The URL can be used to link to this page

15. Von Bloes Appeal 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AgendaItemNo. I~ Agenda Date: January 3, 2006 Application: DIR-2005-20 Applicant (s): Horst Von Bloes Owner: Fred and Rose Fry Property Location: 21161 Canyon Oak Way SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision to deny an addition that exceeds the allowable floor area ratio in the Oak Valley Planned Development, Application No. DIR-2005-20, Horst Von Bloes (Fry residence), 21161 Canyon Oak Way, APN 342-59-008. (The applicant requests this item be continued). RECOMMENDATION: The City Council can: 1. Continue this item to the February 7, 2005 City Council rneeting as requested by the applicant; 2. Or take any of the following actions: a. Uphold the appeal and approve the Director's Minor Modification application; b. Uphold the appeal and approve the Director's Minor Modification application with conditions of approval; c. Deny the appeal and deny the Director's Minor Modification application. BACKGROUND: On Decernber 20, 2005, the City received an ernail frorn the applicant, Horst Von Bloes, requesting a continuance to the February 7, 2005 City Council rneeting (See Exhibit A). The applicant states that he and the property owners will be out of town on January 3rd. The Planning Commission heard this application at its November 22, 2005 meeting; on a 4-1 vote (Chairperson Wong opposed), the Commission recommended to deny the appeal filed by Horst Von Bloes, on behalf of the property owners, Fred and Rose Fry. The Frys are requesting approval of a 169 square foot attached greenhouse that would exceed the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on their property. Upholding the appeal would overturn the Design Review Committee's decision of August 4, 2005 to deny the application. I S-.-I Printed on Recycled Paper AppealofPIR-2005-20 Page 2 21161 Canyon Oak Way January 3, 2006 The applicant is requesting the appeal (See Exhibit D attaclunents) based upon the following points: 1. The proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvernents in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The greenhouse will provide protection from deer and other animals to grow and provide flowers and organic herbs for their private use. 3. The greenhouse will provide passive solar heat to the residence. DISCUSSION: During the meeting, the Planning Commission raised the following concerns and issues upon hearing the request for the appeal: · Does the City have the ability to grant exceptions to the existing CC&Rs (Covenants, Codes and Restrictions) for the Oak Valley Planned Development area? · Can clarification be provided on the process for allowing an exception to the maximum FAR allowance for properties witlùn the neighborhood. · 1£ the City were to allow an exception to the FAR, would this conflict with the requirements of the CC&Rs? · Is there a distinction between detached versus attached accessory structures? · Could additional landscaping be provided to visually screen the structure, if approval is considered for the greenhouse? · What is the location of the resident who objected to the exceptions to the Oak Valley Planned Development area regulations? Staff responded with the following comments: · The City has granted exceptions in the past to the CC&Rs in this area. The City Attorney determined that an exception to the F ARs could be granted by the City based upon the following comments: o There are no restrictions in the CC&Rs pertaining to FAR requirements. o The CC&Rs state that any alterations, including construction, witlùn the Oak Valley Planned Development area require property owners to obtain permits as required by "local law or ordinance," which in this case, are the City's regulations. o FAR requirements for this neighborhood are contained in the conditions of approval for the Use Permit (6-UP-97); therefore, there is no conflict between the City's regulations and the CC&Rs. · Detached accessory structures are included witlùn the lot coverage and FAR calculations for the subject property; therefore, a detached greenhouse structure would still exceed the allowable FAR on the property. I )~:L AppealofDIR-2005-20 Page 3 21161 Canyon Oak Way January 3,2006 · If the Commission were to recommend approval of the greenhouse, a condition of approval could be recommended to require landscaping for visual screening purposes. · The objection to the application was made by the property owner of 10481 Serra Street, located on the north side of Serra Street. The property owner, Mr. Fry, made the following comments: · He and his wife are allergic to bee stings and mosquito bites and need the greenhouse for this additional purpose. · The greenhouse will only be used as an enclosed patio area and not to expand living area within the residence. · A precedent has already been set to exceed the allowable FAR in this area. · He asked that the Commission give him the same opportunity as was given to the property owner of 22239 Hammond Way, to exceed the allowable FAR in the area. Staff clarified that a Director's Minor Modification was granted in July of 2004 for expansion of a detached structure at 22239 Hammond Way, located on the north side of Cristo Rey Drive; however, it was stated that the approval was not meant to set a precedent to allow future proposals to exceed the maxirnum FAR, unless they are in sinùlar, isolated locations. The property on Hammond Way does not back up to other residences and is in an isolated location that is different from the subject property, which is surrounded by and visible frorn other residences. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Continuance Request dated Decernber 20, 2005 Exhibit B: Planning Commission Resolution 6338 (denial) Exhibit C: Planning Commission minutes of November 22, 2005 Exhibit D: Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits, November 22, 2005 Plan Set Prepared by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner Ste Piasecki Director of Community Developrnent Davi . Knapp City Manager G:planning/ pdreport/ appeals/ DIR-2005-2OCC [)-3 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A Aki Honda From: American Brands Dba Von Bloes [fourseasons@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:20 AM To: Aki Honda Subject: 21161 Canyon Oak Way Ref: DIR-2005-20 Ms. Honda, I received your voice mail this morning, thank you for your response and the information that the meeting of the City Council for January 17th is filled. I am unable to attend the January 3rd meeting because I will now be out ofthe state until the 10th of January. The Fry's will be unable to attend the meeting on the 3rd due to family commitments out of the area. We would like to request the continuance of our appeal to the City Council to the February 7th, 2006 meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, Horst Von Bloes (408) 210-4945 12/20/2005 {S--L( EXHIBIT B DIR-2005-20 (Appeal) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6338 (denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN APPEAL AND TO UPHOLD THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DENIAL OF A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 21161 CANYON OAK WAY. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: DIR-2005-20 Horst Von Bloes (Fry residence) 21161 Canyon Oak Way SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Cornnússion of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of a Design Review Cornnúttee decision to deny a Director's Minor Modification for an attached accessory structure (greenhouse) to the rear of an existing single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Cornnúttee denied the Director's Minor Modification, DIR- 2005-20, on August 4, 2005; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Cornnússion has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not rnet the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied any of the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title; 3. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Oak Valley Planned Developrnent area; 4. The proposal is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood; and 5. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. (S--s- Resolution No. 6338 Page 2 DIR-2005-20 (Appeal) November 22, 2005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Director's Minor Modification application is hereby recommended for denial; and That the subconcIusions upon which the findings specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application DIR-2005-20 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of Novernber 22, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Miller, Saadati, Chen, Giefer COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Developrnent /s/GiIbertWong Gilbert Wong Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPORY\ RES \ 2005 \ DIR-200S-20 appeal res I )' -/p EXHIBIT C Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 22, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Dffi-2005-20 Horst Von Bloes (Fry residence) 21161 Canyon Oak Way Appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision denying a Director's Minor Modification to pennit the construction of a ground floor addition to exceed the allowable floor area ratio in the Oak Valley Planned Development. Postponed from the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council meeting: December 6, 2005 Ms. Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for appeal of a DRC denial of a Director's minor modification, for approval of an attached accessory structure that would exceed the allowable FARon the property, as outlined in the attached staff report. · She reviewed the site plan, floor plan, and illustrated site photos. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make one recommendation to the City Council. This appeal will go to the City Council for fmal determination. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either deny the appeal and uphold the DRC decision or uphold the appeal and deny the DRC decision. Chair Wong: · Said he understood that under the Rl Ordinance, the appeal process would be final at the Planning Commission level unless the applicant appealed to the City Council. Ms. Honda/Ms. Wordell: · The CC&Rs explain the maximum FAR requirements and accessory structures are included as part of lot coverage and FAR. · They include the conditions that the City imposed and they may have conditions of their own. Vice Chair Miller: · Said it is the CC&Rs which specifY what essentially the City has already designated as part of the original application approval. Ms. Honda: · Regardless if it is an attached or detached greenhouse, it counts as floor area ratio. Therefore, it would still exceed the FAR on the site and the house was built to the maximum FAR allowed. · Said that if someone puts a shed on the lot, it would count as part of the FAR. Horst Von Bloes, representing the applicant: · The proposed greenhouse will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare or convenience. · He said Mr. and Mrs. Fry want to enjoy the benefits of their patio and greenhouse to grow plants and vegetables without wildlife destroying their plantings. They are allergic to bee stings, mosquitoes, and other insects and would like to benefit from protective environment of a greenhouse to do their gardening. The greenhouse would also support the benefit of passing solar heat, saving on heating fuels. · He reported that there was a previous exception made to the allowable FAR on Hammond Way, where the DRC approved the Director's minor modification to allow a office storage (5)7 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 22, 2005 case was approved in the past which was not consistent with the requirements of the planned development but it has no impact to the adjacent properties. It did provide a process for property owners in the area to change or to build structures, which is different from what is required in CC&Rs and planned development requirement. · What is the process to change anything that is different from what is in the planned development and the CC&Rs? Ms. WordeD: · She said that they were trying to point out that they felt in the other circumstance there were reasons to support it; however, they do not feel there are in this one. The wording from the previous approval to the DRC states "staff does not expect to recommend that future proposals in this area exceed the allowed FAR area unless they are similar isolated locations." · Clarified that it was referred to DRC because staff is not able to deny a modification. The ordinance states that if staff is going to deny it or if it is controversial, it has to go to DRC or the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked from a legal standpoint was it appropriate for a city to override CC&Rs? · Questioned the benefits of CC&Rs if the city can override them? Ms. Murray: · Stated that there was usually something in the CC&Rs that states what their process is on how things can be changed or if everything is under the city if they don't have an Architectural Review Committee. People can make changes; it is probably appropriate for the city to do it but I would have to look at the CC&Rs to see exactly what provisions they have for changes. · Said that the city does not always override everything in the CC&Rs. When it comes to building usually the city prevails. CC&Rs cover a lot of things including easements, property, protections and trees. Ms. WordeD: · Said that they have processed dozens of modifications to the Oak Valley development, and noted that the Oak Valley CC&Rs incorporate the city conditions of approval, and the city controls those regulations. There may also be other regulations that do not relate to anything the city said they could or could not do, which the city has no enforcement of, such as what type of flowers or bushes they can plant. If they want to change their setbacks or FAR, those are city requirements and the city continues to regulate those changes. Vice Chair Miller: · Counsel said it depends on how the CC&Rs are written. If the CC&Rs do not allow for the city to make changes, it seems we should not be making changes here. Ms. Wordell: · Clarified that it has not been an issue that the city could make changes; it is not certain ifthere is specific language either way. There is likely language that says the city can, because they are our requirements. Chair Wong: · Relative to Com. Chen's comment on modifications, in the past there have some been some modifications at Oak Valley. If staff is concerned about the view from Sarah Court, perhaps the recommendation to City Council could be modified to allow them to have the greenhouse 1)'-% Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 22, 2005 if more trees could be planted. Some flexibility could be shown in Mr. Fry's request since this is a greenhouse and is meant for medical purposes. · There should be some flexibility; rules are meant to be followed; this is an unusual circumstance. Is it possible to modify it so that the Planning Commission can make the [mdings and recommend it to 'staff? Ms. Wordell: · Said it was possible; but ernphasized the rarity of doing something similar because in FAR pre-Rl as well as planned developments, the maximums have rarely been changed because it is perceived that when you decide how large you want a development, city or area to be, those are the limits. Chair Wong: · Said he understood, and relative to accessories, he was clear that in Rl, structures such