01. RM-2006-28
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: RM-2006-28
Appellant (5): Darlene Thorne
Property Location: 20077 John Drive
Agenda Date: September 26, 2006
A,PPLICATJlON SUM1ViARY:
Appeal of a decision of the Director of Community Development approving a Minor
Residential Permit for a 1S-foot rear property line setback for a 402 square foot single
story addition.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission has the option to:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community
Development as proposed; or
2. Uphold the appeal and/ or modify the Director's decision.
BACKGROUND
On August 1,2006, the Director of Community Development approved application RM-
2006-28 based on the plan set entitled, "Residential Addition Mr. Tom Bates, 20077 John
Drive, Cupertino, CA." The application consisted of a 402 square foot single story
addition with a reduced 15 foofrear property line setback. A minor residential permit
is required when the rear-yard setback is less than 20 feet. Adjacent property owners
are notified of the proposal.
The appellant is appealing the Director's decision and is requesting that the applicant
reconsider the location of the addition.
DISCUSSION
Appellant
The appellant is appealing the approval based on the following reasons (Appeal Form):
1. Not informed by City of regulation changes that affected my home. Did not vote
on changes.
2. No visual image provided by the City of proposed addition.
3. Mislabeled as "Minor Addition"
4. Incorrect/inappropriate criteria used for determining set-back distance.
5. Creates a fire hazard to my home.
1- \
R-2005-21
Page 2
City of Cupertino
September 27, 2005
6. Impedes my view, cool air flow, reduces the value of my home
Staff
R-l Regulation changes
The R-l Ordinance has not changed with regard to the rear yard reduction rule. Both
. the 1999 and the 2005 (current) version of the Rl Ordinance have provisions that
permits R1 property owners to reduce the required rear yard setbacks to 10 feet,
provideu that t1le useabJe It'en yard is not Jess than 2() times the width of the lut as
measured from the front setback line. The only difference is that the 1999 R1 Ordinance
permitted the rear yard reduction without any discretionary review or public notice.
The 2005 Rl Ordinance requires a Minor Residential Permit with notifications to the
adjoining residences, which is what the applicant obtained. The project rear yard is
consistent with the Rl Ordinance.
Visual Images
The proposed single story addition is located at the northwest corner of the site. The
addition follows the existing single story plate of the house at 8 feet tall and is
proximately 12-foot at the peak of the roof. The applicant's plans clearly depict the
proposed project (See Plan Set).
Mislabeled as Minor Addition
The request to reduce the rear yard setback requires a Minor Residential Permit
according to the Rl Ordinance. Other than the title of the permit, there are no other
references on the application or the approval that the project is minor. For the purpose
of comparison though, the proposed 392 square foot addition is approximately a 2 %
increase in the total square of the house and the total square floor area ratio is 39% of
the lot.
Determining Setbacks
By definition, rear yard means a yard measured into a lot from the rear lot line, extending
between the side yards. The proposed rear yard setback is measured from the property's
rear property line.
Fire Hazard
The Uniform Building Code and the Fire Department require residential structures to
be at least 3 feet away from the property line. This allows sufficient clearance to
prevent fire from jumping from one home to the other and provides room for the Fire
Department to gain access to the rear yard. The proposed home is 5 feet away from the
appellant's property line.
View, Air and Property Value Impacts
The appellant is concerned that the proposed addition presents more building and roof
mass along her side and rear yards. The requested addition extends five feet further
,-~
R-2005-21
Page 3
City of Cupertino
September 27, 2005
into the rear yard setback allowed without a minor residential permit. Even without
the minor residential permit, if the addition is set back 20 feet from the rear property
line, there will still be a 16 foot lineal wall plane along the appellant's rear yard. The
visual difference between setting the structure back at 15 feet versus 20 feet is not
significant.
In response to the appellant's concerns, the project was approved with a condition that
that applicant shall revise the plans and pull the addition back another 4.5 feet from the
rear property line (from 10.5 to 15 feet to the rear property line) and change the roof
design from a gable roof to a hip roof to minimize mass (See Diagram Below). The
applicant is amenable to this change and has already revised the plans. However,
according to the applicant, since both designs are unsatisfactory to the appellant, they
l- 3
R-2005-21
Page 4
City of Cupertino
September 27, 2005
request that the Commission consider approving the original design as it is more
compatible with the existing home.
\
\
"
\
\
\
\
i
\
~------------------ - ----,
\ \
\ :
\ :
~ '~;~~, :
\
\ '
r------------------J
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
~ r, ~-; (~~ ,~;~
Revised Desigi1 ",~~, I
- - - - - I I~
,'.:':::::":... r
"",..~ c.... "..... I
~ .:.
~~.=!
ll---- ---
I!
I;
Ii
..
