' :":,,, ~~ "E., '. ;'. ".U. .,L ~w- It;~ ..-.- ~illi ~'" A'-O ~~ i~'~ ~t, ~~1i~~mA ~,~ ~BT;jfI~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ 'I1JmJlIlj~~"~ iL-+ ~1t@ ~~ ~~~ g;~ "..~ ~.'..."'".,.... ~'~T'1.-m;All;; ~~t,~l!fd!'!!"$~ ~Jllj[~~ ~~~~ilW ~''''"..~ -~~~ :PM1~~lf~ ~ :....""., ~ I8Q~_ GENERALNCrnS t. THECCNTRAC:TOfl.AND~IlIW.lS1\.Ol'nE~S,\lERFVAU. ~NIlCONlHTlONSONlHeDRAWl\lliSANOtUil"eJ05Wf'fUOll.TO BIDDING, OROEl'ItlG MP.TSUAlS. EaUIPMEHT AND fMUa; OR CCIoNEtICEMB(T OF """"'" Z. EACHCONTI'lACT1JRNrDSl.Jl'tIuell.I$AESPONSlBl.ETHt.TtftWORKAI€IWiTElJAl.S COPl"ORllllOALLAPPuc:A.9LECODE&, INCUIlJINGoCHAFTER42OFTHECUfWNT 1.NfOIl:M!IJlL!lIlj('j~nn.E24C0DE8ASOF11l11QDD5. S. Sl.IiIICONmACTO.S\WJ..I'ROIIPTl.VNOT!FYlllEQEtlEIW.CONTRACJ1JR,AND Tl-EI2M!ftA\..~SIW.lIllO'T1FYTHEDE8ISlER.OfI<<'(ERROI'lSOR 0MlSSl0N$. OR Dl8CREPANCIES IN nE Pl.AN$ ANDI'OR SPEClPlCATlONS. 4. H.LEllIlmNaFWlSl-!ESQRMA.TERW.5~OIJf'TODEMOUTION~NEW CONSTRucnoN mwJ.ft ~llED, F1NlSHED, cR ~TO Mf"Tt:H tmIG1NA1.. -CONDmON,:l'O,TH5.Il,'~ OFTHE OWNERAHDI'ORlH!: tF-SIGlER.ANOAT NOC06TTDnt!OVIINEROftOl!$ltvSt 5. 1F1tt:REIS/l.COIfl.IC'tBEl'MBiTHESPECl!'!Clt.TtClNSAHDTHESlJBCOlfTRACTOR ~TH!.IlIOJ11ERE5t1UCT'IVEBfW..l.~ is. TH!~OF'l1iISDlX:lIIIEIf1'I$TOINCWtEALlt.ABOR,Wt.TEFaAI..lI,EQllIPBoe.IT Nm mANSPOIn'A7IOf(, ~fOIlTHeCOMI"LETEMm F'ROPER EXECLmON OF THE WORK. ~wm;GOCDF'RACTJC~ANYWOM.OItn>>lMOT SPeClP'JOOJ.Y~FOIlIN1HEDRAWJG$ B\JT ~ PORACOUPL.EIl!:ANO FULLY FUNCnCIeIG INSTAI..lATlCH SIW..l.IE SJPPlED BY l1iE: COMTl'IACTOR AND Af'PRO\'EtlB'f1HEDeSCNeR. tIONOTSCALEIJIW\/IWGlS. THEDESIiliIERASSUM=S ~l"Ol\ERPlOI't6tJUETtI'IliESCAl.JN9OFDRAWlNGSSY 7. THE DESI~ DECISIOf& IN JAA'!7ERSREl.JJM TOART1mcEFi'ECTWlll.BE AtW.IFOCftSI&TENTWl'TMTHE1NTI:NT0FTKE:COmRACTOOCUM!NTS. . a. 0lMgeIONII5NOTlSHOWNAS+1-AFE~ADJlJSTEtlwrTHOUTPi'{lORAPPROVALOF Tl"EDESlQNa t. ~OMSTOElCIS'mGIWllWl.AIff'l'OFACE.QF.~ IJNl.ESSOTH5RWISE. 1Q.TH!.A~~AIlEMHJIIAlTHf~CFAU. ~rnoNSNOT~YNOTBlOR:OE't7.lLmAFIETHEFl58PONSI8IUTY OF'THECONTRJ.C1'CItANQlORSLIBCONl1lA~lNVOLVED.Nf(OOlCJrn:NIt RE:I1..Jll'llNI DET~ SIiOll..OI!EMOIJ3rtTTO nEATTBmON OF'TlE tlE$GER. 11. AU.RNISHIMT9'!W.6.FOO'UFlESAJoJ)!-\AAOWI.RETOBEREIIlEWECBY'OVI/NER SUBIIIIT UJBtI.T1.RE NCfOR SAYPl..iii:S FCFl1li5IR.APf'ROV,I,L 12. ALLIlVl.TER1WN<<JWORKSlJPPUfDBYa~~u.BEOFAGIWlE ANDClI.WJlYACCEPT.