as greenhouses and tuff sheds were not included in the FAR. · The applicant is requesting an accessory that is not going to be lived in. Com. Saadati: · Said it is an addition to the building and it should blend in architecturally. He said however, if it was a detached green house he would have looked at it differently, and probably would have been in favor of it. Com. Giefer: · She said no new information was presented to the Planning Commission other than there had been at the DRC; therefore she felt the same about the application as she did at the DRC reVIew. · She said she did not feel they should as a course of habit exceed the maximum FAR for Oak Valley. The entire process in determining it was done under very careful consideration. · She said she preferred not to violate the CC&Rs for the development, and therefore would not be in favor of overturning the DRC's decision. Com. Chen: · Said initially it was clear to her that they should uphold the DRC's decision; but after learning more about this case she is concerned with the noncompliance with the CC&R regulations and is concerned about fairness to the property owners. The reason for that is lack of clear process in determining whether or not to approve any additional square footage to the property. · Said it was not enough for her to support the property owners' rights to deny the DRC decision, but she was concerned about the lack of clear process and criteria to decide whether or not to approve additional structures for all the properties in that area. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he was concerned with the sanctity of the CC&Rs. People buy into developments in part because of CC&Rs they believe protect them. He said he agreed with Com. Chen that he was not sure there is a clear process in terms of how they deal with developments that have CC&Rs and where it is appropriate or not appropriate to override. · Said he would be more comfortable fthe applicant would go to the entire development and ask for a modification to the CC&Rs and then everybody there who had bought into them could be one voice; opposed to the applicant coming here and asking for an override which is inappropriate. 15'-1 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 22, 2005 · He said he felt it was important that CC&Rs be upheld and that exceptions be made to them under very rare circumstances and under very significant findings to thàt effect. Chair Wong: · Said he also agreed with Com. Chen that the process is unclear and there were modifications in the past. · He said he would likely take a different viewpoint from his colleagues and would support the applicant with modifications. · A precedent has been set on Hammond Way. Even though that particular cabana was isolated, he felt that one could plant trees that will block the views for the greenhouse. He said he felt there should be flexibility in that it is meant for a greenhouse purpose. · The CC&Rs still have to be addressed before going to the City Council. · Even through they are custom homes in a planned development community, if folks want to build a swimming pool and have a cabana, accessories or a Tuff Shed, the rules that are set up are too restrictive. This is something that could be addressed with the neighbors and community. There will likely be other neighbors in Oak Valley who have similar concerns and this is something you might want to address upfront now. · He said it still had to go to City Council. He suggested that they do their homework and perhaps some of the neighbors could provide support at the City Council meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, seconded by Com. Miller, to deny the appeal and nphold the DRC's decision. (Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Wong No) 4. TM-2005-10, INT-2005-01 Dipesh Gupta, 10752 So. Stelliug Road. 5. TM-2005-12, INT-2005-02 Dipesh Gupta, (May Residence) 10758 So. Stelling Road Tentative Map to subdivide 0.48 acres into two parcels, ranging from 7,387 sq. ft. to 7,390 sq. ft. Interpretation to define the front yard as Jollyman Lane for a corner lot at Jollyman Lane and Stelling Road. Planning Commission decision final unless Appealed. Postponed from the November 8,2005 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative Map to subdivide 0.49 acres into two parcels, ranging from 7,486 sq. ft. to 8,744 sq. ft. Interpretation for the front yard on Jollyman Lane for the corner lot at Orline Court and Jollyman Lane. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, Pin Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: · Reported that both applications (Items 4 and 5) would be heard together, since they are adjacent to each other. Each will be subdivided into two parcels, and the applicants for both applications are the same. · Reviewed the applications to subdivide both lots into two parcels each, as outlined in the staff report. She illustrated aerial photos which showed the project locations, which are adjacent to each other. · She reviewed the Trees on Site, Tree Removal and Interpretation relative to both applications, as outlined in the staff report. · Staff recommends approval of TM-2005-10 and TM-2005-12 in accordance with the model f J ~(() EXHIBIT D CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9S014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Appeal of DIR-200S-20 Horst Von Bloes Fred and Rose Fry 21161 Canyon Oak Way Agenda Date: November 22, 200S Application Summary: Appeal of a Design Review Committee (DRC) denial of a Director's Minor Modification application, DIR-2005-20, requesting approval of an attached accessory structure that would exceed the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the property. Recommendation: The Planning Commission has the option of making either recommendation to the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Design Review Committee's decision, or 2. Uphold the appeal and deny the Design Review Committee's decision Background: This item was continued from the September 27, 2005 and October 2S, 2005 Planning Commission meetings. The remainder of the staff report is the same as presented to the Planning Commission on September 27 and October 25. On July 12, 2005, the applicant submitted an application for a Director's Minor Modification for a 169 square foot, 9 foot 7 inch high greenhouse structure that was proposed to be attached to the rear of the existing single-family residence in the Oak Valley Planned Development Area and would exceed the allowable FAR on the subject property. Staff reviewed the application and was not supportive of the request to exceed the allowable FAR, and subsequently referred the application to the Design Review Committee for a determination. On August 4, 2005, the Design Review Committee (DRC) denied the Director's Minor Modification application for the greenhouse structure as recommended by staff. The property owners requested approval of the greenhouse to allow them to grow and provide flowers and organic herbs for their private use, to provide protection from deer and other animals, and to provide passive solar heat to the residence. I f-/f AppealofDIR-2005-20 November 22, 2005 Page 2 Upon reviewing the application, the DRC was not able to make the following findings to allow the greenhouse and the FAR to be exceeded on the property: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrirnental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2. The proposal is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, zoning ordinance, and the purposes of this title; and 3. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Oak Valley Planned Development Area; and 4. The proposal is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood; and 5. Adverse visual impacts on adjoirùng properties have been reasonably mitigated. On August 18, 2005, the applicant filed an appeal (Exhibit C) stating the basis for the appeal is that the project meets the finding that the proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Discussion: The subject property is located within Neighborhood 3, Unit 2 of the Oak Valley Planned Development Area, which allows for a maxirnum FAR of 40% for the first 10,000 square feet of lot area, and 59.59 square feet for each 1,000 square feet over 10,000 square feet. Based upon the lot size of the subject property at 20,804 square feet, the maximum allowable FAR for the subject property was calculated at 4,644 square feet. The existing house built in 2003 is already constructed at this maximum FAR. Therefore, allowing the greenhouse would also allow the FAR to be exceeded on the property. The applicant also requested approval of an aluminurn frame exterior with baked-on paint firùsh and clear glass windows as the building materials for the greenhouse. Although the greenhouse would be painted a color matching the residence, the exterior materials are not consistent. The residence has a stucco exterior. Further, the greenhouse would be somewhat visible from surrounding properties to the north and the adjacent hillside to the east since the rear yard of the subject property slopes downward towards the north. Staff is not supportive of allowing the greenhouse given that it may set a precedent for allowing future exceptions to exceed the allowable FAR on properties within the area. In July of 2004, the DRC approved a Director's Minor Modification to allow an office! storage building to exceed the allowable square footage on a property on Hammond Way in the Oak Valley Planned Development Area; however, the circumstances were different since the structure was proposed in an isolated area at the If-/)__ AppealofDIR-2005-20 November 22, 2005 Page 3 rear of the subject property, adjacent to the open space area of the hillsides. Additionally, it was the intention that no subsequent proposals in this area would be recommended to exceed the allowable FAR, uruess they were in similar, isolated locations. The proposed greenhouse is not within a similar, isolated location. Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner c=-- ^ _ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of CommunityDevelopme~ Enclosures: Exhibit A: Design Review Committee Resolution No. 220 Exhibit B: Staff Report to DRC dated August 4, 2005 Exhibit C: Appeal form g:jplanning/pdreporl/ AppealsID IR-2005-20 Appeal.doc { j-/J DIR-2005-20 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 220 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 21161 CANYON OAK WAY, SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: DIR-2005-20 Horst Von Bloes (Fry residence) 21161 Canyon Oak Way SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee has held one or rnore public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied any of the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvemer¡.ts in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title; 3. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Oak Valley Planned Developrnent area; 4. The proposal is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood; and 5. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Director's Minor Modification application is hereby recommended for denial; and If-fL( Resolution No. 220 Page 2 DIR-2005-20 August 4, 2005 That the subconc1usions upon which the findings specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application DIR-2005-20 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee meeting of, August 4,2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Giefer and Chairperson Miller COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Isl CiddyWordell Ciddy Wordell City Planner I s I Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Design Review Committee G: I Planning I DRCI res I DIR-2005-20 res. doc I)-f) EXHIBIT B To: From: Subject: Location: Design Review Committee AId Honda, AICP, Senior Planner Application: DIR-2005-20 21161 Canyon Oak Way Date:August 4,2005 Proiect Description: Director's minor modification to permit the construction of an attaèhed accessory structure to an existing single-family residence that would exceed the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the subject property per the requirements of this neighborhood (Neighborhood 3, Unit 2, Oak Valley Planned Development). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of DIR-2005-20 given that findings cannot be rnade to allow the FAR to be exceeded, based on the rnodel resolution. BACKGROUND: In December of 1997, the City of Cupertino approved a Development Agreement with associated Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Re-zorung of a 212 acre property known as the Lands of Dioce'se of San Jose. Per the agreement, 67 acres of this land was subdivided to allow residential development as part of the Oak Valley Planned Development area. Specific development standards were also approved for the Oak Valley Planned Development area as part of this' agreement, including minimum lot areas, lot widths, lot coverage, F ARs, setbacks, and building heights. On July 18, 2001, an architectural and site approval (17-ASA-Ol) was granted by the Design Review Committee for the construction of a two-story, single-family residence on the subject property that is located within the Oak Valley Planned Development area. The approval granted a 4,644 square foot residence in accordance with the development standards for this neighborhood. DISCUSSION: the applicant is requesting approval to construct a 9 foot 7 inch high, 169 square foot attached accessory structure at the rear of the existing single-family residence. The accessory structure is proposed to be used as a greenhouse that will consist of an aluminum frame exterior with baked-on paint finish to match the residence and clear glass windows. Additionally, the structure will be placed over a concrete slab with footings. Upon review of the application, staff has determined that the existing residence was built to the maximum allowable FAR on this property in accordance with the development standards for this neighborhood. As a residence within Neighborhood 3, Unit 2 of the Oak Valley Planned Developrnent area, the maximum allowable FAR is 40% for the first 10,000 sf of lot area, and 59.59 sf for each 1,000 sf over 10,000 sf. The ( )' -( 10 SUNROOMS . CONSERVATORIES' PATIO ROOMS GLASS AND SCREEN ENCLOSURES' SKYLIGHTS ¡tdoor Living...Indoors~ AMgRICAN BRANDS CORPORATION 1029 Blossom Hill Rd., San Jose, CA 95123 . (408) 265·8000 . Fax: (408) 265'8058 2878 Prune Ave., Fremont CA 94539 . (510) 440-9850 . Fax: (510) 490-0255 www.fourseasonsonline.com RECETVED JUL 1 1 2005 BY: To: City of Cupertino Planning and Development RE: Variallce request Fry Residence 21161 Canyon Oak Way Cupertino Scope of Work: . Attach an ICC approved greenhouse to the rear of the residence on a concrete slab with footings. The exceptional conditions that apply to this request for the greenhouse are: . To be able to grow and provide flowers and organic herbs for consumption by residents only. The greenhouse would provide year-round growing opportunity . protected from deer and óther RnimAls that wouÌd otherwise have detrimental access to plants were they to be grown outdoors. . To provide passive solar heat to the residence. The granting of this application would allow the property owners to enjoy an attractive greenhouse addition to the home for the purposes mentioned above. The alternative to gardemng in the relative privacy of a greenhouse would be making a garden outdoors with protective fencing, which, mayor may not be appealing to adjacent homeowners. The greenhouse design is