I
I
I
I
I
r'\
[---\
\
I
I
I
,)
'.'-~'=b
r----------------.,
, ,
: L._
! .~.~=.
l_~________________
I
jl
4=-
'l'~"~
'1
IV:'
The appellant submitted photo renderings that depict views of the addition (at the
revised setback) from her yards (See Exhibit C). Staff believes that the renderings
submitted by the appellant are not to scale. The appellant states that if the addition
were located toward the east, the impact on that neighbor will be less intrusive since
has a side yard to rear yard orientation (See Diagram Below). The applicant does have
the option of relocating the addition to the northeast side of the property, but chose not
to based on their interior floor plan preferences.
l-1
R-2005-21
Page 5
City of Cupertino
September 27, 2005
If the Planning Commission finds merit in the appellant's suggestion, it can direct the
applicant to locate the addition toward the northeast corner of the property and require
that the revised plans be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building
permits.
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Approved by: Stev.e Piasecki, Director of Community Development .~~::: ,':J / C (<.J
ENCLOSURES
Appeal Form with Attachments
Exhibit B: Letters of Concern from the Appellant
Exhibit C: Photo Study from the Appellant
l-S
R-200S-21
Page 6
City of Cupertino
September 27, 2005
Exhibit D: Letter of Response from the Applicant
Approved Plan Set
Revised Plan Set
\-Ct/
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
~ ~A:~H:~~l
cr -, OF
CUPEIUINO
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
APPEAL
Appk!catxon No.
,;'
i/'"
~] _' ,r
,;;;-', L I~' (~~.~
--------.------------- -
2. Applicant(s) Name: F j; z.-a le.1-A If- Ii t'YI 13t::{~"J
3. Appellant(s) Name: !) a:1^ leA >e... "7---A or J"l ~
Address
c2tJ6P?
t/b/1" br
Lur-
Email
';/Cl?-- c:2S-3 - ~ / Y J-
--tT
Phone Number
4. Please check one:
~eal a decision of Director efCoftlfll-Uflity Development 1LD1Jo.h. I2--QA))(~ CnvV\JY)I~e
Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
~ / _ 'h:7?~{
6. Basis of appeal:
1. Not informed by City of regulation changes that affected my home. Did not vote
on changes.
2. No visual image provided by the City of proposed addition
3. Mislabeled as "Minor Addition"
4. Incorrect/inappropriate criteria used for determining set-back distance
5. Creates a fire hazard to my home
6. Impedes my view, cool air flow, reduces the value of my home
(See enclosed letter and photos)
Signature(s)
cVtuh~ (1;J~-yt~
Please complete form~ include appeal fee of$149.oo, and return to the attention ofthe
City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223.
\-r
1. I was not informed by the City that they were changing the regulations that had been in
effect when I purchased my home. Any changes that produce this much of an impact
should have been voted upon by the citizens of Cupertino, or existing homes should have
been grandfathered in at the time the new regulations were authorized. When I bought
my home in 1963, I chose the home for its features, including the street widths and the
distances between homes. To arbitrarily reduce the side set-backs without notification of
all Cupertino residents can produce monstrosities such as this one.
2. The Cit::v did not provide a visual. image of 11m v overvvhelming this proposed addition
'would be. Aiter engaging an engineer, t submit the visual for your perusaL Tbis
block my view of the sunrise, would interfere with the cool breeze flow, and would
bounce back afternoon sun and kill all plants and trees in my yard. My garden is an
extension of my home and is used every non-raining day. (See photo 1 and 2.)
3. The City called this a "minor addition", which it would be if it were a commercial
development. But as a home, it is a major addition that will create an eyesore from all
my first story windows and garden and will devalue my home.
4. It is a fire hazard, being that close to our adjoining fences.
5. The \wong criteria are used to gauge distances: The set-back distance was measured to
the rear fence: there are NO neighbors at the back fence-only the unused portion of a
schoolyard. The set-back should be calculated at the side nearest a neighbor. (See photo
3).
6. While I have lived at this address for 43 years and have served the City of Cupertino,
the County of Santa Clara and volunteered on 14 different non-profit boards, I have never
asked for anything from these entities. I now request that you review this proposed
addition and deny it, so that you do not allow the Bates home to increase in size, at the
expense of my view, comfort, safety and value of my home.
7. I have tried to work with Tom Bates (Mrs. Bates' son, who lives in Saratoga), and the
"indulgences" he has offered will make absolutely no difference to the breadth of this
project. I have even offered to share a portion of the expense if he would move the
addition to the other side of Mrs. Bates 'yard, where there is an additional] O-foot set-
back between homes.
7. I request that a variance from the present ruling be made in this instance. This stress
has affected my heart and I am under the care of a cardiologist, but I will be available
after September 12 to further address the concerns ~t I have stated.
