Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-2003 Planning Commission PacketC7 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 19, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 3:40 p.m. to interview applicants for the Planning Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager & Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Employee organization:. SEA Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: SMO • Conference With Legal Counsel -Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) Conference With Legal Counsel -Threatened Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential case) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT:' Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager • Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Cherbone; Public Works Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Livingston, Associate Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MARCH 19, 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of March 19, 2003 was properly posted on March 14, 2003,: COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Wanda Kownacki, 19280 Bainter Avenue, requested that the City pursue annexation of the property located at 19418 Redberry Drive. Dan Hoffinan, 19403 Vineyard Lane, requested the City comment or gesture some support for our troops in Iraq. Marcia Manzo, Chair Library Commission/Library Expansion Committee, 20471 Walnut Avenue, referring to the City Council meeting held on March 19, 2003, Chair Manzo stated- that no where in Measure N does it allow the Council to control the community room. Anne Cross, 19984 Wellington Court, stated that the community room is well know amongst non-profit groups who need space to hold meetings at a minimal rate. Bill McDonald, President/Fnends of the Saratoga Libraries, 15201 Montalvo Road, stated that he worked on the library campaign for four years. Measure N stated that it would maintain the community room. Mr. McDonald stared that if he would have had prior knowledge that the Council wanted to control the community room he would not have worked so hard to get Measure N passed by the voters.. Mr. McDonald requested that the Council do not change the current use on the community room. Mary Jean Fenn, 20102 Chateau Drive, stated that she was present tonight representing hundreds of volunteers from the Measure N campaign. Ms. Fenn shared the process and concerns of the residents during that campaign. Ms. Fenn stated that the volunteers gave their word to the voters that the community room would be maintained as is. Ms. Fenn stated that if the Council wants to control the community room a town hall meeting should take place first to hear what the residents want. Marlene Duffin, 21241 Canyon View Drive, noted that most groups do not have a lot of money to rent meeting facilities: Ms. Duffin stated that the community room is affordable for community groups. • Ruth Lipstein, 19762.Charters Avenue, stated-that Measure N passed because the community wanted to continue the superb services they receive. Ms. Lipstein stated that it is not the Council's room but the "community's" room. Ms: Lipstein stated that the Council should keep the library polices as is. 2 James M. Givens, 131 Calle Larga, noted that he is an active member pf the Friends of the Saratoga Library. Mr. Givens requested that the Council reconsider their decision on controlling the community room at the library. Mr. Givens stated that the community . room should be available for nonprofit groups. Mr. Givens stated that 26 nonprofit groups rent the community room for a nominal fee. Felicia Peters Pollock, 13561 Old Tree Way, stated that she has lived here for 43 years: Mrs. Pollock stated that she was disappointed in the Council's proposed changes in-the community room's policy. JoAn Lambert, 14030 Elvira Street,- stated that many community groups use the community room b3ecause it's close, convenient and affordable. Ms. Lambert urged the Council to keep the current polices. Jean Wenberg, 18951 Easter Place, noted that she is the President of the Log Gatos - Saratoga University Woman's group. Ms. Weinberg noted that that use the community room for their meetings. Ms. Weinberg noted the Group has approximately 300 in which 50% are Saratoga residents. Alan King, 14472 Oak Place, requested that the Council continue to allow the library. staff to continue to operate the community room as they have in the past. Marjory Bunyard, 12625 Miller Avenue, noted that she has lived in Saratoga for over 30 years. Ms. Bunyard stated that most of the people who belong to nonprofit groups are retired. Willys Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, stated that he was present tonight on behalf of the Saratoga Historical Society. Mr. Peck stated that the Society used the community room for their membership meetings. Peggy Corr, 19224 Dehavilland Drive, opposes the use of the community room as a meeting place for the City Council and Commissions. Jack Grantham, 12611 Paseo Cerro, requested that the Council reconsider their decision made on March 5, 2003 in regards to the community room. Peggy Patrick, 21205 Canyon View Drive, stated that within the bond language it prohibits the type of use council wants for the community room.. Cynthia Chang, 13527 Toni Ann Place, noted that she has lived here for over 20 years. Ms. Chang stated that she currently serves on the Los Gatos Saratoga Joint Union High School Board, is a member of the Friends of the Library, League of Women Voters, and Hakone Gardens. Ms. Chang thanked the Council for serving as City leaders.- Ms. Chang suggested that the Council and the Committees hold their at the North Campus. Barbara Mendenthal, 12791 Idelwood Lane, noted that she opposes any changes to -the use of the community room. 3 Barbara Nesbet, 17268 Zena Avenue, Monte Sereno, stated that she is a Councilmember for the City of Monte Sereno and also a member of the Library JPA. Councilmember Nesbet thanked the citizens of Saratoga and the Friends of the Library for supporting Measure N. Councilmember Nesbet suggested that the .Council listen to the people of Saratoga and not change the use policy for the community room at the library. Mayor Streit stated that the law prohibits the Council from taking any action on the community room, but an item maybe on the May 7th of May 21St agenda for discussion. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC) regarding streetlights and tree lights in the Village. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that an item be placed on the agenda to discuss options for alternative meetings rooms for the Council land commissions. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supported Vice Mayor Waltonsmith's request. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 5, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2003 AS AMENDED: MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3B. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 11, 2003 STAFF RECOMIVIENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/_KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2003. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH KING ABSTAINING. 4 3C. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -MARCH 5, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3D. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3E PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -MARCH 12, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3F. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 2000 BOND ACT PER CAPITA BLOCK GRANT RESOLUTION AND ROBERT-Z-BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM BLOCK GRANT RESOLUTION TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-017 RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE MURRAY-HAYDEN PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-018 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE APPLICATIONS TO APPLY FOR GRANTS THROUGH THE PARK BOND ACT OF 2000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. FY 2003-2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; adopt resolutions; appoint new Councilmember to serve on the Subcommittee to review applications-for CDBG Septic Abatement Funds. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-019 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS FOR FUNDING FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY UNDER THE FEDERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 Lata Vasudevan, presented staff report. Planner Vasudevan explained that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) makes annual disbursements of Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) funds for eligible projects and activities. Saratoga and seven other "non-entitlement" cities within Santa Clara County receive federal HCDA funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Non-entitlement cities receive funds through a cooperative agreement with the County of Santa Clara, the locally responsible grant recipient. Planner Vasudevan explained that expenditures of these funds is restricted by federal and county regulations. Planner Vasuclevan explained that the total amount available for FY 2003/04 is $172,200, which reflects a 1.6% decrease in funding from the current year allocation. Of that amount, a maximum $35,356 maybe spent on public service activities, which is $4271ess than the current year allocation. Additional allocations are %15,000 to cover CDBG program administration, that annual contribution of $29,000 to .the County to provide assistant in administration the SHARP Revolving Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, and $50,000 for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvements at Hakone Gardens. Planner Vasudevan explained that the availability of CDBG funds for eligible projects and activities was publicized in the Saratoga News funding the month of January 2003. One Public Service application and three CDBG capital projects and, non-public service proposals were received during the application cycle. Planner Vasudevan explained the following funding recommendations that have been recommended by Councilmember Bogosian and Betty Feldheym: 1. CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES SASCC -Adult Day Care Prog am Requests $36,737, which is 22.55% of estimated annual budget to operate the Adult Day Care Center. The maximum that can be allocated to public service is $35,366. 