complementary to the design of the home i'IIld would be an asset to the aesthetic value of the home. . The granting of this application will not under any circumstances adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working·in the neighborhood. The greenhouse constitutes 169 square feet of space attached to the rear of the residence. The greenhouse will be 98 feet from a public throughway and 50 feet from the nearest adjacent property. Because the greenhouse is of passive nature, additioi1al plumbing will not be used and will not add to water runoff or sewer load. The greenhouse will not be materially injurious to public welfare. The building materials are architectural aluminum and tempered safety glass. The concrete slab is structurally and materially built to California Building Code. {»(7 09/08/2005 14:23 FAX 408265801 L¿:J v v-'-, v v'- EXHIBIT C City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 1[5) IE IG IE ~ W IE fn) IIìJ AU' 18 2005 .~ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK CITY F ClJPElQlNO APPEAL 1. Application No. Û \9- - :>-00 f - ;L 0 Applicant(s) Name: 't\o«i\ UO\l\ ÇJLo-e.<; (£(l..y ~es.\¿'CYLc-eJ Appellant(s) Name: \-I.:o"'-c \)ou--I()Lo e[ 2. 3. Address \ \ "\.5'" \-\ c.w ¥'-ç \-'.. ,\,\. R,à". SCo~ V~\\e'{ Cf,.". QS-066 <-(0'6 ?--..LO !..{'{<.{<;'" Phone Number Email 4. Please check one: V1CPpeal a decision of Director of Community Dðvelopment . Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of det=ination of Director or mailing of notice of City dðcision: Au.c¿ \.1.-<;\ <-\~ :L oaf 6. Basis of appeal: '\'^-':2.. '< ,D ~os. ¡:."(.,, ¡;..,'\: "-"-e... C:'oe'0Se..~ \..-0 ~ £'-.,\:',o,^-{ W,\'\. ~5':. \:J-e. 6¿-\::~1.~"'\::'p...1, oq..... 1.V\.'Su,(\Ì.O\..l..S""\:o ~\Dfe.t''\::Y t>f' \,^^\,{'ou.e..~""\S \V\..~<2. V(C",\IA.<:t'1 e>.v-.ð. \..I..h.\..\ ~r;:\,' \0 \........ L .(, ,(). e. ò.0.<'uA...""^",,ó-(. \Q "\"-..0 ~\I..\(~'c.. \,¡-.,e..",-\.-'<:;,^, S f'....~e.'\:f, G,e-AQ{",L., We'f"'t\.e o It.. c..oV\.<,J eN\. I.~"-C:- <2.." I Signature(s) (()t.J '-'-'- (J ~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of $145,00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino, (408) 777..3223, 1)~/t· ~ "'-. t' QI en '" Q. i¡ m ! c: ~.J!! ðcX 't. 1:;> ;.., II '" ~ - ~ 1;> '" ~ $LO ...."'! 11 11 Qla: N II) < <") ""'" "u... ""'"0'1 ,gll) NO'I C:lI) 1I.....\OQlO ~IIO'IQla: N~_\Ol5~ ;!:;O~II"C"C .....JQ)V)Q.}Q) '1""""1 ...- OJ V) UJ NQJL-C'lOO 1I~2i~c.g. .....0 oc.ro 2 L... ...JJ:::>~Q.Q. ~ in ~ ~ >- '" :s: N ~ ....co '" 0'10 GlO ~9 ~ ~ð ~ ; 'tI c: -ON .- fa 0 L/') "'It g U .~ \0 IV) a:.....~C1J.. \OC1JC:Z ~:::g.0A. II.Nui£oe 0'1 <")LO LOLO "","N r::0'I~ 0<0 .- U 0\ 1:$ -"'= ::1.....0 ...c:..... UOLO r:: ~ X o '-if. uu... ",,-0 'tI~~ r:: .0'1 CII C1J . ..... >~r-- >-co < ""'" 0 ..C> C1J N "Cr::c:Ó~ ~e2U::M .- "i: Q. QJ ~ EGlcoc:m ..C>er--O...J ~oe~i£Ô ~ 8- e Q. '5 ~ " e LL co ,!;¡ ~~ ....;!! Ëo æ~ " '60 " ¡¡; ..t~,08 .TE ¡;, N ~ o .0 .<: .œ c't;¡ VI en ~$iJi l;g;s 8- " ~ e 0 Q. / Plot Plan JhZST ~ ~ CLI C> III c.. 0\1.t'I \ON .... . II II CLla: N '" « "" v :::J U. ;:!¡~ ~l/) ~. C l/) 11""\0 CLIO .....IIO\CLla: N~_\Ol5~ ~O~II'O'O - --' CLI '" CLI CLI ..-I ...- Q) Ù) U) NQ)L..C'lOO 11"'8.1110.0. ....oða.æee --':I:::)~c..c.. \y\ ¡ ~j ~ CLI Em ocX b ';' ¡.. ~ ---~ur.E~ IIt-,Z &1 ~lL III ~ Õ I Q);"'¡ B II V'J= co -... .-I nH-,OZ L -- ¡., r:. ~ 116-51 ~_. ---'- --,.8-,£1- ---;-'"~uE-19 I rn .x. . 't .... , ~I r--/. -¡rh '~_/ & "~ III ~ .oT-,Sl- '+ I ~ ¡.. ;.., ~ -~ ·t,z ~ i , '? ¡.. ~ '0 C :::J ,j :~ .9-,ZT ----,-'- C CLI .c B ~ [IJ IE o I' '. !' j,J , £; III IX! CII C ;:¡ II! 8 :I II. o .c .c oW i'liii ~CI\J:I ,.. IØ ft -Plii) ]@I Q, u e c Q, 8 c o >- III ;¡: N .:.< ....00 III 0\0 o \00 ~ ~ð ~ * "c -0 N .- III ° 1.t'I..,. :aU.5\OM œ....tCLI.. \OCLlCz :0..... 0. ° A L....... ::s.s:::- II.NUC.« 0\1.t'I ""1.t'I ~N cO\<=! °ðo ._ 0\ 1:1 -'<I': :1....0 ..c.... 1;;01.t'l C E x o~æ yu. 11)" ...~ ,,~co C .0\ ft CLI - ...>2...... >-m « ~ 0 .0 CLI N 'Occó~ ~e2LriM ·-·¡:C.CLI"* .cEGlcoclX! e'"'o--' l/):::J _ co .c l/) ...NC.U ~ o ~ 'f b ~ ~ .... C W '0 !!! ~ t C W 01 C W ~ (:) >- E tE. Q) ÕI c Vi Æ III !!! « '" C c is //-~ ® r~ F =~=1î "-..,-_! / .:.< ° ° z - - ÿ ¡" ---~-..lw,n '" C '5 :::; ----- uS-.9t '? '" ~ "g..,8T '? '" ~ ---=Þ , -~ / '-"""="=~ ,,~hOZ C ~ +- --..£-,11 C> C '5 C ,j Ln x M ~ '? rn i '!' ¡" ~ '!' Ñ ~ ~ o ~ ¡., N House Plan \). ......... \j Q) CI æ , ~ C ~.S! I!! 13 01/) 0\ '" .... t" ¡q II ~~¡Œ ~O\ I I/) II....'" I/) N'" II $ ~ V~ãJlI~C) ......0> "Os¡ ....i'-.S!U>Q) N - Q) <I) 1I:¡¡:vg>RR ......='0.....00 000.1'U,-,- ...J:I:~c)c..c.. >- '" 3: N ~ .....GO '" 0\0 o "!9 ~ ~ð ~ ~ :2 æ ò~ N III U C .~ ..,. Q .- ~ WI III:.....~Q).. ",Q)Cz !oo.....O"OA ~,....::J.L:- II.NUc..oC 00 00 æJ æJ - ~I ~r~;~l'~~ _:1 ~Þ-_.....,.-.__"":'_ J --- :! -- i¡ "-- !' }... !: --- - I ~- U· ¡ ¡ .~ . ~ II 00 ~- 0\ It') ""'It') ~N cO\q °ðO ~ -~ :J1:0 ..0..... 'li:EIt') C Q) X o'-3!. uLl... _ _0 1II«1t') '0- 00 C .0\ III Q) . .. .. > ~ " >-GO«vO .a Q) N "Cccó~ :§ð2LriM ._.¡:c..Q)'I, .aE Q 00 C ED E"O...J =>....00..<:1/) tn...Nc..U " :?~ ~~~ C _~.J!! GI I!!I1! en ccñ æ. 0'1", \ON .-i. II II GI~ N "'< (V)V ::::J LL -:-0'1 ,gUl NO'I CUI 1I....\OGlO L.IIO'IQI~ N~_\Ol5l:) ::!;O~II"O"O --'GI"'GI~ ;:j ...- Q) tf) 0 lIæ~~&.a. Õðc..