\BL.flO lES/QN5R AND CITY. IN E'lERYCASETl-EYSIW..L BE SlJro\Bl..EFOl'lTHEUSEPROPOSEtI. 1l. ~ BYPSLlM,BOAAC CClNSTR\.JC1'IOMEE1'lNG EXlSTIlG OONSmUC11CN IN TH~ So'ME:F'l..ACe.6IWLBEF'WSH.'M'IHNO~JOllftS 1,(, DO NOT$CAL.E l:fWWIt<<ilS. Tl€tlEStaNER,o,SSUWSNORESPONSlBl..m'I'OR ~O\.lEWTHElICAL.INGOFDAi.wlNGe:BYCClNTRlC'T0R8. 15. FOU.OW1JE.~TlONOFnE~ INFOrIIIIlTHEI:ESIGI'ISlOF ~~WlTH'i'Ief~SPECFlC:o\TICt\la ~ 11.~~~~~~':"'TESl5K'\U..foIAtr.HEXlSTJNG 17. E(:lLJ.o\6OR ~.St&:mU:T10~lL~.AAEAu.oWEl) SL.eJS:::TTO OWNER.'sAP!'i~ 1)-IE~'CR~!ORa,EJ'l"1HIS~CERTlF&AN!)G\.lAAN'II'IUS. ~TlHE~OfIlISINAu.Rl$PEC1'S,I31lAl..;OORBETTBl1W.N1liE1'11:M llPfC1fE!).lJNL.l$SsPECIFlCA!.l..YNOiEDOlHEIM'lSE. 1..Al..LDOORS.~.wINPOWllAHDTHEilR~R5TOMEETSECURlTY A:EQ\)1~OFTHECIiY I;' \JERlPfEACHOONOlTIr:wW!Tl1AU.OIWMNGSBEI"DR!:I!~NKIN;;W:JRK. STRl.IC'l\JFW.~S.AIlEtt:1l"TOBSlJSED'MTHOIJTCONSI.lcrlNGo:sIGN I:lRI\\o'JItGlSFOREl>.CHCClJIIOlT1ON. 2ll. ACTUAl. SIZES. ROUQH AND F1*9H OPENINaS SHAll BE \EFtFEO WITH Wo\NIJFAC'Tl.lRfRS".VS:UFYIFSiZEeAU...oursAREACnIAlOll.~JlW.;lNCl.UDrNG IlIC'I'Ua1TS, YmDOW5, lJOOflS. /\lC) AP'f'l.lIl..NCe. zt. nE,~r.lICAl..r.NOFAUSY31EMllAASTHEllES?ONSllIl.IiYOf'TH! ~~=:mJEMl.CP8'l:c;nyFlEQUIRa'SNTS, 2Z. Al.L'l'/tIRKSIW.laE~gyEXl'8'l:I5.NC8l CONTRACTORSANJ~ EACHcotlTRACTOR I&RESPOt<<lIlIt.E FOR. as~ FUU..YINf'OlM:DOf PfW;.T1::ES OFHlSnv.DEAND1HE~TIONOF'~ASSOCU>.~. 23. ntEFOl.l.OWIN(irrEMtoBE~TOTHEFlREM'\Flstio'lL.~APA'lOllALay AI'F'RllPRL\TETRADell:~tE'l'B:'TORPROIU;:T:JA1)I". 24. DES~!;RTOElENOTtAEOLf'ONDl$CO\IERYOf1#(~COHOOl0N6TW.Tw.YltIoIlBrr D"'...BIGl\lMENTl'ORfl.ACBlENtOF\NI.U.S, Ci\lllNETB.N'f'I.WICES~TW\YN:lT HA.ve.~V1~CU!UHGlESm.lPROlES&. CESI~I::ON'TRAC'Tt)fAND~ TOREVIEW~RE\Il!lEOE&lQNAil~TOcar.bTlON. -,._-~-----......-.-.-~_.. , ~ BY \ - -;;-,-' ~ ~ J> '";;,.,:, " I J / / ~ ~ I I / I ! I I~ 1\ I .fn~ li~~ It. . i!i: . . i!! , ~ Ii H. ~!' - jJI dt _--3L. _.__ . Ov w<(- uoo Z"'"' w' 0'1 g~<( V><(U ~GD :J~~ .~ $ ~ ",0- w~:;! o-u """....' ~""'" Eli*- ].1 ~,07 .' ...,6i..iJrrllio ..~ -iA-1: Et.f.tA~fJ;T10N .!!.m I.~ g~. '~u.l.L F:ILL. :~~C:E.~ diP ~ 1l[~StT ~et~ tat ~U,. , lof\lUl~E. '!ItFG .~'t:t..M-"II'"'F"'.; "!"LIOtta! nr '~..rt; .f'~E ~'_Sll!""..tnlI1', <U1JTOIO' ~~-, ;:~J~~~~t;>!