Thank: you for your consideration in this matter. 0. L_... ~--"---
Diir~r,""
l-CO
July 20, 2006
Noren Caliva
Planning Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Dear IV1S. Cal.iva,
Thank you for sending me the proposed plans for the Bates Addition at 20077 John
Drive in Cupertino. I will be the only home owner impacted by this addition., therefore I
am issuing a formal letter to be read and considered by the Cupertino Building
Department.
Mrs. Elizabeth (Suzi) Bates is being advised by her son, Tom Bates of Saratoga and
has not even seen the plans, according to her own admission, yet Tom Bates has already
hired soil engineers to proceed, even before a Cupertino permit has been issued.
For 43 years, I have worked closely with Mrs. Bates in every remodel and
improvement we have simultaneously made to our mirror-image homes. I was most
distressed that I was not informed of these drastic plans, even though I had inquired three
times to see the working plans. It was as though Tom Bates tried to have them drafted
and approved without my knowledge. The present house is 2022 square feet, which
seems adequate for an elderly woman and her grandson. The problem is the second story
and Mrs. Bates inability to climb stairs at her age. Some of the homes have turned the
large family room or dining room into bedroo~ rather than add an extension.
lIDs proposed plan is a danger, might be illegal, is an eyesore, will devalue my
property and already has strained an otherwise perfect friendship.
When I received the proposal from the Cupertino Planning Department, I was most
distressed. There have been three residences with the same floor plan within sight of the
Bates residence that have added an extension within the past 10 years: 20078 John Drive,
10692 Pinole Court and 10681 La Roda Drive. The fIrst two additions were made from
the existing family room of these two-story homes and only the one on La Roda was
added from the existing dining room, to an area that borders exclusively on the street, and
not impacting any other homes. According to the City's microfiche, the most current
professional plans for 20078 John Drive are not available, although it has been over two
years since completion, as Mrs. Pfund, the owner, recalls.
My objections to the Bates addition are numerous. I will need evidence that any
proposed addition will not, in fact, be built on my property. When the homes were built
as a tract, the builders were freer to put a fence a foot or more into the next yard if it
meant a straighter fence line. The building department rules in Cupertino were more
relaxed in 1959 than they are now. UTom Bates insists on building an addition that
sits almost directly on my fence, I demand that a professional surveyor be hired by
Tom Bates with printed results submitted to me.
It is a fire hazard to have a building that close to the fence. When I was on the
Cupertino Public Safety Commission, we vetoed the idea of making sprinklers a
I-c)
mandatory inclusion on new homes or additions. Mrs. Bates uses oxygen for breathing
and that could ignite, burning her addition and progressing to the fence and then to my
home.
The addition as proposed will also be a flood risk, as the slant ofthe roof drains directly
onto the fence and then to my foundation. The addition is entirely too close to my fence
and to my foundation.
My garden is an extension of my life as I enjoy it almost every day. I, too, am a widow
and seek serenity. I have added a 1,000 pound fountain and a 500 pound antique
gargoyle, plus nnlS]C loudspeakers to make my garden a peaceful refiuge. I 'lVorked "nth 2!.
landscape! f(H over a year tv as:certallll tht; bes~. jfl'oSJ;tiOfl d. patio., PClCiill{IL i:ssued
the City of Cupertino and it has been there adjacent to our shared fence for over 25 years.
This was done with Mrs. Bates' knowledge and consent. The proposed addition would
create a sunburst in the afternoon and reflect back into my garde~ making it impossible
to enjoy my garden and patio.
In addition, the Bates residence would have its footprint beyond the approved setback
that we have lived and complied with, obscuring my view of the sunrise, the trees beyond
the Bates residence and offering an eyesore from my windows in my family room,
kitchen eating area, kitchen garden window and dining room. This imposing structure
will be 26' long and 12' tall. I realize that setbacks have been redefined, but they should
be grandfathered in to homes that have existed for almost 50 years as they were built at a
distance that would not impose upon a neighbor.
Mrs. Bates seems to be uncomfortable at present with my air conditioner, which sits
near the fence on their dining room side away from bedrooms and family room. It is the
coolest area of my lot and received a Cupertino Planning permit approximately before
being installed. If the Bates built a room on that side, the noise will only increase for her.
My music, which is selected to please Mrs. Bates' taste, might, in the future, become an
irritant if it is near her bedroom.
We have just finished an 18- month endurance of rebuilding Eaton Elementary School
just behind our properties and this would add another 6-8 months of construction and
noise, directly into my home and garden. My peace would be shattered unnecessarily.
But, the most egregious fact is that this addition, if built where it is requested, will
devalue my home. No one will want to buy my home ifthere is a permanent, ugly 26' X
12' addition to the identical home next door. The area proposed is entirely too small and
compact to accommodate an addition of this size without impacting me and my home.
