CC Resolution No. 5237 ~ • ~
4?
RESOLUTION N0. 5237
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII. OF T}IE CITY OF CUPERTINO
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO JACQUES LASSERRE FROM SECTION 9.3
OF ORDINANCE 780 TO PERMIT AN 8 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR
. A PROPOSED SECOND-STORY ADDITION IN LIEU OF 9 FT. AS RE-
QUIRED BY ORDINANCE; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LA RODA
DRIVE APPROXIIIATELY 360 FT. SOUTk1ERLY OF SUISUN DRIVE (AT
10619 LA RODA DRIVF.) IN AN R1-7.5 ZONE
' WHEREAS, the applicant has met [he burden of proof required to sup-
port his said application; and
i
i W}iEREAS, [he Planning Cormiission, af[er duly notices public hearings, has
'I forwarded its recommenda[ion to the City Council; -
' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps,
facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in [his matter, the application
for the Variance (1-V-80) be and the same is hereby approved, subject to
' conditions in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040, attached hereunto as
Exhlbit "A".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED [hat the report of findings attached here[o is
approved and adopted, and that the Ci[y Clerk be and is hereby direc[ed to notify
the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED A*7D ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of [he City
of Cupertino this ~r,~ day of M.~rrh , 1980, hy the following
vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: 0'Keefe, Rogers, Meyers
NOES: Jackson
ABSENT: Sparks
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:
/~~~w~
Mayor, City of Cupert
ATTEST:
~
City Clerk
; ~ ~I T Y 0 F G U P E R T ~ 0
t City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95~14
. Telephone: (408) 252-4505
I RESOIUTIpN OF THE PI,ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF.CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A VARIANCE
WHEREAS the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino re-
ceived an application for a VARIANCE, as stated on Page 2, and
~ WHEREAS the applicant has NOT met the burden of proof required
~ to support his said application, and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission finds that the application does
; NOT meet all of the following requirements:
' l. That there are special conditions or exceptional character-
; istics in the nature of the property to be affected, or
that its location or its surroundings are such as will per-
mit the Commi~sion ~o make a determination that a literal
enforcement of the rdinance would result in practical
difficulties or unn2cessary hardships; and
' 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the
! preservaticn and enjoyment of substantial property rights,
and
I 3. That the granti~g of the application will not materially
lth r safet of ersons residin
affect :~versely the hea • y ' ~
or working in th~ neighborhood of the property which is
~ the subject of the application, and that the use of said
property in the manner which it is proposed to be used
will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the value of the property or improvements
located in said surroundings.
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
' That after careful consideration of maps. facts, exhibits and
il other evidence submitted in this matter. che application for
the VARIANCE be, and the same is~ hereby NOT recommended for
app roval to the City Council of the City of Cupertino; and
' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
I That the findings q~oted above and on Page 2 are approved and
' adopted, and that the Secretary be, and is hereby~ directed
' to notify the parties affected by this decision.
(Contitwed on Page 2)
-1- . . ~
• • 1-V-80
~
r
RESOLUTION N0. 2040
pg THE pLANNING COlA1ISSION OF TfiE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 9.3
OF ORDINANCE 780 TO PERMIT AN,B ft. SIDE YARD SET-
BACK FOR A PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION IN LIEU
OF 9 Ff. AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: Jacques R. Lasaerre
ADDRESS: 10619 La Roda Drive. Cupertino, California 95014
' SIIBMITTED: January 9, 1980
LOCATION: Weat aide of La Roda Drive approximately 360 ft. southerly
of Suisua Drive (10619 La Roda Drive)
FINDINGS:
Applicant has not demonatrated that extraordiaarp circumstaaces exist .
which neceasitates the propoaed variance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of February, 1980, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commieaion of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Co~issioners Adams, Slaine, Claudq, Koenitzer, Chairman Gatto
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
APPROVED:
/s/ John H. Catto
John M. Gatto, Chairman
Planniag Commission
ATTEST:
A1 ~
Rnbert Cov~ran
Aseistant Planning Director .
-2-
. ~
Feb• ry 1$, 19$0
To: City Council, City of Cupertino
S1ib~ect: Variance Request Ordinance 7$0, Sideyard Setback
10619 LaRoda Drive~ Cupertino.
Request: Variance oF one (1) foot, from 9 feet to 8 feet~ in the
sideyard setback requirement for a 2 story residence to
permit addition of a second floor at the sub~ect address.
Background:
Slib~ect address is a single .family residence~ approximately
20 years old. The structure faces east, is bounded by a
two story residence to the south and a one story residence
to the north. The surrounding neighborhood consiats entirely
or original one and two story homes constructed as one
development.
Special Conditions/Special Circumstances:
This request for variance is submitted for two primary
reasons.
(1) The setback at the south is 7 feet. This aould require
a variance of 2 feet and is therefore not requested. The
living room in the center of the structure, has a pitched,
open beam ceiling which does not permit a second floor
at that location. The proposed addition would be over the
garage and extend to the rear of the house; the sideyard
setback at this side (north) is eight feet.
(2) Economic conditions influence this variance request.
Previously, a logical alternative would have been to purchase
another and larger residence to obtain more room. Market
prices and the associated coat of money do not permit the
luxury of this alternative for the requestors.
(3) The requestors propose an addition that is architecturally
compatible with the neighborhood. Conatruction with the
nine foot setback starting at the second story would
require a more complex and costly structure and would not
conform to the architectural style of the original existing
two story homes. The only windows planned on the north
• • • •
(proposed eight foot setback side) would be for the
bathroom, thereby essestially eliminating a potential
' privacy problem with the neighboring residence. The
' requestors propose that, if granted, this condition be
~ made part of the variance.
j Precedence:
At least one residence in this same development at 20211
Sliisun is a 2 story house originally constructed with a
~ 7 1/2 foot sideyard aetback. While admittedly sub~ective,
j this cited residence does not detract from other structures
i nor the surrounding neighborhood, notwithstanding the set-
j back of less than nine feet.
i Conclusion:
~ M eight foot sideyard setback will not adversely affect
~ the subject residence nor the surrounding neighborhood.
j It is the intent of the requestors that the resultant
~ structure will be an asset to the neighborhood and the
~ community. Granting of the application will not materially
affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the property which is
the subject of the application~ and that the use of said
property in the manner which it is proposed to be used
will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or in~urious to the value of the property or improvements
located in said surroundings. Due to the circumstances
cited herein~ it is requested that the variance be approved
on a non-precedent setting basis.
~ yJ~ ~ ~re .
Jacques Lasserre Yvette Lasserre