~f,~. " ;" _~~i~;~~~~l~:~:~i~~~:~, ~:~~~~;~~ 1"-. ;'~~h.-~t( f~A~fj-"t;: ,:.s "R5Ci~Jt.r~ n ern". :I~:. ~T~C' ';i,ai:~~s -P:E~ on $T....ND..itPS F~.PP.jv.o.:rE ROAI . :!.:e.1l- f.lr!..lC R.OA~ "'5-.Fl~Il\;l"rno BY CIT'\' EI'l(;!-NEr~ ~ER ell" ~s; ..:~~;~:~~:C~:=:d'S.'E~~ESS E~E~E~ TO !E ~kAIfEO T.O LOTS :;;J('l-",ce",'ar_IHo.'i;:~.E:DhIV...n:- ~OA",.. EAOH'Qf ,"'10 LorST ~E:-<"~!~:;ll e-Y -/+ R'E.c-lP~OtAl M.l.t'lf-EblANt!' ~REr"':MT" ~R T~f .-::= Cf~~Jtl.,,~.~\~!-~.s. : '. ~~~'l. ;,P.RS -~~s.~.?SO~~.;a;:llll ~&"~!"~~,, \i~?;,(~.1f}i~i~~t~'~~"~i':r~,i.' '-S:_.,I,'L ll, . <, ~;~ '.~:"~'.':.' .' ,r'~-;~' " ,; -, ..~'. ,<. . . :"-;~'l~;;w ~~~:?U~s.:~-~ :...; ___ _ _ _ . : ::.;:~ ::-~~~4 . 1'0s-s-U""E ttll-l\<~{ tGt,(l"J.pH~ ' . "'ri...5ill'l~-_ i:t~M~:;'i':tQ:i.!lrlbN_:~'ijl!_- 'L;a-~~ '>~~~>~,~~~::~1I!'S'~' _~ .. ""- "'ji~iS:B~t~L~ .~_.--'-. GD.iERAlNOTl:S: ~~~~~1lIl~=~ =._NA1EJIlAIS.__O/UlF!lnllleCll-l;llIoIU9IC:JMIl:I'1lIl WJltllllTUOmlollllSllJ'Ua5~'l>..:THIS_IoIIIlMDllllAU =~~CID$,.1tt(UEllI(;0W'ID...,crT1l:~"- ~SIWL~YtcrllF'l'TIll~~MlC__ . ~~~=~~,,~Cf"NfY'_at:QM5IOI5,DI -l.. Al.l.DlSIllC'_lalUmllU~Ultlll!lllUl'llllllllllEll toI>IIllICnI:IN8tW..lE_l'H5IE,llIlll9Uall-n>lII.\]QI~ aMlITlOl. 'l'llnIU"'RiI'.u;n:rol:l'.....OMI!Il-'O<'III>~.vIll.cr1Cl ca;rfOTIE~(II"IISII:>"... . ~~~:=~~~LLIIE ____AS+!.IUl..,..~"'TlI:mI'llllP.~ a<tllE~' _'l'lli>:l!illlE1WUM!:fO~.WllI.__ - j./l, T!I:~_NG!iAllf._tlll:__llUl'frEAl,1. eDIIlmllN5M1J"~Nt1mllllllEl'All!D_1l'Ii~1.lll" ~~~=~":=':Cf"~ llAll._W,lttIlU,.IlXJJIOG__-n>IEEWllUlll'lI1I'IB. _lmJLIlllft:~!iNII'\SRIII.'Tl-IIl__ u. Al,1.~~_~III"~>>Ml.lIED'''QWJE .AltDlII'lJIY....::cEl'OIII.ltlDE5ClllEll_WT."'MID"OOliETlV5HAl.L 1!:1lIrr-.rT'lllMll5l_ l!. "E'lI~.:l/ItIl.~~posJ1fII;~DN"'M$oIollIo lU(E5IP.l.LEFLWl,lMlJClY5lll..[~ 1" Db'ICIT5atl:lIUiIo'IIIroS.nl:m!ilGII[Jlois!illl[5M)mPOIAllJITrU- DIIOI'IlIDllI''Itl"TIIE5CliJ11G,fElJ'-'WI\C5rrClllm.lCl1lRS- ... >OLOW'llIf._"-[>F111!:_.ocru__'TI'IE~ Dl'Al/ra:.NllJcrl;'MTI<_IJUIIINCiMl>~ 1i. ~~~an::=.Jt.1I55NOl.l."""TO<I<GiI'IG rr. !IIlJl1ll1llEl'lB.!iIEJTWnDNliAllf.IoWl\\Im~OIlIlIJ'5AJ-.. _~lll~"''I1l$~oII..C5ItIlI!5~lllAUHTe =-~~~~=0I_'TlWI_ u..1,UDta5AND."tI(lWI""'IIll1l~_TO~lEJJIITl VQll~otMcm'. 11. VElllPrlollOlCllNllll1l3l_Al.t._-..a;_~__ S'J1O.C'll........