The proposed addition should be considered for the opposite side of the property,
emanating from the family room (the east side). Tom Bates states that, due to the
existing slab floor, the plumbing would be too expensive.. I have consulted with a former
Santa Clara County Contractor, Fred Wickman of Wickman Construction and he assured
me that it would add a minimal cost, as a saw can boar through quite easily and
inexpensively. r also consulted with a local realtor, who confers that boaring through slab
is relatively easy at a minimal cost, as it is quite common.
The area on the opposite side of the proposal is much deeper than all the others in the
neighborhood. Originally, there was an easement for use as a pathway for neighborhood
children who attended Eaton School, directed behind the properties. When the easement
was closed, the property was given back to Mrs. Bates, who voluntarily gave it to her
)-\ 0
neighbor, Mrs. Martin, making that side of the Bates property deeper and more suitable
for an added structure.
In addition, when the home is sold, the new family can more easily use the addition as
an in-law unit, as there is an access gate on the family room side of the home.
The City does not have the plans, merely the permit, for the most current neighborhood
addition at 20078 John Drive, but I believe that these plans would be much more suitable
for the Bates addition, as the addition would then sit at the other end of the property, with
a large open space bet\veen the end of the addition and the start of the Martin existing
her-ne.. Eve]i). irhough there is; no present perr'1:1T:t for it. Mrs B2'te~" pOtl1ing shed cOHld hf:
easily rnoved to the back of her properLy..
I met with Tom Bates again and his only solution was to plant high foliage between the
homes. Mrs. Bates has finally removed the invasive bamboo that she planted between
our homes over 40 years ago. I have spent over $1,200 trying to control her bamboo,
including having a concrete trench dug 8 feet deep between the properties and the
bamboo still pops up. It can never be totally destroyed. Another such barrier could
create the same problem and would further block my views.
The only reason that Tom Bates can give to not moving the addition to the family room
side of their home is that it would take the project over his budget. Therefore, I have
offered to help subsidize the extra expense that would be needed to have the addition
on the family room side, not the diiring room side. Tom Bates could also stay within
budget by utilizing the contractor who built the addition across the street at 20078 John
Drive, since plans are already drawn and approved by the city. I also suggested that I
would accept the addition as is, IF it would be tom down completely when Mrs. Bates no
longer needs it. This would seem like a reasonable compromise if Tom Bates' only
concern is his mother's comfort and not the increased value of the home that he will
inherit.
By approving this addition as submitted, you will be impacting the value of my property
by allowing this 26' invasive eyesore to be built with virtually no clearance to my fence-
line and by the demand the City has for a mandatory pitched roof making this massive
structure even taller to 12'. There are no other neighbors affected by this addition, only
Darlene Thorne~ next door to Mrs. Elizabeth Bates.
I strongly request that you reject this addition and redirect it to the other side of the house,
where there is a much larger buffer zone and will not impact another home nor neighbor.
Thank You for your consideration. I would like to be in attendance at the Planning
Department meeting that would take action on this application.
Darlene Thome, Homeowner
20097 John Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 253-2145
1- \ ,
August 11, 2006
Marty Miller, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Miller,
Endosed is the original letter b subrnitted to the planning departfllient on JuJy 2.006
regarding Application RM-2006-28. i am requesting a hearing from the Cupertino .
Planning Commission at a meeting after September 12th, 2006, as I will be away for two
weeks during that period of time.
My concerns are numerous, starting with the fact that, as a resident, I was never
informed of a change in requirements for set-backs on additions. I consider myself
informed on changes in Cupertino revisions to the General Plan, but I was not informed
of a pending change that would impact my home and life as this intends.
Many other cities in Santa Clara County and throughout the State work to grandfather
in existing homes. My home was built in 1959 with a wide expanse between homes, and
when I bought in 1963, my expectation was that the expanse would exist forever. If I
had wanted a home closer to my neighbor, I could have bought in San Francisco.
Even if the new standards must apply, they are totally inadequate to protect me, my
privacy, my comfort and the value of my home. The standard that is applied is for the
REAR SET BACK, which faces a wall of bamboo and the far corner of C.B. Eaton
School. However, the side set-back; that is, the distance between the houses, is my
main concern. Mr. Bates' acquiescence to shorten the room by five feet has absolutely
no impact on me. However, it would benefit the home behind them, if there were a
home behind them with the present rear yard setback.
I am requesting a variance to move the rear yard setback allowance to the area
between homes on the side yard.
A shortening of the proposed addition would not alleviate my concern as a fire danger
to me. Mrs. Bates uses oxygen, which could catch fire and travel quickly between the
REDUCED DISTANCE BElWEEN THE HOMES. A hip roof would still be as tall as a
gable roof and would, in no way I reduce the overall impact that an addition of this size
would have on me. It is unfair of the City to indulge one neighbor at the expense of
another, where there is a much better suited placement of the proposed addition. (See
letter of July 20, 2006 to Planning Department)
If the addition is allowed at the proposed site, it will block my view of the sunrise, the
green trees and leave me with a view from my home and garden of only utility pol.es. My
garden is an extension of my lifestyle and I use it almost every day, summer, winter,
spring and fall. An addition as proposed would interrupt the wind flow, would bounce the
sun back into my garden, kill my plants and would devalue my home when it is time for
me to sell. My life savings are invested in my home.