æe~ -'J:::>l:)o.~ ìû š: N .>< .-i1lO It> 0'10 o \00 §g<$Š; GI >U ~ I 'ac -Of'll ·-ð°Lt>.. ; .5\0,... œ.,.....tw.. \OGlCZ ~:::g.0A. II.NU~C '; å> ~ I ¡ i ;.. ~ , Ñ ~ ';< '" ~ ..-. .- -- - \' , : , ~18'-5" \ ¡" ! . , å> I ì '; i f.. .:l.. I I hi I ¢ I ~ ,m-,QZ 22'-6" t ~ ~ 0'ILt> M", ~N cO'IC< 0<0 -uO'I ts -~ :1......0 ..C.-i UO", c E X o ~ ro ULLLL __0 1II<Lt> 'a- 00 C .0'1 GI . .. I! > ~ B >ID < -:- N .CI QI"", "Occoco :§82Lril""t .-'Co. QI'**' EGlooca3 .CIe"o::J ::I....oo.c:VI UI....NQ..U ". ..9-.0Z- ..i.-,V( 7-,,9-,9,----7~ Upper Level Plan for Square Footage +-- " '%. ..- ~ . ~ \ \1 '" '" p p ?%: "'= ""' ~ - - ?%: ~ '" f( p ;" ~ - ---- "" - II . '" '" > > ~ fh '-f. d, " ,~ I I '" '" ¡-f p ~ -------- - - - - '" '" p p ~~ - ~ '!-- ~ - ... ... ... ;;¡¡ - ~ - 1r_1r - / - .... See Concrete Typical Page For Slab and Footing Detai Greenhouse Page with Electrica ~~BC - ~ ~ - --- -- -- --- ~ :::/ "=::::: - - ~ j ~Jt - "'" í ~ Grade _____ ~ - - - - ,>4... W~ ............. .............. ~ "'" 't Q) CI ~ ~ <: ~.J!! ð~ CTlL/') <ON .... . II II Q)~ N III « !"Iv ::Su. vCTI ,g(/) NCTI <:(/) II....<OQ)O ....IICTlQ)~ N~_<Oøl!) ::!;0~1I"" -....IQ)IIIQ)Q) .-t -Q)fJ)(j) NCÙ~C\OO II IIIQ)a.'" a. a. =s L.. 0 0 öoa.COL..O: ....I:I:=>l!)Q. >- '" Š N .>.! ....! '" $0 BO . I ¡¡ §.ð~; '1:1 <: -0 N .-roOL/')1IIIIt :¡U,5<O", œ'l"""'f"t=Q)u <OQ)<:z ::0.,.... a. ° A '-'l"""'f:J.c- II.NUQ.C CTlL/') !"IL/') ~N CCTIC! 0«0 '_UCTI t:S -""= :1......0 ..<:.... tl°L/') c E x o~æ uu. __0 UI«L/') '1:1- co c ·CTI III Q) . ....>~!:) >-IIII«VN .D Q).<o "c<:oco ~e2ìriM .- ¡: Q. Q) '"' EG/co<:m .DE"O....l ::s_co,<::(/) (/)_NQ.U Electrical Detail 3' x 5' landing ~ - -~-+-:: - - - : - I 3' x 5' landing .-- -----.. - - U"_ttn'" -- ~ " l1\ GJ en æ ~ c ~..!!! ð~ O'>Ln \ON ..... . II II GJa::; 1'01 II) < MV ::Ju.. VO'> ° 1'01_ ~VI v' C VI II.....\OGJO L..IIO'>GJa::; N~_\O~l!J ::!;O~II"" .....JQ)(f)Q)Q) """'" ...- Q) (f) V) NQ)"-cnOO 1III)~It!c.c. Õ5a.æeo..e ...J:I::)l!J0.. r ¡ , >- ' It! 3: NCIO ,:,¿ .....0 It! $0 BO . I æ ~ð ~ ~ '1:1 c -0 N .-It!OLn~ XU£\Ot'I œ.....tGJ.. \OGJCZ :0...... C. ° A i,.,.-t::::J..c:- II.NUo..oC '41/2'_"""""""""'" C!>24"O,C. CrIll 0 30 degree angle &. epoxy 7 MIL Vapor Barrier Gravel (f """""'Y) All items, from sub-floor tD. footing, tD conform tD code Concrete @2500 psi Steel @ ASTM A61S Sunroom _ "'1/2"-- 06" embedmert Sunroom HeiI;tt Sooroom """*'II ~ SIeoI_sIab _ mesh C!> 6" o.c.E.W, , 12"Min. Optional _ _ )" O'>Ln MLn ~N CO'>C! 0<0 -UO'> t:S -"= ::1......0 ..C..... U°Ln C E x o ~ ItI Uu..u.. _0 111- Ln '1:I~co C .0'> III GJ . ....>~~ >-CIO<VN ..0 GJ' \0 a¡CCOCO :t;¡rJ21iiM .- 1: 0.. GJ ~ EGlcoccc ..oer-.O::J ::J_CO~VI VI_NQ.U 4" Monolithic slab typical on optional footing 12" '.."."", ~ ..' ..Ii·.. :,,',: :;:/:.>::i.j.-: . .............../......... CONS'fuUcnON, Ji¡C. Di:$rcW8î)IiD 1941 Q1:oqeIIStrd:t,SIriœ lOt SIÌI~.tJi!M0403 Tt:I~2S7.q02 ~~~~ Març1.ind.dt,~ D<5CRFTlON >-'<1' «~ Lu$:~ UOQ) ItZ« O§!U Lu:ã- -"~O "I: Z U) ¡;: ZO'\c:: -('/')i,LJ NNo.. N::> NU z~ ~s ~~ ¡::trl ....J ~~ 0z: ~~ ~25 1-'-0 ¡j)""" u.; DATE: 5/17104 SCAlE: As SHOWN DRAWN BY; M.W.H. CHECKfDBY: M.A.L ..IOB~ SHEET NO A.l """"""" NO I DATE WOOD LATTICt WALL (E~Io£ATER 2X41NF1LL WAlLS WI CÊDAR SHINGL£ SIDN; TO MATOf (E) I-IOUSE (E) ;TONE C1.AÐ W.ous "'-~ ~(f)1IoŒ1MIIIEAD \ (E) MfæAN1CAL EClJIPMENT, EL£CT1UCAL PANEl.. AND CONCRETE SLAB TO REMAIN OENOUSH (E) T1lEL1.JS WALL DfAK! INF1LL 1.AT71d WALLS" , , -; G~(E)""'-DECK"iOF ; - _ (E) WOOD BEAMS ~= __ ___~ IJVERJ1EAD l1E/oIQ'ÆAND REIHSTALL(E) ""'-HEATER DEMO (El CONCRE7E TI.E SHED ROOF, WOOD SEAMS, WOoo L- cocLllofits. SHORTWAU.$, AND ~ CONCRET£ StAB f'.ND FoorwGs " ,i, _ ~ .1 ~~----- -~~~~-- "'r:--~--~~'~ _C~"";"""'''''',,:-'"~',·"M) ~: ~ - - - - - - - - - - - µ\ I ' I , I 1 I ~ I: fl DEMOLITION PLAN '0""'- I 'j,_-_ -_ co ::!' ( \ \ NOre AlL Gl.AZtIG SHAll. BE \ lbuALPAtf;0.45101AXU-VAl.,UE LOWEGL.ASS FLOOR PLAN c:- :.':-'-:;-=:::-,-.. .~ " r, , , . i .ì . 2 ,- --I-ø...1,- - ~_J --- , , , , , £. IEJI'OOLPATI> ~-> ])/ R -dC;04 -/ c.; . . . . Number Case Manag8r DEMO (E) COLUMN stoNE &tif AND fOOTING, AND COWMN ..""., ...:;·::'.::',ë"',i.~P1~,~__.......W....:_....· "\,,,,.,'1 .:¡- ,...'.,.... "'/C.., ~PDlA1. DRe M4~ 0:JFE:N L¡ bV'i:- ~ " +6.4t ''-, '- ') .;i: '...:..~,~,._~ / Signature / , ---------..." ADDmON " """,> , "" , , , , , /(~,// , /., / / , , , , , / /1 .- " / I 'Z87.86 , , " / , , " / , }/ / ,/ ð/ , , , , " / , ,/ / , , " / , , / / , , / / , , , , , / , , , , , / / , / '-.~-.......... :~~;;'::';.:,", WEST ELEVATION . . , I i ì , 1 ,j " ~\ .)~ ~, AfJf R.O'f..1 f'~ I VÆTê S PA-c.£ 1~J~ ___ ___ .... """" ® " POOL (E)''''11OTO - ~(E U\ \ 3 ,,~ / '\ , , / "- / SITE PLAN , Ci "- / 1"..20'-0" ~oo , 'v ~~(E) POOL CABANA. 'I i 7 j INFIU.WAlLSWI CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING ] CEDARsttNGLE TO MATCH (E) HOUSE- ] SlDf./G TO NATO-! CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING , (E) HOUSE TO MAToi (E) HOUSE- ] ] X3 CORNER TRf\4, TYP. - r!.~·_ CA8A..'I,O,F.F. " {4}- SOUTH ELEVATION ¡--- l",I....q1l¡. -- / r---J ,~ / / , , / / I I I , I I I I , I I , , , I , I , I I , I I , I I , I I / / / / 181."" / / / HAM/tfOODWAY Rear of residence with proposed solarium Side of property Side of property Rear of property