-as___TO.l/SEIwmtauJD:II<a.nN~!:O!!iOI ~RlI>E..piCtlGTUl. 21. ~.r..c.~~~:f~-:O~1IQW- 1IC;__~~lKXlRl,"""~. 2~ =~~=:n~~ 22. 1,U_SlW.l.Ii;IBRI"'IlI>.~IX1KIJU..""TWS__ YO!~lSl!5POIQI..EfW.IIIll(;IW,I'_(l<~ 1IF1fIi'ltillt:"'1fllnn:~l:I'TIIlllEIISlOCIA'IltIll l!. 'Tlf:f~IIlD<TDE~"TO_"'-"IIl'~ ...~TlUDIS:CDIOIIlSrOIDFTICl:IO.IIaIICt_ U.llDOIIITDIENlJWIIlIl'Clll~DFRfllBctIIIlIlOI5111AT""l :r=E.~=~~~ n. 1II<ItII_.....,.DI~_TD.....TQ<lBKflHllllllil~ Zi."!'l'1.. 'T'\'PCM. I+H_ 1'IJlS0IIWIl.6 11II_ _ N.T.$._ !lDl"Tb5Oll..E lIil. EIS'TIIC PI. lIBI:I'>'E LLC.N._ lINLElI!illD'Tl:ll"'- <; ;;%~5;~ia ~[;~~ " I "//'-/-:"/;"//<;'. ." "}I3~S;2S" '>/"'/////.i/j ///""'~ I 0 / ' A' ~,,/ //:-;,/;~', I suss :;;~.-?:;:::;;! .:<0.;\'~'11 /////:0;/. "E //':, ,J!~!~~~~';~ /'H ,,;%nS~6.7S0/"'//;//;' ',.I" "'''/'' <I.66X666 ,,',~/ / -,' " "~r":;.....\ ~ ,>h / /" ,,/,~ :,,/ H~!O ,,,:;~ ,.~{.l;:.%~:~:/'{t:'>>~,/ :,~;., )~;~~I'r..'.r '.:~~I~ i:~~~~. ~ IE) MAIN, UPPER lEVEl & GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS @ADDITION SCALE: ~4 " = 1'-0' (E) MAIN LEVEL ./ PLACEMENT OF ADDITION SCALE: l' = 20'-0' SQ. FTGE. CALCS. A 141.4 t B 4.S I C 39.7 D 3.8 E 14.2 F 23.6 G 22.8 H 31.0 I 5.5 J 339.5 K 3.3 l 19.4 M 3.3 N 26.3 o 10.6 Tl 688.9 (N) PROJECT DATA: OWNERS: JanDeCarII SITE DESCRIPTION: ADD"'" 116-4DRegnart CupertlrlO,o. 95D14 APN: 366-33-{l06 EXISTING USE: SINGLE FAMILY REiIDENCE 20ttlNC: R-H-S-UD OCCUPANCY: RE5lDEN11AL LOT ""'"' BUIlDING AREA: 171,S96Sq.FL -l MAIN FLOOR: ATT.CiAAAGE: UPPER FLOOR: EXI!mNCi ADDITION ~ --0- UlI.75 0 IBS.DO 1i8JI.95 TOTAL COVERAGE: 6171.00 68&.95 6869.95 I L~ ] RATlO Of SECOND FLOOR TO AR5T: 8[15nNCi - 44.~ PROPOSED", 64.~ FAR.{S!T[ COVERAGEJ 6159.95 - 178596. = .Il3851!; FINISHED FLOOk ELEVA1lON: ID. in .I.Q!ill MAIN FLOOR: 814.5 814.5 0 GARAGE: 813.5 813..5 0 UPPEIIFLOQR.; 822.75 822...75 0 AVEIlACiE SLOPE OF SITE: 31.7 OEGREES ! 1lM5icn5 TOTAL }424.Z5 1211.75 2223.95 ! L...U ....... I j 5 ! -~f~: C.m 'Iolft .., VtI,Il!u" -Ii! N!ll Qj:' m iH UJ ... u."... Z "0 UJ 0 on co<", 8jtt<( .0::: ~u Cl . -"0 ...JO:::c CE::o"E ..:..... u"'''" ..." UJ...U C General Notes, Project OM.. Squan: '- """. ""... . A-3 I cP"---- R..OOR PlAN NOm: ZLmlll.~=:::'oUID~5tW.L"'!;lllUDa>Il[WTl!s:ElF Z- I'IID\OIDE.