Thank You for your consideration in this matter. (,~~ ~~
Darlene Thome
20097 John Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
\-\~
August 28, 2006
Gary Chao
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
{REGttlVErfl
I AUG Z ,~~ 2006 ./
~ .i
Q~-~~~~.:I
Dear Me Chao,
Re; Application RM-206-28 for an addition to The Bates Residence at 20077 John
Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014.
I wish to address the Planning Commission when I return after September 12, 2006
regarding the proposed addition to the Bates residence adjacent to my home at 20097
John Drive. I am the only neighbor that this massive addition will impact; as the Bates'
back fence borders only on the far edge ofC.B. Eaton Schoolyard and the home to the
east is over 25 feet from the Bates' home.
I am gratified that you have requested, and will give the appropriate weight to my
concerns and recommendations to this imposing structure. I asked Mr. Bates three time
so see his plans before he submitted them, but my request was ignored. Mr. Bates has a
home in Saratoga and does not reside at the proposed site, nor will he be moving there.
My main concern is the negative visual affect that this imposing structure will present,
if it is built where requested. I have included a contractors drawing of the impacted
visual and photos of the present configuration. I had to solicit this drawing myself, as
none was supplied by Mr. Bates or by the City of Cupertino. The sketch was made by
Fred Wickman of Fredrick B.Wickman Contracting Company, State License # 335772.
The grey area represents a 15 ~ foot set-back from the back fence and has been scaled to
the revision that Mr. Bates' architect has proposed. Even at the newer revised version of
20 ~ foot scaled down from the original 26 ~ foot, this proposed addition is huge and
will be visible from all of my rear-facing windows and from my garden, where I enjoy
serenity.
The City guidelines state that a 15-foot clearance be maintained and divided between
both sides of the backyard with no practical disposition on which side might be impacted.
The Bates' residence has over 25 feet clearance on the opposite side of their yard, as they
donated a 10 foot easement to their neighbor, Mrs. Martin, when it was abandoned by
C.B. Eaton School. I have encouraged Mr. Bates to relocate the proposed addition to the
other side of his mother's yard, as two other neighbors with identical floor plans have
done. I have even offered to fund part of the cost of the addition if it is moved to the
eastern side ofthe Bates' property. The present drawings that the City has been given by
the architect on this project are incorrect. There is not a covered patio on the far side of
the Bates property, but rather a potting shed that never received a City permit Mr.
Wickman agrees that there is no practical reason why the addition could not be built on
this far side, with less impact on surrounding neighbors.
The negative visual impact to my property could also affect the sale of my home and
reduce the value. Since I am a widow who lives alone, my home is my main investment
\ -\~
for the future and when I purchased the home 43 years ago, one of the deciding factors
against four other properties viewed, was the amount of open space between the homes.
This will disappear if this imposing structure is allowed to be built.
Mr. Bates approached me with a "compromise" of adding trees between the massive
addition and the fence on their side. This will not improve the visual impact and would
merely turn a gigantic grey wall into a gigantic green one with further complications.
Mrs. Bates and her son have been remiss in maintaining the bamboo that was planted in
her backyard and I have spent over $1,200 including a trench to attempt to contain her
bamboo that continually creeps into my garden. With merely a five-foot clearance
between the proposed addition and the fence, bamboo leaves or leaves frmn another type
of tree could easily build up and become a fire danger.
I realize that you cannot direct Mr. Bates into relocating this massive addition to the
other side of his mother's yard that has over 25 feet of clearance between homes.
However, you do have ability to deny this imposing structure that will forever have a
negative visual impact on my life and home.
Sincerely,
~~</ '~~1.
,-",--.
Darlene Thome
20097 John Drive
Cupertino CA 95014
408 253-2145
, -\1
September 1, 2006
Gary Chao
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr Chao,
RE: Application RM-206-28 for an additiona to the Bates Residence at 20077 John
Drive, Cupertino
As I was packing my car to leave until Sept 12, a large dumpster was delivered to
20077 John Drive. Knowing the condition of Mrs. Bates' uncluttered home, I would
have to assume that it is to be used to clear the land in the back yard for the addition on
the Bates' house.
Does Tommy Bates have the authority to start clearing for the addition before it is
determined that the application may be challenged? It would be unfortunate if the City
allowed him to progress and then he could state that he had already spent money to clear
the land and start the addition.
If this is NOT the proper procedure, please inform him immediately, as I would hate to
return late September 12th to discover an imposing addition to Mrs. Bates home.