--'II"IIIOIIlEB'LlIOIIC;DlIJlIDEAl.LEnPlJ/lIIlalllS~ _Tll...lllOIBlDMIlnw<llN5IIOl1lFOl.IIl-_PlXlIIIi.,WNlR TIWIllMOlLDMll'JlWl'1llll!il<<lUl_llUT-5MON(';llllOl5;I '" IO'!YIIETSHmIlOO..uusANlltElLJMC;E1'IIUN"""-"CE1oIID1IDL5E.- 4- 1~Al.L"T"fI'f:TSNErnIDCl.~_CLIIC_5r.r.ll$. L """"""'ZT:rWIlI<lI!JRD;llNlllATllC.cass...UWIIKlP!lOlX:l5OS.l. Eo II':lMlEEliIII5S~.AU.~_PUDl!:ll~"''''":W_ -JIlII.lrMlllll'-u"......mrFF. ,. 1IttMlE"""'.....l.IGImlll;SlllIIlr:ElMot:lCNl'.5K\'lDIl)1MfH....-...IJFP<Df LmTlWf!SotFlMilUa.-""lB:18.Z- .. _DE~kllLYlNl1LAlQtllil_,-.~$IM.OOJ'IImI1lII 1""'""~HDJI>liIilHN1v.....,tol......1J1C:1203.3 iJ. wmQ..l,ll<(;IWaIIEll_....lJFn:I:lIl-lI'"OFF_FL=OlI_~ I~;:,-:=::===!UOU_ ~~~~~~~~:.~:n- 11. ~MKtlIIlIL5lIiTSTAIlWAl'51l1m14~_XliEIG.lIJCllIO!.u.6-EU Jl.5PflJIT~LSIlII'/tllllor-TJICII~CIl:SEfOi.""lIWII' ~...""'"OF1.l'ftl..,tCH!3I.1(NE_.~t:ItllIPliDI!UfJaf =:a~---Ne'lmlNll'ltA,.JblaPDm:(IlIII!'I'lMNTOlIALL.l. 13- .o.u._'IM1EJIal:IiElJ;"''''''''''_,iC/llUlO6PUfUlS>t. .loI_I'IlOtIIIlE_IlIlCIIDUl:;lIJF.oullrrallEEmlS191JPCSIU. ~=SltDIOt:tImIlIliliW.l."'__'l<I5n.Ifl~BA:.N(l; u.-"lJ.'TUI....Sl(NeWoW.!oousrHAw:~5NXml,Hom,....,_ !lIJIT.I.CLO\IBol"OISlUll'~lSJn-__UH~TtlJ,.Iec;H'TtIf"?lf_ --, iiWindowst Doors (j) 4040 <l\ 303' W 2036 @ 30lo ,)) 3040 ':ID 141< I]; 30l' :Al 2068 int. <i> 2668 int. ('D16868biPUS (Q>: I 2468potket ;~ ~'8.5howe.renclose if) 606''''"''' WAll LEGEND I==i ~ Hr....lL('q -- j2'2ZLZ1 ~. l;V~~\.:;, ~.X':U/.' Landing'~/ . // Deck ~ './ ~}( (E) RESIDENCE 1 o [L] ~D [L] .---0 , ',~)I. BEDROOM #2 I ti .', ,>. "'j/,~~" ,. ,j/ 7 " ~;~' ;~: ..-:'/~ .5~" " ~~':;'- "'s. .~ PRELlMINARYCONSTRUCTION PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ~ ~==r Itmf;!ons i ....U Iii ;-IM ! C ~I. . i!~ o ~ , J PLACEMENT OF ADDITION SCALE: I" = 20'-0. 'I , 'I l_~ .ft, . \#II...... _Hi N ~~~ QI!. jj.f III !" UJ " u".... Z"O UJo", co:", Vi~<( ~~u 0> _ -"0 --'O:c 0::: or <("" U<Do. ...." UJ....u C Preliminary Con5tnJction "on ,- 11.15.117 PCI ~M 11!-4-4 I" I [1 (N) (El ~ ::: ~ ~~ ~ ~II f0B0~ 0 ~ , 0. [iliJ}... I i 1 (N) CD END ELEVATION @ MASTER FRENCH DOORS-WEST SCALE: "4 = 1'-0" ( (DREAR ELEVATION-NORTH SCALE: ~4" = 1'-0" --~- (N) 'i' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ :::: OPal L J "''' 1 1 n~~:i~1 """' DD]]]D "" rnmi 1 I 1 (N) ; (El 8) FROfllJ ELEVATION @ MASTER SUITE-SOUTH SCALE: '." = 1'-0. (N) CD LEFT ELEVATION @ FRONT DOOR-EAST SC~LE; "'_ = 1'-0' ~ . ...u 1m -I~~: C.ns ...."i~~ ~H! Nih QL i!! i~! ~'O::; ~~o C1ca:::~ ~~<t "'"U '" . -"0 ~"'c '" .- Jot: ~..... u:eg. UJ--,u Cl I , I i Ext,,,,, I ~I'~~ 1.15.07 AsNmetl DeCarli EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ~"A-51 hvi;:il>lll> I I I i ! ... pi .~ -1m .-- C.lis 'oJ) ... 1!~i -0('0; -I!! N ~!! CUt i" UJ u"'C~ Z"O I UJo", "''''''' I ~~i'5 "'" 0> _ II -"0 --'",,, 0:::_:;:; ~~ ~ I ...." UJ....u Cl ~---------T---------~----- I I " / I I I I I / -I "I ' ~:--J---7C--- --;~\~----~------- - \ I I 1 \ I 1 \ \ ',I 1 \ IF; ;"\ 1 \ / .J I' I I "'oJ I I',. ( I " I >: -J . / L_, Y. r L_-,7'.l- -" { / \ I L _J f" / -.J / / "-. r / 1'- Roof Legend ~---~ I (E) Roof ~ ~~of - "q Ii> :l / / ;/ L \ \ I '" ~ .J '0'.", '.0. 4-6 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4' = 1'-0" L / ) - -+- Jl \ \ .. \ p.::Ca/ J; fl-(.>,d,<w /lC,l.fo f?~"~rf c:..q"yO.~ D,. C UPU-t",'r."'i Ct4 1'50/'{ \ \ i I \ \ \ ) ~ ._~ .~-~g.~ ii":r~pm5" l j ! ;/ ,/ \ \\ \ \. J'I(!'> To R">""n ~ '''1". -("<> b" r 50 120 rP Sto"'5-<- /,. >\ . - \ \\, \ \ , -} I / ---~ \ \ \ ,j II i \ \ . \ \' \ \ \ \. '. \ "<1\ I / II '" ) . \ \ / I I / / CC 7j/7/ul jJ; II Page 1 of 1 Kimberly Smith From: James W. Slack [jwblack@speakeasy.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 20072:48 PM To: City Clerk Cc: Jim & Linda Walker; Alan & Sue Kayser; George & Genieve Luchessi; Jan DeCarli; John & Carol Garliepp City of Cupertino City Council, As a neighbor, near the DeCarli residence, I am in support of their application to construct an addition to their house. am also in favor of the City granting an exception to build on a prominent ridge line. The DeCarli site also is the location of a large San Jose Water storage tank and a PG&E tower. The existing tank and electrical tower make this a unique piece of property unlike any other in the city. The DeCarli residence shields these other two obtrusive structures and is impacted by their presence. Approval of these applications, with reasonable conditions and mitigation measures, will provide incentive for the owner to enhance the home's existing