Sincerely,
ca~~~
Darlene Thome
20097 John Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
=
:xa
\ -\S
--
----
)
J,~
~i:.~.~.,"'.
~,
~- '..;>,- - ,,..
'.
..........
'--.
~
.
Middle Right- back view of 20077 John Drive and
schoolvard behind bamboo in Bates yard
AUG
uv.
-,~--,-
"
~.
'~L
r~-
11
Q)
:>
.~
-0
~
.~ ]
;> 0
-l-l~
~I:'-
(j)r-
000
~o
~N
t!.l
~
~
::z:..
, ... --
~
'\,....
i
(j)
rn
Q)
>
.-
L...
o
c:
.I::.
o <I
-;) :::
~~~
'0
o c
N..c
. C
'.,'. 0 ~
. .~ +-
.,....t'-
" '- cr
.Q c
:!::C
"'C"
, ."'C E
'-J <( C
' -c s...
Q)"+-
. (j) -c::
, 0 a:
0.3
o a:
L... ._
a.. ::=
X~e
....."
-.
'- ,';;--"", - ..,':~ ,..>,
""b~'.
i:. "'-:'.,~",""...' -. ,.....
- y.'--' .
..,.. . ,-
".........'"
. . ~'^:::;:': ., .-.": [;......- ..~., .'
,<, ... -.:,..._..---.-.-
Middle Right- back view of 20077 John Drive and
~choolvard behind bamboo in Bates yard
;\ \ " (), ',:!,
~,JCi l$ --
l:lV.
~
L '
',r"=-'
'~
...."
~
~
o
~
Cl)
.~
~
o
]
o
I-)
t-
0\
o
o
N
e
o
~
Cl)
>-
'. . i::
r~ ~ Q
'~ OJ s=
;- 0...-4 ~
;> 0
~I-:l
!::t"'--
Cl)
tI:lt-
Cl)O
~O
~N
1
_t
=
,!"
"-"
~
Q
::z;..
, "- --
~
~
(/)
co
Q)
>
.C
o
c::
..c::
o (J
--, ...
",.
,......, " i:
,......,C
o c
O..c
N C
0-
+-I
c::1'
00
.- C
:t:c
-CC"
. -c
i "'" <( t
, -c t
Q)'+-
(/)1:
..0 a
c.....
o :5
~ a
a.. "::::
"
~~,
,~~
....
'-
) -\ 0
~
Design . Engineering' Construction
September 07, 2006
Gary Chao, Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: APPLICATION: RM-2006-28
20077 JOHN DRIVE
Dear Gary,
This is a response letter to an appeal raised in opposition to the referenced application written at
your request, on behalf of my client, Mr. Tom Bates. The project intends to add a ground floor
master suite for his mother, Ms. Elizabeth Bates, whose age and current health issues
unfortunately require less intensive access to a bedroom. This letter intends to state the case for
approval of the project, as well as address the concerns raised by the appeal to the proposed
design.
The originally proposed design is in compliance with the city's zoning ordinance setback;
encroachment allowance, followed the proper procedures to obtain clearance, and received the
staffs (Ms. Noren Caliva) preliminary approval in its July 17 neighborhood notification letter.
After receiving notice from staff that an objection had been raised, my client and I met with
Noren to revise the design and propose an alternative solution.
The alternative design was proposed to address the concerns raised by the adjacent neighbor, Ms.
Darlene Thome, despite the compliance ofthe original application. Although her July 20 letter
raised numerous objections, the only legitimate concern was regarding an obstruction of view.
We therefore cOl).centrated on this issue, at the expense of the original design's continuity with
the existing home, solely for the purpose of appeasing Ms. Thome's desire. It was for this
reason that we increased the rear setback, creating an odd, small courtyard which will
unnecessarily block daylight entering the kitchen window; and changed the roof design from a
gable roof to a hip roof, completely in contrast to the existing home's aesthetic appeal. In the
interest of compromise, we agreed to submit the revised design, and it was conditionally
approved in the city's August 1 letter. Unfortunately, Ms. Thome was unwilling to compromise
and appealed again, leading to our current situation.
In the second objection letter, dated August 11, Ms. Thome continues to express personal desires
that are either unrealistic or irrelevant to the city's ordinance requirements. These include not
being personally informed of ordinance modifications, exaggerating the effect of the project's
1225 Tiros Way, Sunnyvale, CA 94085. Tel (408) 733-3755 Fax (408) 733-7391
\- \ ~
HANIWAY
Design . Engineering. Construction
impact in terms of potential fire arid drainage hazards, proposals to subjectively revise the zoning
ordinance itself, among others that I will respectfully decline to point out at this time. Although
we appreciate the concern Ms. Thorne has for the view from her patio, it is the nature of
construction and is an inherent issue with any building project. It is not, however, grounds for
rejectinn of the project. Ms Thome has offered to share the expense of relocating the addition to
the other side of the house, but It does not change the fact that it would create an undesirable
floor plan with Elizabeth's private bedroom next to a family room. It would negate the very
intention of the design, not to mention the negative effect it will have on the home's resale value.
In conclusion, I trust that this response will serve as an adequate summary of our position on this
matter in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting. Furthermore, as stated, the
concessions we have made have been at the expense of the original design. Since both proposals
are unsatisfactory in appeasing the adjacent neighbor's personal desires, my client and I request
that the ruling party take into account the aesthetic characteristics of the immediate
neighborhood and strongly consider approving the original design. Although both designs are in
compliance with city standards, we feel that the original proposal is more compatible with the
character of the existing home and the standards for which Cupertino is recognized.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at
the number provided below.
Sincerely,
Philip Covarrubias
Designer
1225 Tiros Way, Sunnyvale, CA 94085. Tel (408) 733-3755 Fax (408) 733-7391
\-~
Pc.
-----------------------,
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
__________________.J
:>,,'1,"
~'iI~"~
I '
I
..l
~ ..,..,
"'tl~", .
i GROI..tJ) -"LOOR OJru~,
I
~I
~
f-
JOHN DRIVE
CD
...;3(P,..
~ .~
P!."'[t't.C,
7~.;;5' P.l
SITE PLAN: 20077 JOHN DRIVE
SCALE: 1/6' = 1'-0'
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
-----I
1-
\
~f~~:~~,;r a;~:[i~ ;2~~~~i.~~J~~~i~~~:~~ ;1 ~~~:::~:
PROJECT SCOPE
\
r\
,
I
I
\,"""
tx~T1~c;.
""""
~'~,~ooc.t
~~"IoOli
i
~ f,',,,...
~...,.o
- ,
, .
~ j """",c'
i; Cllt,,..~
\:;;~'i'f j
r----------------,
I ,
I L_
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
L____________________
~I\.(.l..~~ 'ow
,'I" c..
~r,.:; i
{)......\~ 1:
~..."':,., ~hLt'..;')~
@
,
=";.~
i~
~~
~
"
1
APPROVAL
t
Signature
PROJECT DATA
200 l:DfT ON~ O~ -11e ce::::, CMC
c~c, TITLJ: 28. A:....;. .....PLlC/l.8l.l:: ~OCA1-
OO:x"S, :>00'" C:'C (;>(,)0;> N:"C!
VICINITY MAP
"~'~.f
_...".,-
_.",., 3' .....,~ ~
/"
~........." D'
l.>>,'d":,
f"""....." ... '-'..,",;
~ J ~~:;: ./" .....M=:::,
1 ! ~
--"'00)' l.... l
5~...::.} 'T~c 1"-.'
"-'-"{ i r _. ""~.:;.,j /.;,'",t L $ i
~;' : ~ i
~......,,~.".._.,,"""..,,'f'.. i" C_flP 1-1;o".~r
91..-0': 161.....'.::..."
IRE"EEfVED 1
~yJUN 2 ::J
REVISION BY
I~,
I ~ ~
, P-l c-
os <l
;....( ~ 0
~ 3 ~ ~
~di
~ ~
~~~
tI'J ... ~ ~
P-l ai ,~
r--Ei~~
<:::l 5
~" Q
~ ~
r--
261UN 06
AS SHOWN
PHILlPC.
Al
,..
'"
'"
~
;;
OJ
'"
"roS;6 v:J 'ONIJ.Hi1dOJ 'ITA11IO NHOC LLOOl
S'~VB J.'II.UL "3J't
NOUJOOV'lVllNilaISiIlI
UO!PlUlliillO;)" j~!JaaU!~u'j. uS~iaa
lUt--n-L(aJ,l,xv.t In'.~n.-:.u.u..)''Ul .nutQy.l'll.....~..l",<'4SOau."lfl
'iI;JN3GISffiI S3.L va 3H.L
~~
"
~.
"'
~ ~ ~
:<l ~ if
j
N
<
. !
'-..
...J
;;
o
(l)
::;
10
c:
C:l)
05
C.
rY~_
<.;:(
a
I
I
~l
".
~l
.
Z IiiII
a a ~
~
~ 0
fi:l ..'-
r/!
0 ~
ll.
0 ~
~
I,d"
I
I
~I
~~:
n~,
CD SOUTH (FRON
SCALE: '/4' m 1'-0" T) ELEVATION
, -
,-" ;"::i"'J!\L --E;M -';";'1-' "
'" -: '2;..1' _ 1-,1 - d.c.?