appearance which currently impacts their neighbor's privacy. The City allowed the original construction of the home and the later addition, without requiring significant landscape screening. The home's paint color might be improved if selected from a choice of colors that blend, rather than standout, from the natural appearance of the hillsides. I would like assurances that our common road will be minimally impacted by any construction effort. Jim Black 11691 Regnart Canyon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 446-2410 7/17/2007 Jl:~hc4fiM (f/f1;-'U>:fl-rn. &- l/nrDl ~ . .:#'1\ //cP'7CJ ~~~ c;;1~, CA '9:s-tJIcf- '-;if! 4-,k~~'~ /~-2007 . ~~~, ~~ ~~~L'>L~j~ ~~ V~A...J~ ~~'~~~ CLL' ~~~~~~~ . ~~ ~~ ~,~<U~ ~ ~~v/~r~lI' ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ tf;::::::;:~ ~~ ~ IL/~ trj'CVu/ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ 2i: ~~~~~ ~~ 7f~. , ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ' f5) [E (G [E ~ W [E rRl ln1 JUl 1 7 2007 lW ~ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK c.c.. 7 /l7/CJ 7 1t" I \ Page 1 of 1 Kimberly Smith Sent: To: Cc: From: kimsmi@comcast.net Tuesday, July 17, 20073:12 PM City Clerk JDeCarli@cbnorcal.com; kimsm i@comcast.net; jcgarl iepp@earthlink.net; jwblack@speakeasy.net; LukcG@aol.com; akayser@comcast.net Subject: DeCarli Addition City of Cupertino Council, I will not be able to make the meeting this evening due to childcare challenges. Here are my thoughts on the DeCarli proposal. The DeCarli residence sits directly above my home. I have a clear view of the backside of the DeCarli residence from the front windows and front patio of my home. My challenge with this proposal is not the historic ridge (their is a large communications tower already located on this ridge) but that the plan does not discuss the softening of the structure (paint and landscaping), the privacy of the neighbors (additional trees and landscaping) which in my opinion as a neighbor should be required and written in to approval of this proposal. Kind Regards, Kim & Ron Smith 11700 Regnart Canyon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 7/1 7/2007 'j f/ 1t Ib7 (( ~L 1 Residence DeCarli ", \ ,~ -'-~ ~--=---- '--" '" ,....~ . ~.... ...