AeP!JGation Nurob V
.) er
C'
vrgnature
CD NORTH
3 (REAR) ELE
SCALE: ,/.' = ,'-0" VA TION
CD EAST (RIGHT) ELE
SCALE: 1/4' _ "-0' V ATION
o ~~:,);:~~.ELEVATION
;;
~
I' i
'< ~
'l ~
"'
~ ~
S 6 ~
;:: 0
f2 8~~
P:: 0( ~ ~
Vl ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
Oolo 2fiJUN06
.bIo AS SHOWN
.....- PHILlPC.
,.
>
f--l.
~
~ ~
tTl
~ tE
>
~ ~
I~
10
I~
I~
I
~
"
b
:J:
Z
"
~
~
\ 'e,c
IC~NTml~~
~ t::}
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
:
:
,
,
,
1
, '
L __ ___________ _____ ____J
11 "~
.~ ~ ~ ~
I'
I"'
-r ".
'" ",~~m~ _ ~
" '
i fi-
~ I~
I~
I"
I
~ ~ e ~
28 ~~
"
,..-
r-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..1.._
1
I
1=~"C
- ;:m':;::TfAC~Q~ .u
~" .
~~
~'-b' 4'.(;-
~TOJf SIDE;
~"
r-----------,
:
,
!
,
!
:
r-~
,
.;~ 11l~
~8 ~i
~ 'iJ
" .
o
>-0
:;.;1
o
tT1
()
>-l
I::i
>
>-l
>
<
n
z
~
~
o
a
n Q
~~~
~~~
~~
] ]
;;;
"
~ ~
THE BATES RESIDENCE
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
MR. TOM BATES
20077 JOHN DRIVE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
1215 mOll \NAY. SUNNYVALE, CA 940:115. TEL: (40~) n 1.J7~5 FAX'r4DR)7n..1191
Design, Engineering . Construction
~~o
>-0
::>;l
o
tT1
()
>-l
Ct:l
()
o
>-0
tTl
'"
~
v:
5
z
'"
"
~ ~
~ ~
o
~ fl
o
o
:::0
"tI
t"'"
>
Z
>
--2-
>
N
C;
>
~ ~
1",,,1
D
D
"
Ii
I.
II
I
I
I
~~
D
THEBATES RESIDENCE
HA]\J[W~Y
12251lROllWAY,SUl'fNYVALE,CA.UnM. T1:L,(4nR);.~1.17,5 rAX'(408)1:l:J.1J91
Design. Engineering. Construction
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
MR. TOM BATES
20077 JOHN DRIVE, CUPERTINO. CA !J5014
~ :::0
f;; ~
~ ~
"
~ f1
o
o
:::0
'"C
r
;J;>
Z
I;l:j
--z-
>
N
~
"
~ ~
1",,,1
:E~
"
THE BATES RESIDENCE
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
MR. TOM BATES
20077 JOHN DRIVE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
,,-~
17:~1l' mas WAY ,SUNNYVALE. CA ~4Q85. Tll.: (4Dln 7;;,_3755 FAX'(41111)1337391
Design. Engineering. ConstrucUon
'"
"'
~
o
z
'"
-<
(
I
I
I
JI
Sot'l
~~5'
CD ~C~~~/~ :~?NT) ELEVATION
CD ::~~/~~~~:f) ELEVATION A
, "
- --------------------------- Jll
----------------
,
D:5T.~~ I'IOros~
CD ~~~:,~}~~~) ELEVATION
,/
/
(~
I
I
,I
, ~I
~ l'
'01
j'J
,
16" · -----------
-------------
------
',_2.J 1 PR:lF05W
I ~ -------f
o ~~T,;~:~~.ELEVATION
REVISION BY
.
Q
.,
e
~
u
.r
.~
, ""
~
u
Z ~
~ Z li
i::i Q oj
CIl ~tJ~
~ C!-Q::
~ -<<tIl
<!~B
CIl ;:: g oj
~ Z,,:::
t-< ~:;: is
<t: ~ ~
>!:l 0: e
~ ~
Dol< 16AUG06
.scale AS SHOWN
PHIUPC.
A3
('
I
I
,I
u:
"J.--,
CD ~c~~~/~ ~~~NT) ELEVATION
-----------------r
DDD1, ,
~
------------
--------1
------
D '
o
Jli: ~
----------
------ -----------------
"
W51WG rwf'Q';W
CD ~~~~}~~) ELEVATION
../
~/~
(~
I
I
J
,. ~I
~~I
~II
OOj
CD :~;~/~!~~:) ELEVATION B
8 ~~Tl;;~~~.ELEVATION
REVISION BY
"
Q
"
~
a
u
.~
,~
..;
,~
2l
(il
u
Z
(il
Cl
......
r/l
(il
0::
r/l
(il
f-<
<r:
~
(il
:r:
f-<
<
u
o
z
i=
"
Ie
"
u
,;
>
2
Q
Z
:r
Q
~
0,.. 16AUG06
SeIII. AS SHOWN
Ot>"", PHlUPC.
A3