- ,,, /:;. -" / --. " -'- . ", "" '\ "'~~ / ";",.i'''''' ~;::::: -- "':o>tt. ~ '\ \ ~ tlO~2;;f:' /..... " " , , ~ .")' ~ ,,," ,r .--"'- -~ --_...... '\, \. . \ ""-. ',/ - -~ \ ,..tf.)~' /" ....~" \. \ \ ............/ -/~ ---........... '\ \ -e". ~.-. '> ~ /- .: __ '1--., ",- "',' \. .....~__. ,/ f //~.._~~ -.., \ '\ \ ' . ~'" 1oU'~' I "I.l.r... 'k~_'-~'-"\.._._ '\ .' \ \ '''-. '~7? "~.~.,-'''''I ".;;;.;;_; ~ ~ij!40 '0.,.1 \ \ \ \ .-- .~ _ ~\",,' ..~,. ~--r<\'- .:....~7 .' r: \ , \ ~' "'t'...r--....~ ",.."" '-'., \ \ \ ' "- __~ "" '-""" 'r' ... 'A :.~- ...--, '~ ~"'-'" \\', > , '~~.~,._>- ( .. /'-- '-'<--^ \:... \,' \ . \ . --- --... ;' /'~~ '<<.~ - "\~ \.~\ ~i: I ~ \ . '. '': -. /\'-i: I \'. i I \ i ""'~'" ", ,,\., '/, I ~~, " />, ,~ )..~ :.J I I, I \~:'l\ i /~"e':!~ I. ,! I" 7 ..",(l , \;:",,~..1i .. ~.,~. ,/! \ ~~~ t)""""'~ , f f" \;:':$. ' .......,' ( '1: ~'t / ; 7~ /! ! j .. " ~ ~ I" /' I ,., I /"'.. ./'1-.. .' ~"JOiI'"f'_"'jl / { /__.~J WF'ol''''-'l. ".- / ">/. /' _r /_ . 1 ' / I ...... ""Mi, //1 ?"t-J ,/..,,', I I' '! \ i ,'" .--/-,.,., .\ -""-" /,,,,,:r_,' / . , /' .-- <,/ '1 ~,/ :~$, " \ ./ /, ///," )'/':-: / 'I' I '-' / / " ./. ,. I , ' /" .,./ /" ~'" ", ~," ';-, ~ I I ' ,r / , /,t:; -. ,<.', 7f / ,,:-.' ,---:,)~"'~/ ><':", ?'" ....'^.....l .-"' ':--... ~,~, < -.;;' " ;<.. ,'; /r ,,-" ,', ,.P<., / )'.... ,'...... ,/" " '~. , " ...... --...., ~ , ' ')...../ ..-' "!', /".r"',. // / /~;>"" /' >"'Z. . .~_/;I. -- :...:,; / ' . ~...... / "", " . ~.. '" ,,' / , ;-i^~ ~':< .;./:1"" ....'" ,.'....... " .. " ' 'I( j ; I I I !-l_ (~ ......:kJJJii?~ 1.,40 ~N~~ <<!.. .... ..,.. l,..... l..'ld~d =.~.} {,i'.....l"'rlit ~hD'~""",,1 ~~rt:;:: 4i-.~ J-9&(<Ej 'trtc.h...' ~~~r<...a:~~!"b1L -r~ ~f"~ ~JI1;Ip~l~ c ! / ... ~ -----' ~ /~ PLACEM SO\I c (El RESIDENCE m....c1.. j -:':::~;;:::~~=::::::'~::>'~r ,f . .' , ~;/'\, U/ (f) )j BATH "J I ~,I :1 j"""""" j /' <yY / V" /''< ~. -~'- .,. ".' '",- .. i..-,..-~~~._---------_. ,;.~ .. ~, _---1~ m_J B w [:1 .~ ...----- m___ IJl: ! ! , - L---- --=-_L_. "''\.~ ~ \,\, " '\' '\ \ \ )1 f J / / i / / / , i I , I .---- ~, \ I ) - ~ ~' - :.-~~ -- --'. '. \ ,\ ,.. " '\.,\, :." '\ "" \ ,/ ........,- ------ ~ \ \ I \ /~.. \ I '. \ ~~7' ~/ I / ;' ,,/ // \ ,- J '. / '., "~ jl<~l2-~ ,~ 1'bf MS' ) / I //' /,,/ -"'--- ....,,-