6 _ 2. CDBG CAPITAL AND NON-PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS SASCC - is requesting $13,294 to install two automatic doors and monitoring, system at its entrance to the Adult Care Center. Pro, j ect Match - is requesting $33,000 to cover full cost of lease payments to the landlord on its group home on Blauer Drive in Saratoga. Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley - is requesting $15,000 to renovate and repair two homes of very low-income property owners in Saratoga. ADA Improvements Project at Hakone Gardens -per the lease agreement with Hakone Foundation, the city will provide $50,000 per year for five years, to update ADA requirements at the park. 3. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION County Rehabilitation Assistance -The City's SHARP Revolving Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program is administrated by the Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff. HCD charges $20,000 of CDBG funds per year to administer the SHARP program for the City. City Program Administration - $25,000 is set aside for the general program administration costs incurred by the City. 4. SHARP REVOLVING HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM AND LEAD -BASED PAINT ABATEMENT Allocate $5,540 to the SHARP Program for FY 2003/04. Allocate $5,000 to Revolving Housing Rehab 5. REALLOCATION OF PRIOR CDBG FUNDS Transfer $51,418.96 from the ADA Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Curb Ramp Upgrade Project to the SHARP Revolving Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund 6. SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION PROJECT Appoint a new Councilmember to serve on the Sub-committee to review applications for septic tank abatement grant requests. Council discussion on the reallocation of funds to the SHARP program from the ADA Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Curb Ramp Upgrade Project. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. Joselle Kryder, 12925 Arroyo de Arguello, noted she represented Building Together. Ms. Kryder stated that their mission is to rehabilitate homes of low- income homeowners in Santa Clara County. Since 1991 they have repaired 200 homes. Although they application was denied she wanted the to acquaint the Council to their program. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, noted that she is on the Citizen Advisory Committee. Bob Campbell, Executive Director/Project Match, 20281 Blauer Drive, stated that Project Match has been in partnership with the city for 13 years. Mr. Campbell stated that they provide housing for five very low-income seniors.- 7 Councilmember Bogosian stated that he commends Project Match for their work in the community. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he would serve on the subcommittee to review applications for CDBG Septic Abatement Funds. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS FOR FUNDING FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY UNDER THE FEDERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004. MOTION PASSED 5-0: Councilmember Bogosian commended Planner Vasudevan on an excellent staff report. OLD BUSINESS 5. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that following: • Change Order Activity -Change Order #6 was finalized -aggregate to walkways, substituting style and number of benches, and fashioning and installing water duct extension rings. • Field Paoli - $504 change order for anchor bolt redesign that was approved in February. • Gilbane Contract Increase - $12,800 approved by City Council in February • Special Tests & Inspections -the total has been increased to reflect the miscellaneous services needed in addition to those provided under contract by CEL. • Mailing, Signs -Staff added "plaques" to this category and decreased total budgeted by $3,000 in anticipation that the original amount won't be needed. • Blueprints, Copying, Noticing -Staff decreased total budgeted by $2,000 in anticipation that the entire original amount won't be needed. • Construction Temporary Power, Power Costs -The total budget has been increased based on information from Thompson Pacific. • Budget Status - $14,646,600 - (total costs both committed and change requests) • Construction Schedule -change order #7 will include a new substantial completion date of April 15, 2003. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO AMEND GILBANE'S CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for the update. • • • 6. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - F.Y. 2002/2003 UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Report and provide direction to staff. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained the CIP process and the many benefits a comprehensive C1P has on the City. Director Cherbone noted that some projects maybe include but unfounded, awaiting grants and special funding sources not available at the time the CIP development. In other cases Council may wish to fund design and engineering costs only for projects likely to be submitted for grant applications. . Director Cherbone reported the status of current projects in the adopted 5-year CIP and stated that the adopted CIP contains a total of 46 projects, 33 projects have full or partial funding and 14 projects do not have funding. The total amount funded in the adopted CIP is $18,292,582. Director Cherbone explained new C1P projects for City Council consideration as follows: • Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue Right Turn Lane Improvements - $175,000 • Sobey Road/Quito Road Traffic Improvements - $150,000 • • Blaney plaza Improvements -Construction Phase - $150,000 • Historical Park/McWilliams House Improvements - $89,100 ` • Book-Go-Round - $38,500 • North Campus Improvements - $70,000 • Civic Center Seat Refurbish Project - $40,000 • North Campus ADA Improvements - $80,000 • UPRR Trail Neighborhood Outreach - $25,000 ,Director Cherbone explained funding options for unfunded and/or new projects as follows: • El Camino Grande/Mote Vista Strom Drain Project -Santa Clara Valley Water District has allowed the City to use a cheaper method of ,making drainage improvements reducing the cost from $330,000 to $100,000. • Saratoga Avenue Medians at Library -instead of a median modifying the striping configuration would help facilitate traffic flow. This reducing the costs from. $150,000 to $0. The striping can be accomplished in the current PMP budget. The amount available for re-appropriation would be $150,000. • Playground Safety (Brookglen, El Quito, Wildwood) -State Bond Act Funds have become available for these projects. These funds can be used • to offset the general fund contribution made to Azule Park. Funding available in the Per Capita program is $284,000: The amount available for re-appropriation would be $284,000. ~~ 9 4 `~4 Q. El Quito Park Improvements -State Bond Act Funds have become available for this project. Funding available in the RobertOZ'berg Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program is $91,134: However a local non-city match is required in the amount of $13,019. Staff is currently soliciting this match. The amount available for re-appropriation would be $104,153. Director Cherbone noted that funding associated with the following project modifications were previously re-appropriated by City Council: . • Hakone Gardens Drive Way Improvements- reduced funding from $500,00 to $200,00. $50,000 for paving and drain work and maintain a $150,000 reserve for retaining wall improvements. The available amount for re-appropriation was $300,000, which was allocated to the Animal Control Facility. • Village Streetscape Improvements (Sidewalk/C&G) -issues with Caltrans have not resolved so the amount that was available for re- appropriationwas $425,000. $410,00 was allocated to the Animal Control Facility Project. 4th Street Bridge Replacement -Recent changes in the rating of this bridge removed it from the replacement category and into rehabilitation category. Reduced funding from $1,500,000 to $500,000. The cost to the City based on 80% funding from the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR) was reduced from $300,000 to $100,000. The amount available for re-appropriation was $200,000. These funds were allocated to the General Fund during the mid-year budget process. ; • WHH Attic Improvements -The City applied for a grant for these improvements but was turned down. The City funded $125,000 of the estimated $250,000 project cost. The amount was available for re- appropriation was $125,000. These funds were allocated to the General Fund during the mid-year budget process. Mayor Streit asked Director Cherbone if any of the new CIP projects for City Council consideration must be funded tonight. Director Cherbone responded that the Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue Right Turn Lane Improvements ($175,000) and the Book-Go-Round ($38,500) are the only projects that need funding tonight. . In regards to the proposed new CIP projects. Conesus of the City Council to direct staff to: • Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue Right Turn Lane Improvements - $175,000 (Fund) • Sobey Road/Quito Road Traffic Improvements - $150,000 (leave in CIP unfunded) • Blaney Plaza Improvements -Construction Phase - $150,000 ( . • Historical Park/McWilliams House Improvements - $89,100 (Separate into two projects) • Book-Go-Round - $38,500, (Fund) 10 /' • North Campus Improvements - $70,000 (Leave unfunded) • Civic Center Seat Refurbish Project - $40,000 (Leave unfunded) ti • North Campus ADA Improvements - $80,000 (Leave unfunded) • UPRR Trail Neighborhood Outreach - $25,000 (Leave unfunded/hold a public hearing) NEW BUSINESS 8. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION FOR A GRANT BY THE SARATOGA HISTORICAL MUSEUM TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR THE MUSEUM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-020 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE SARATOGA HISTORICAL MUSEUM GRANT REQUEST John Livingstone, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that at the February 19, 2003 April Halberstadt requested the City Council to provide a letter of support to the Saratoga Historical • Museum efforts to apply for a grant from the Community Foundation of Silicon Valley. The grant would be used to hire anon-profit consultant to help develop a long-term Strategic Plan that will include a business and funding plan. ,\ ~ , .Planner Livingstone noted that per the City's Code the Heritage Preservation Commission had to review this request and was placed on their March 11, 2003 agenda. The HPC recommended approval of the request to the City Council with- a 7-0 vote. ,Councilmember Kline asked what the consultant was going to be used for. April Halberstadt, 240 South 13th Street #l, stated that the consultant would help the Historic Foundation develop a strategic plan for the future. BOGOSIAN/KL1NE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SARATOGA HISTORICAL MUSEUM GRANT REQUEST. MOTION PASSED 5=0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to SVACA: City of Sunnyvale withdrew from the JPA taking awayl/3 of the funding for the shelter and 1/3 of the operating budget. JPA set up a subcommittee to reexamined options available to the JPA for shelter facilities and services. 11 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that an item be placed on a future agenda to discuss ~' facilities to hold City Council meetings. Consensus of the Cit Council to su ort Vice Ma or's Waltonsmith's request.. y pp Y OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Streit adjourned the open meeting at 9:30 p.m. in the name of all the men and women in the armed forces and noted.that Council would return to Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room. There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 10:30 p.m. and announced that the claim filed by John Jenkins GL-054463 would be paid. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk •~ 12 ~` i CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl, Zutshi and Chair Hunter Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Planner Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 26 and April 23, 2003. (APPROVED 4-0-2 NAGPAL &t SCHALLOP ABSTAIN, APPROVED 6-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 8, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-248 (517-08-042) - KATZ; 20665 Lomita Avenue; -Request for Design Review and Variance approvals to demolish the main structure and construct atwo-story home. The existing 562 square foot detached cottage at the rear of the site will remain. The proposed home will be 2,661 square feet and will have a maximum height of 23 feet. The applicant is seeking two Variance approvals for the proposed new home: (1) to exceed to maximum allowable floor area for all structures on the site, and (2) to encroach within the required setbacks. The site is 7,570 (net) square feet and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (DENIED 5-0-1, HUNTER ABSTAIN, DENIED VARIANCES AND APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 5-0-1) 2. APPLICATION #03-052, (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -Multiple Zoning Ordinance Amendments updating various sections of the 15-12: R-1: Single Family Residential Districts, 15-45: Design Review: Single Family Dwelling and Chapter 14 -Subdivisions. The proposed amendments to Article 15-12 provides for consistency between ordinance requirements and long time practices as well as simplifying the rules. The amendments to Article 15-45: Design Review provides streamlining and clarity. The amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance updates the Director's title and removes references to the Building Site Approval process. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 9, 2003) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on March 19, 2003 ADJOURNMENT AT 9:50 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 -12:00 noon (Note the new time) PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-248 - KATZ 20665 Lomita Avenue Item 1 LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl, Zutshi and Chair Hunter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 26 and Apri123, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission f rom discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 8, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the Ciry Clerk ~~ within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-248 (517-08-042) - KATZ; 20665 Lomita Avenue; -Request for Design Review and Variance approvals to demolish the main structure and construct atwo-story home. The existing 562 square foot detached cottage at the rear of the site will remain. The proposed home will be 2,661 square feet and will have a maximum height of 23 feet. The applicant is seeking two Variance approvals for the proposed new home: (1) to exceed to maximum allowable floor area for all structures on the site, and (2) to encroach within the required setbacks. The site is 7,570 (net) square feet and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) 2. APPLICATION #03-052, (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -Multiple Zoning Ordinance Amendments updating various sections of the 15-12: R-1: Single Family Residential Districts, 15-45: Design Review: Single Family Dwelling and Chapter 14 -Subdivisions. The proposed amendments. to Article 15-12 provides for consistency between ordinance requirements and long time practices as well as simplifying the rules. The amendments to Article 15-45: Design Review provides streamlining and clarity. The amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance updates the Director's title and removes references to the Building Site Approval process. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 9, 2003) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on March 19, 2003 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive the Agenda s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato ag_ca.us D MINUTES moo/ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION _ u DATE: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga; CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: .None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of March 12, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of March 12, 2003, were approved as submitted with corrections to pages 4, 17,18, 20 and 21. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Barry and Roupe . ORAL COMMUNICATION Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Planning. Commission for a job well done, saying that the Commission is doing a great job. • Extended special thanks to the three Commissioners completing their service on the Commission, Commissioners Lisa Kurasch, Erna Jackman and George Roupe. • Stated that Saratoga runs on volunteerism and that this Commission is a fine example of that. Chair Jackman stated that it has been a rare privilege to serve. Commissioner Hunter stated that the four remaining Commissioners want to thank the three who are leaving. Commissioner Barry also extended thanks to the departing Commissioners, saying that each one has helped her a lot. ` Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Rand Catto, 15451 Bohlman. Road, Saratoga: • Advised that he is seeking aid from the Commission in solving an intrusion on the view from his home due to a recently installed power pole. • Declared that this new power pole degrades his view and devalues his property. • Asked that the Commission takes this item up and asks staff to look into the matter. Commissioner Kurasch asked why this pole has been installed. Mr. Rand Catto replied that the pole is the result of a residential construction project. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Catto if he had contacted PG&E and if so to what result. Mr. Rand Catto said that PG&E advised him that it is up to the property .owner. Chair Jackman asked if the Hillside Specific Plan applies to this area. Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that this is an on-going project that was originally reviewed as a remodel. However, all the walls came down and it could no longer simply be considered a remodel. Work was stopped on-the project and the project was renoticed. • Stated that the location of the pole was not depicted on any plans and said that Saratoga Code has a section that pertains to underground utility systems. • Advised that- there is currently no authority for the City or the .Planning Commission to make exactions but that staff is working on amendments to allow exactions as part of Design Review, although there must be a nexus to impose undergrounding of utilities on a specific project. • Stated that the applicant has paid a fee to PG&E to have this pole shortened and the work is scheduled to be done on March 31, 2003. Mr. Rand Catto said that someone from PG&E told him that there is a minimum height requirement and that this pole was at that required height. On the other hand, the applicant told him today that the pole could be shortened. Commissioner Barry asked whether this project would be grandfathered in the event that the change. to Code occurs. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission cannot go backwards and apply a new requirement to an already approved project. ~ . Commissioner Kurasch said that Mr. Catto's request to have this matter reviewed by the Commission or staff is reasonable and expressed support for that possibility. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this could be brought back to the Commission as an informational item. Mr. Rand Catto said he was not sure if this area is included within the Hillside Specific Plan. Added that the construction project is being reviewed on March 28, 2003. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this review is an Administrative Design Review. process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 3 • Commissioner Kurasch asked that this issue be looked into prior to that review. Director. Tom Sullivan replied certainly. Mr. Rand Catto said that any information would be nice to know. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that it cannot be enforced if not yet in Code. Commissioner Barry said that the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission is the. Design. Review of the entire project. Suggested that Mr. Catto speak with his neighbor. Mr. Rand Catto pointed out that a telephone pole is not considered a structure. Commissioner Barry assured that the Planning Commission is interested in neighbor input. Mr. David W. Dolloff, 20685 Segal Drive, Saratoga: • Thanked the outgoing Commissioners for their selfless gift of their time to the City. • Said he is present this evening regarding the power pole recently placed in view of the Catto's home. • Identified himself as the President of the Saratoga Heights Mutual Water Company. • Pointed -out that all new buildings should have underground power and that new homebuilders . sometimes get away with things that should not be allowed. • Stated that it is important that the City take control over what new people in their area are allowed to do. If not, the area will get haphazard. • Said that right now there is a renaissance on the Hill and houses are getting extremely large since sewer connection is available in the area. • Stated that Design Review efforts will become more important and that such review must be diligently thought out throughout the next year. Chair Jackman stated that Mr. Dolloff has made lots of good points. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the Commission has placed specific conditions on projects in the area to protect the private roads from the impacts of construction traffic. Chair Jackman said that the Master Plan for that area needs to be reviewed. Director Tom Sullivan announced that the first Public Hearing on the Master Plan is set for April 9, 2003. Mr. David W. Dolloff cautioned that this power pole will not be moved if not done now. Commissioner Barry told Mr. Dolloff that it may be helpful for him to provide a list of his specific concerns regarding the area. Reminded that Administrative Design Review decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 4 Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 20, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of-the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-039 SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: Appeal of an Administrative Decision; the Saratoga Homeowners Association has filed an appeal of an administrative decision made pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50.120, Tree Regulations, Violations Penalties. The administrative decision requires $35,439.00 in cash and $17,719.50 in native replacement trees for removal a total of 12 trees without acity-issued tree removal. permit. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED) i Chair Jackman advised that Public Hearing Item No. 1 has been continued at the request of the applicant to the second meeting in April. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #02-280 (397-17-012) - KALKUNTE, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,815 square foot home. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The pre-existing structure on this 42,011 (net) square foot site was demolished in conjunction with a Design Review approval granted for a new two-story home on December 12, 2001. The current Design Review application #02-280 was filed because the applicant no longer wishes to construct the home as previously designed and approved by the Planning Commission. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. (L.ATA VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow atwo-story, 5,815 square foot home with a maximum height of 26 feet on a property zoned R-1-40,000. • Advised that the pre-existing home was demolished in conjunction with a previously approved Design Review approval. • Added that the applicant filed this current Design Review application because he decided not to construct with the plan approved. • Described the home as including a light green-gray stucco with olive trim and a gray slate roof. '-' 'Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 5 • Said that the applicant has contacted his surrounding neighbors and letters of support from several . have been received. • Stated that the existing mature landscaping will remain as well as new trees to be planted at the rear of the site. • Informed that staff has added a Condition of Approval requiring the submittal of a final landscape plan. • Added that staff is also suggesting that the proposed 16 foot high gazebo be lowered to the 12 foot. height permitted for an accessory structure under Code. • Reminded that there is a large specimen oak in the front yard and that the applicant has worked with the Arborist to assure the health of the oak as well as other trees. • Stated that no new Arborist report was required since the new design has the home in the same vicinity as the previous design and will actually have less of an impact than the previous plan. • Said that the driveway and path will be constructed per the Arborist's recommendations. • Said that the proposed wall for the front perimeter of the property cannot exceed three feet in height. • Suggested a Condition that states that any existing fencing that does not meet current requirements must be removed. • Stated that this project will preserve the natural landscaping, is compatible with the neighborhood and meets requirements. • Recommended approval with conditions. Commissioner Zutshi asked which one of the two proposed fireplaces is woodburning. Commissioner Barry asked if it would be a normal request to have a fence plan submitted with the landscaping plan. Planner Lata Vasudevan assured that she would be asking for one since the proposed stucco wall would require building permits. Commissioner Roupe asked if the allowable fence heights are higher along Fruitvale since it is a busier roadway. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that Fruitvale's front wall heights are the same, three feet. Commissioner Zutshi sought clarification that the wall could be six feet high at the proper setback. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked what the material is above the bay window. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied painted sheetmetal and not copper. Commissioner Garakani asked the reason for the height limitation for the gazebo. Planner Lata Vasudevan explained that this is a Code requirement that states that separate accessory structures cannot exceed 12 feet in height. The Planning Commission can approve up to 15 feet if the required findings can be made. ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that staff does not believe these findings can be made in this case. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct: Mr. Kalkunte, Applicant, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that his earlier designed proved to be too expensive to construct. • Stated that they plan to preserve the mature landscaping on this property. • Introduced his project architect, Mr. Glen Cahoon. Mr. Glen Cahoon, Project Architect: • Assured the Commission that he is familiar with Saratoga's limitation of one woodburning fireplace. • Added that the woodburning fireplace in this home would be in the family room. The second is a non-woodburning fireplace. • Said that the fencing design is on the table. • Reminded that Fruitvale is a very heavily traveled road. • Pointed out that there are a tremendous number of mature oak trees and landscaping on this property. Instead of fencing some of this beautiful landscape outside of the property, they want to fence in such a way that it is within the property for the enjoyment of this family. • Added that Mr. Kalkunte has agreed to a three-foot high fence. • Said that the 12-foot high gazebo would be fine but he has designed it with the same pitch roof as the home for continuity. • Suggested that if he could retain the 15-foot height allowed with Planning Commission approval, he could retain the pitch. If he must reduce to 12 feet in height, the pitch of the roof for the gazebo would have to be lowered to accomplish that height. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the material over the living room bay window roof. Mr. Glen Cahoon said that that they had originally incorporated copper gutters and downspouts. He was told that the Commission does not like the use of copper so they have instead used sheetmetal painted, which will be beautiful as well. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this, can look more like copper-than copper itself. Chair Barry advised that the concern about use of too much copper is not aesthetics but rather environmental. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that if the fencing is to be higher than three feet, it would come to the Commission. If lower than three feet, it is handled at staff level. Chair Jackman pointed out that the proposed height of the gazebo is 16 feet. Mr. Glen Cahoon said that he could drop it to 15 or even 12 feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 7 Commissioner Roupe reminded that the 15-foot height means that the. roof pitch would not have. to be changed. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff why it did not feel the necessary findings could be made to support. the 15-foot height for the gazebo. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied privacy impacts as there is a home close behind it. Commissioner Zutshi asked how high the greenhouse is on the adjacent property. Mr. Kalkunte replied approximately 12 to 13 feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked if paving the pathway and driveway on grade would impact the access to the house due to the restrictions imposed to preserve the tree. Mr. Glen Cahoon said that the driveway area is level and it is doable to remain at grade. Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that the Arborist says the area outside the drip line is critical. Mr. Glen Cahoon: • Stated that there is no grading near the tree but rather further out. • Assured that they have looked carefully at the Arborist's report. • Added that the driveway is even further from the tree than with the previous plan. • Said he is confident that the requirements of the Arborist can be meta Mr. Kalkunte said that his earlier design was a challenge and that this one does not need to include excavation to have the garage. Commissioner Kurasch suggested a Condition to have a final landscape plan be reviewed by the Arborist. Mr. Kalkunte- thanked Planner Lata Vasudevan for her support. Said that he thinks this new design is tree friendly. Asked for the Commission's support and thanked them for their consideration. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that this project has a nice design and that he likes the house itself. It is well articulated and well placed on the property and protects the- oak. • Suggested that the fireplace be designated on the final drawings. • Said he had no objection to a 15-foot .height for the gazebo to allow architectural continuity and compatibility. Commissioner Barry: • Agreed with Commissioner Roupe. • Said that she was sorry that the previous project didn't workout as it was Mr. Kalkunte's dream house. 'Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 8 • Added that this design actually works better. • Thanked Mr. Kalkunte for preserving the herb garden .and said she is happy he is staying on the . property. and not selling. • Expressed appreciation for the use of sheetmetal over copper as she does not encourage use of lots of copper. • Said that she could go either way as far as the gazebo height and that while privacy is important, a 15-foot height is a reasonable compromise. • Stated that she sees the need for a few additions to the plans, including the designation on the plans for the placement of the one allowed woodburning fireplace, a landscape plan to include the treatment beneath the oak tree and to include the drawing in of the new fence. Said that she is happy with this project. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she is happy to see Mr. Kalkunte again. • Said that she thought this project is great. • Expressed pleasure with the thriving herb .garden on this property. • Added that she did not feel strongly about the gazebo and will listen to the others. • Mentioned that she has a gazebo on her own property.. • Congratulation Mr. Kalkunte on his nice project. Chair Jackman: • Pointed out that the house behind this one has few windows nearby. • Said that the 15-foot height for the gazebo is better so it allows the use of the same roof pitch as is used on the house itself. • Suggested some screening landscaping. • Declared that she likes the house better than the previous design. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she loves gardens and finds the gardens on this property to be magical. • Said she is happy that this garden has a good home. • Suggested that an Arborist oversee some of the critical operations of construction that may impact the oak tree. • Added that she is very supportive of this project and that this new design is a better house that she likes better than the last one approved-for this site. • Said that perhaps the issue of the gazebo could be continued if there are any reservations on the height although she stated she did not believe the three-foot difference would make much of a difference. • -Said that variances need to be taken seriously and that issuing a variance for the fencing at the front of this property might not be warranted. • Added that athree-foot wall would be complimentary to the property and area. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that the previous design was really interesting. • Added that. this new design represents a modest house over which she has no problem. • Stated that she has no problem supporting the 15-foot gazebo. ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 9 • Declared that the oak tree is beautiful and she would like to see anything necessary done to assure that this tree lives another 200 years. Commissioner Garakani: • Joked that he wanted to see the previous project constructed. • Said that this is a well thought out project and that he supports it fully. • Stated that there are no privacy impacts from the gazebo but may be some view impacts. • Added that since it is located in a corner previously occupied with a greenhouse there really is no issue with the 15-foot high gazebo in this case. • Stated that using a low pitch roof with an eight-foot wall does not look very good and supported the 15-foot gazebo so the same pitch roof as the house can be utilized. Director Sullivan said that staff would add the necessary findings to the draft resolution to indicate architectural compatibility, the ability to use the same pitch roof for both the main structure and gazebo and overall compatibility with the neighboring property, whose house is located closer to Fruitvale, are sufficient reasons to support the extra height for the gazebo. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02-080) to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue with the following conditions added: • That the gazebo be reduced to 15 feet in height; • That the final landscape plan be reviewed by the City Arborist regarding changes near the large oak tree; • That an Arborist oversee critical points of construction relative to the oak tree; • That the specific treatment is reviewed and approved for under the tree and called out in the landscape plan; and • That plan sheet 1 is applicable for the pathway; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Jackman reminded that this approval is final in 15 days. Commissioner Kurasch commended Mr. Kalkunte for his neighbor outreach efforts, efforts that should be a model for all applicants. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 10 APPLICATION #02-215 (517-22-003) - BORELLI, 20200 Hill Avenue: Request for Design Review to build a new single-family 6,730 square foot two-story home with a 1,780 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence would be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the- site is zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant seeks Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new 6,730 square foot home with a 1,780 square foot basement. Materials will include horizontal wood siding and a stone veneer, dark green trim and a slate the roof. Features include several small dormers that add interest and breaks up the facade. • Advised that the project meets residential design guideline policies. • Stated that this is a large -lot that allows significant setbacks. • Said that there are 100 existing trees including an Oak Forest in the rear of the lot, which will be preserved. There is significant landscaping in place that will be kept. There is a proposal to remove 14 trees and the Arborist recommends six replacement trees. The applicant proposes to provide 17 new trees and 85 new shrubs that will ring the property. ' • Stated that this proposal is in character with the neighborhood and will be in harmony with the surrounding area. • Said that an issue was raised at the site visit on the subject of the driveway, which needs to be installed at grade per the Arborist's report to ensure the protection of the tree. This. will also be incorporated into the architectural drawings. • Informed that he had received a call from someone who said he had sent email messages to some of the Commissioners outlining concerns. However, after this person visited the site after the story poles were in place and called back to say he is now fine with-this project. • Recommended that the Planning Commission grant the Design Review Approval with required findings and conditions. Commissioner Zutshi asked if staff is aware of the specific concerns of that one neighbor. Planner John Livingstone said he is not sure. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that it appears the eastern swale for drainage might have possible impacts on several trees. Planner John Livingstone said that this has been redesigned. Commissioner Hunter asked if this is the largest house approved. Planner John Livingstone replied that the basement space does not count Director Tom Sullivan replied that Code allows up to an 8,000 square foot home. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Vince Borelli, Owner and Applicant, 20200 Hill Avenue, Saratoga, introduced- himself and his architect, Greg Hagey. Mr. Greg Hagey, Project Architect, Korth, Sunseri, Hagey Architects: ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 11 • Thanked the Commission. • Stated that he has worked with Planner John Livingstone to get this project to this point: • Described the site as one and three-quarters of an acre that slopes from the southwest gently to the northeast corner. The site has over 100 trees. • Said that they worked to-place the house to preserve trees. • Said that the home has a tailored look at the street frontage and is well .within setbacks. The .driveway uses uni-pavers. The back of the site will be left in its natural state with- the only influence on the canopy being a meandering pathway; small arbor and gazebo. ,Additionally, two low fence portions will allow a deer path. • Said that the house placement is based upon the contours of the site and the. house nestles into the site. The one story frames the two-story element. The home has a nice sense of scale and the lower one-story wings incorporate wood siding. The large. size of the lot allowed them to distribute the mass through one-story elements. Clearstory elements gives natural light. The roofing is slate and aback terrace is included. • Stated that they are proud of the effort here and that this home would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. • Pointed out that one significant oak tree is embraced by the living room and south bedroom wing. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the project Arborist is present. Mr. Doug Anderson, Anderson Tree Service, San Jose, identified himself as the project Arborist. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the structure of Tree No. 82 and whether it is okay. Mr. Doug Anderson replied that all the trees are mature trees with no significant structural concerns. Added that from the ground, everything looks fine. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Anderson about a pine tree next to the oak and what his assessment is on that tree and whether it warrants removal. Mr. Doug Anderson replied that there is no reason to remove it at this time although it does lean a little. Commissioner Garakani said that it looks like overcrowding is occurring. Mr. Doug Anderson said that if it were to be removed it would leave a big hole and it is better off remaining in place. It would take several years to fill in the space should the tree be removal and replaced. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Anderson if he would be the consulting Arborist for this project. Mr. Doug Anderson replied yes. Commissioner Zutshi mentioned a coast live oak tree and asked Mr. Anderson for his assessment of that tree. Asked if he concurs with the City Arborist's recommendations. Mr. Doug Anderson said that he did not think this tree requires pruning to allow construction. He supported padding the area beneath the tree to prevent soil compression during construction. - 'Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 12 Planner John Livingstone pointed to Condition 24 that requires the final landscape plan and grading and drainage plan be reviewed by the City's Arborist. Commissioner Hunter asked whether if a tree from within a cluster of four is removed, would intertwined roots throw the remaining trees off balance. Mr. Doug Anderson said that this could damage some roots but should not impact the remaining trees' ability to survive. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether not having the drive on the right side so two trees are no impacted had been considered. Mr. Greg Hagey replied no. He added that the turnout is required for additional parking on that side as well as for emergency vehicle drive through. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the small two-car garage for a house of this size. Mr. Greg Hagey replied that just a couple will reside in this home rather than an extended family. Commissioner Barry asked how many bedrooms are included in this home. Mr. Greg Hagey replied three. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that the tree issues confused her. • Said she has a problem with the huge size of the home for this lot: Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed that this is a maximum size home but that it fits better than other large homes. • Added that much of the tree canopy is retained. • Said she is not wild about paving but the sentiment is in the right direction. • Stated that including the openings to allow deer access is sweet. Chair Jackman: • Agreed that this is a larger home but that it is located at the back and does not look as large. • Said she liked the design and the number of trees. • -Said she liked the walkway for deer and the fact that the back of the lot is kept in its natural state. • Asked about the height for. the gazebo. Mr. Greg Hagey replied 12 feet. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that this is a very large home but also very handsome. • Stated that she loves the natural pathways and that this project sounds wonderful and would be a great asset for the street. ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 13 • • • • Wished the applicant good luck. Commissioner Barry: • Agreed that this is a huge house. • Stated that she is not happy with the amount of cut required with 1,400 cubic yards, but that there is no basis to refuse simple on the issue of cut. • Described this as a huge home but said that the integration of the house. on the property is well done and that she cannot find good reason or basis to deny the size of this house. • Suggested a condition to maintain the rear portion of the property as an open Oak Forest with .natural existing landscaping maintained and not turned into a manicured garden. • Said that having Arborist supervision is very necessary on this project. Commissioner Garakani asked how copper is being used. Planner John Livingstone replied for gutters. Commissioner Barry agreed that this use of copper is reasonable. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that this is a very nice design and that the use of horizontal siding mitigates the mass by pulling it down. • Said that this is a nice home that is a good fit for the neighborhood.. • Endorsed this proposal. Chair Jackman suggested that it be written into the deed that the back third of the property be retained in its natural state. Commissioner Hunter stated that she. would not even consider imposing that condition. Commissioner Kurasch added that it is not within the nexus of this review to require that.; Added that this is not the same situation as the Sobrato project, which was.designated as open space. Director Tom Sullivan said that while the Commission could do that when appropriate, it is not appropriate in this particular instance. The Sobrato property had scenic easements. Chair Jackman agreed that such a restriction could hurt property value. Commissioner Barry said it would be important that the landscape plan reflect indigenous trees and shrubs. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this could be addressed in the Conditions of Approval requiring that the rear woodland be maintained. This runs with the house and property forever. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a harsh thing to do to the property and reminded that this is a flatland parcel. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the woodland area is on their landscape plan. .. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 14 Chair Jackman said that this is a beautiful plan, she calls it a mansion, that fits into the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani said that everything looks good. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02-215) to allow the construction of a new single-family residence on property located at 20200 Hill Avenue with the added condition that there be Arborist supervision during critical construction phases as determined by staff, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan thanked outgoing Commissioners Kurasch, Jackman and Roupe, saying that he has enjoyed working with them and that he is very proud of the Commission. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is lad that Commissioner Barry decided to stay on the Commission g for an additional year. Commissioner Kurasch said that she looks forward to addressing the Planning Commission as a private citizen. . COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter asked for a Tree Ordinance Update. Director Tom Sullivan advised that a Council subcommittee, consisting of the Mayor and Councilmember King, have been given materials to review and he will meet with them in the future. Added that he is confident that it will end up with about 85 percent of the Commission's work as a final. Tree Ordinance. Commissioner Hunter advised that she recently attended the Heritage Preservation Commission and Business Development meeting. . Commissioner Barry asked if the Heritage Preservation Commission would consider a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought that was an excellent idea. • ,. 'Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2003 Page 15 ~, Commissioner Kurasch thanked everyone for the opportunity to serve Commissioner Zutshi reminded that any interested Commissioners could still schedule a special Library Tour. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOi:fRNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. to a joint CounciUCommission Retreat on Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 9 a.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION O~~ a~ DATE: Wednesday, Apri123, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Director Tom Sullivan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Schallop Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ELECTION OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission elected Commissioner Hunter to serve as Chair and Commissioner Zutshi to serve as Vice Chair for the next 12 months. (5-0-2; Commissioners Barry and Schallop were absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of Apri19, 2003. Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 2003, with two minor corrections to page 5. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Barry and Schallop were absent and Chair Hunter abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication items REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to .Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 17, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri123, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR- ITEM NO.1 *** APPLICATION #02-039, SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Appeal of An Administrative Decision: The Saratoga Homeowners- Association has filed an appeal of an administrative decision made pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50:120, Tree Regulations, Violations Penalties. The administrative decision requires $35,439.00 in .cash and $17,719.50 in native replacement trees for removing a total of 12 trees without a City issued .tree removal permit. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (APPLICANT. HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 25, 2003) Motion: The Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02-039, Appeal by the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association of an Administrative Decision, to the meeting of June 25, 2003. (5-0-2; Commissioners Barry and Schallop were absent) **~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-029 (386-10-007) TRIEU 18480 PROSPECT ROAD: The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit approval to establish an internet access center. The proposed center shall include access to personal computers with high speed wired and wireless internet connections, as well as. access to the latest hardware and software systems. The proposed center will also accommodate individual and group training on personal computers for various types of professional certifications. Audio and video conferencing capabilities will also be available at the center. The site is zoned neighborhood commercial. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: •~ Advised that the .applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to establish an internet access center at the Saratoga City limits with San Jose. • Stated that the zoning for the property is commercial. • Described the proposed business as providing access to personal computers, high-speed .wireless access, training and audio/video conferencing: • Informed that access to any sort of pornographic and gambling sites would be blocked. • Said that with a staff proposed reduction from 35 terminals to 20 terminals, staff is recommending approval of this Use Permit. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the Condition within the draft Resolution is clarified to include the blocking of access to any gambling sites in addition to the blocking of all pornographic sites. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous agreed that this should be done, adding that at the time the Resolution was drafted she was unaware that it was possible to also block gambling sites. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Mi Trieu, Applicant: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2003 Page 3 • Introduced her brother, and business partner, Tony Trieu. • Stated that due to the downturn in the economy, they are developing a safe environment for the home-based businessperson. A location that will provide them with a professional facility to conduct meetings. • Advised that she also works from her home and that having a meeting in a center such as this one is .preferable to trying to conduct such a meeting from home. • Stated that this will be their second location. Their cell phone access business, called Mobile Fusion, opened three months ago on Saratoga Avenue in San Jose. Chair Hunter advised that she visited the proposed location on Prospect as well as the existing business on Saratoga Avenue and thanked the Trieus for their invitation to visit both sites. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the ability to block access to gambling sites. Ms. Mi Trieu assured that she wants to operate strictly a professional establishment without allowing access to either gambling or pornographic sites and that both filtering and software will be employed to block access to undesirable sites. Commissioner Nagpal asked the Trieus whether the business would still be .viable with the staff- recommended reduction in the number of terminals from 35 to 20. ` Was that recommendation acceptable and could they live with that reduction. Ms. Mi Trieu replied that their lease is very affordable and that this reduction to 20 terminals would not • become a financial problem for their company. Added that more tables and chairs would also be available for other services and/or meetings. Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that the plan includes .additional seating in addition to the 20 allowed terminals. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the reason for limiting the number of terminals is due to parking concerns. Asked if this alternative of having additional seating still deals within the parking concerns. Asked the Trieus what their peak hours of operation would be. Ms. Mi Trieu replied that at Mobile Fusion, their peak hours occur after 4 p.m. She added that their goal is to conduct training in the mornings from 9 a.m. to noon. Commissioner Garakani asked staff for the reasoning behind the recommendation to limit the terminals to 20. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that per a strict interpretation of the Parking Requirements as outlined in the Municipal Code, this site is already full. Added that despite this fact, the parking appears adequate on site to accommodate this business. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the business be allowed to start with 20 terminals. Later they can come back to add additional terminals in the future. • Commissioner Na al ointed out that if there are other people at the business in addition to the 20 gP P using the provided terminals, limiting this business to 20 terminals may be pointless. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri123, 2003 Page 4 Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous said that the applicant will be providing revised plans and suggested that the specifics of space use be left to staff to finalize. Ms. Mi Trieu said that she has done a lot of research in finding a site. Added that she spoke with the landlord. of the adjacent property next door about the. use of parking on that site that is currently underutilized. . Commissioner Zutshi asked if any digging for optical line would be done at this time. Ms. Mi Trieu replied that this is not a financially viable option for them right now and is not a part of their current business plan. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is a T-1 line. Ms. Mi Trieu replied yes, the T-1 line is already there. Commissioner Zutshi pointed-out that no printers are depicted on the floor plan. Ms. Mi Trieu advised that the three printers are located behind the counter since use fees will be charged per sheet printed, which must be monitored by staff. Commissioner Zutshi asked why televisions were proposed. Ms. Mi Trieu re lied that these televisions would be used for videocassette training as well as to P provide access to information, including CNN news coverage. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this could also lead to an increase in traffic. Ms. Mi Trieu: ~ Said that Mobile Fusion has four terminals as well as a lounge area. • Pointed out that patrons cannot stay on line continuously as there are access fees involved. Instead, they need other places available to conduct work that does not require Internet access connection. • Added that she does not envision parking as a concern at this new location. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that See's Candy has seasonal busy periods and questioned availability of necessary parking to serve all businesses during those peak sales times. Ms. Mi Trieu replied that she spoke with the General Managers of See's Candy, Round Table Pizza, the drycleaners and salons. None were concerned about this new business being established in their center. Reminded that there are also lots of parking spaces in the back. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the maximum class size. Ms. Mi Trieu "replied 20 students. Commissioner Uhl sou ht clarification that all the businesses have been contacted, not just the larger g ones. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri123, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Mi Trieu said she spoke with all the businesses and received positive feedback from each .one. Commissioner Uhl asked if any expressed concerns. Ms. Mi Trieu replied no. She added that they are happy to have something different in this space, which was formerly occupied by an antique shop. She said that the other business owners believe her clients would result in additional business for the adjacent businesses in the center. Commissioner Uhl asked about Internet access for children and how that would be handled. Ms. Mi Trieu replied that any children younger than 12 would be required to have a signed parental permission slip. There will be different access level terminals to ensure safety for children. Commissioner Uhl asked staff if this requirement is called out in the Resolution. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Trieu if she would object to including this requirement for parental permission for children to use the Internet services. Ms. Mi Trieu replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether the drycleaners next door has separate ventilation systems and whether the workstations would be ergonomic. Ms. Mi Trieu: • Pointed out that the drycleaning is outsourced and does not occur on these premises. • Added that there is a separate ventilation system for the two units. • Said that the workstations would have leather seats and that her IT staff would select proper ergonomic furnishings for the terminals. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Trieu if she would have any problems encouraging her staff to park behind the building to leave spaces in front for the customers. Ms. Mi Trieu replied this would be no problem. Commissioner Zutshi added that it would be nice to encourage regular customers to park in the back too. There were no members of the audience wishing to address Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Mi Trieu: • Assured that they have set up this business based on ethics. • Expressed confidence that they will be successful in Saratoga and good for the community. • Stated that this is a great opportunity to have a successful business and give back to the community. Chair Hunter thanked the Trieus again for the opportunity to visit both locations. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri123, 2003 Page 6 Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Garakani stated that everything looks good. Commissioner Nagpal expressed support for this Use Permit with the proposed additions- to the Conditions previously discussed: to require screening against access to both gambling and pornographic sites; to require written parental permission for children younger than 12 to access the internet and to require employees to park at the rear of the building as well as encouraging repeat customers to do the same. Commissioner Uhl expressed appreciation. to the Trieus for their outreach efforts to the other businesses at the center. Said that. it appears they have done very thorough research and that this proposal looks good. . Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of an internet access center on property located at 18480 Prospect ' Road with the added conditions: • To require screening/filtering to prohibit access to both gambling .and pornographic sites; • To require written parental permission for children younger than 12 to access the internet; and • To required employees to park at the rear of the building as well as encouraging repeat customers to do the same, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Uhl and Zutshi - NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Schallop ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter reminded that there is a 15 day appeal period. *~* DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no pirector's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Committees as Discussion Items Director Tom Sullivan advised that future agendas will include Committee reports to allow discussion and update on these Committees' activities as necessary. Meetin with Council Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri123, 2003 Page 7 Chair Hunter asked for additional information about the Saturday meeting with Council: Director Tom Sullivan advised that in the ast Council would meet with Commissions each Tuesda P y and decided to move this type of interaction to a single Saturday. Chair Hunter asked how long this would take. Director. Tom Sullivan replied that the Planning Commission's session with Council would last about 15 minutes and would begin at noon. Zoning Ordinance Update Commissioner Uhl reminded that the Zoning Ordinance review was continued to the next meeting and asked if materials would be provided in advance. Director Tom Sullivan said that the materials previously distributed have been revised a bit and that new copies would be distributed-prior to the meeting. COMMUNICATION5 Written City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on Apri12, 2003. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. to the next Regular Planning .Commission meeting of May 14, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: #02-248/20665 Lomita Avenue David and Ann Katz Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner~j/ May 14, 2003 517-08-042 Department -- _. ~__.. :- ~. ~ , ,. _w,~ " .. S ~_ W `~~ E, ~ S ~~I • 20665 Lomita AVenue Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue . CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11/06/02 03/24/03 04/12/03 04/30/03 04/23/03 The applicant has requested Design Review Approval and two Variance Approvals to demolish the main structure and construct atwo-story home. The existing 562 square foot detached cottage (second dwelling unit) at the rear portion of the site will remain. The proposed home will be 2,661 square feet and will have a maximum height of 23 feet. The applicant has requested two Variance approvals for the proposed new home to: (1) exceed the maximum allowable floor area for all structures on the site by 559 square feet; and (2) encroach within the required setbacks for the first and second stories. The lot has a net site area of 7,570 square feet'and is zoned R-1-10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the application by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Letter from applicant 3. Letters from neighbors 4. Photos of the existing structures on site 5. City Arborist Report, received December 19, 2002 6. -Public Notice Mailing List and Affidavit of mailing 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit A • Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue • i• i~ ZONING: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: R M-10 (Residential -Medium Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 8,570 sq. ft (gross); 7,570 (net) sq. ft. -The net square footage is based on the gross square footage minus the portion of the lot within Lomita Avenueright-of-way. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7.2% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing 97 cubic yards of cut and approximately 97 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be cream- coloredhorizontal wood siding with off-white wood trim and composition roofing. '~~~~®~ Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 45% 60% Building Footprint 2,416 sq. ft. Driveway/Parking Patios 1,120 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious 3,536 sq. ft. 4,542 sq. ft. Surface) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Existing Home 1,058 sq. ft. (to be demolished) First Floor 1,121 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,131 sq. ft. Garage 409 sq. ft. (Basement) (295 sq. ft.) Existing Cottage 562 sq. ft. TOTAL 3,223 sq. ft. 2,664 sq. ft.i Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 25 ft. 25 ft. Rear ls` Floor 64 ft. 25 ft. 2nd Floor 69 ft. 35 ft. Left Side 15t Floor 6 ft. 2 6 ft. 2nd Floor 10 ft. 11 ft. Right Side ls` Floor 5 ft. 6 ft. 2na Floor 15 ft. Tl ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 23 ft. 26 ft. 1 The maximum allowable floor area for this lot is 2,880 s q. ft. However, according to Municipal Code Section 15-45.030(f), the maximum allowable floor area for all structures is reduced by 1.5% for each foot above 18 ft. maximum building height. Therefore, the allowable floor area of 2,664 sq. ft. is based on the proposed maximum building height of 23 feet. z From the edge of the stairway leading to cellar. ~ai~®~~"~ Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested Design Review and Variance approvals to demolish the existing one-story 1,058 square foot home and construct atwo-story 2,661 sq. ft. residence with an attached garage. The new home will have a 295 square foot basement in the same area as the existing cellar. The maximum building height will be 23 feet. The applicant proposes atwo-car attached tandem garage. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-35.040(d), the Planning Commission may permit this parking configuration. The site has several large Oaks towards the rear of the property. Tree #1 labeled on the attached Arborist Report no longer exists due to damage caused by heavy rains. Tree #3, a Coast Live Oak will require removal in order to construct the proposed home.' The Arborist has required replacement trees as well as mitigation measures to protect-the other trees on the property. The proposed Victorian style home is compatible. with other homes in the area and is very well-proportioned. In addition to the standard .noticing conducted by the City, the applicant has contacted each of the surrounding neighbors (see attached letters) who have indicated support for the project. The proposed home implements all of the policies of the Residential Design Guide Guidelines. However, approval of this project application is contingent upon the granting of two Variances. The applicant is seeking a Variance to exceed the maxunum allowable floor area for all structures by 559 square feet. The applicant is also seeking a Variance to allow the proposed home to encroach by 1 foot into the .required side yard setback of 6 feet on the ground floor and by 1 foot within the required side yard setback of 11 feet for the second floor. As discussed below, Staff is unable to recommend approval of the two Variance requests based on the analysis of the Variance findings stated in MCS 15-65.140. VARIANCE REQUESTS: Analysis of [variances Granted at Properties in the Vicinity of the Subject Site Staff reviewed Variances that were granted in the past to properties in the vicinity of the subject site. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether there are any similarities in the circumstances in which the Variances were granted in comparison with the subject application. According to available records, the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property that have obtained Variances are labeled on the map below: • "~~®~~~ Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue A. 14690 Oah Street -File No. V-94-019: Project proposed a 625 square foot addition to an existing home on the Heritage Resources-List (Van Arsdale House built c. 1900). The total proposed floor area including the detached garage was 2,277 square feet. The Planning Commission granted a Variance to allow the addition to encroach within the exterior side yard setback. The Variance was granted primarily because the lot is further restricted as a corner lot with the increased exterior side yard setback of 15 feet. Though similar in size, the lot in the subject application #02-248 is not a corner lot subject to more stringent side yard requirements.. B. 14684 Oah Street -File No. V-86-005: Upon appeal to the City Council, a Variance was granted to construct a detached garage having a side yard setback of 3 feet where 6 feet is required. Based on the location of the existing home, the Ciry Council determined that access to the proposed detached garage would be unreasonably impaired if the, garage were situated 6 feet from the side property line. It is important to note that the Municipal Code has since been amended such that any accessory structure can now be situated anywhere on the lot upon the granting of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission, and not a Variance. C. 14678 Oah Street -File No. V-90-011 and V-91-007: In the first application, the Planning Commission denied a Variance to allow both a main residence and a detached garage to be constructed within required setbacks. The Planning Commission found that the applicant • could provide a reasonable sized home on this property that would conform to the setback ~ ~o®oos Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue requirements in the zoning district. In the second application, the Planning Commission granted a Variance to allow a detached garage to be constructed within required setbacks. As noted above, Variances are no longer required for accessory .structures in required setbacks. D. 20620 Komina Avenue -File No. V-87-001: The Planning Commission. granted a Variance to allow a garage addition to be constructed within the front yard setback because the placement of the existing structures precluded an alternate location for the 2-car garage.. The pre-existing home - as well as other homes in the neighborhood- did not have an enclosed garage on the property. The subject application #02-248 is proposing demolition of the existing structure and entirely new construction. The existing cottage is situated at the rear portion of the property. Therefore, there are no existing structures that would necessarily preclude compliance with the minimum setback requirements: . E. 20574 Komina Avenue -File No. V-90-013: The Planning Commission granted a Variance to allow the construction of a two-story addition. to encroach into a required front yard setback because it felt that any other development alternatives would be far more impactful on the mature trees and koi pond on the property. Such a situation justifying an encroachment into the side yard setbacks does not exist on the subject application #02- 248. Discussion of variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Allowable F1oorArea at the Subject Site The maximum allowable floor area for the 7,570 (net) square foot site is 2,880 square feet. Pursuant to MCS 15-45.030(f); the maximum allowable floor area for all structures is reduced by 1.5% for each foot above 18 feet of maximum building height. Since the applicant is proposing a 23-foot high structure, the maximum allowable floor area for all structures on the site is 2,664 square feet. Since the applicant proposes to keep the existing 562 square foot cottage at the rear of the property, the total floor area for all structures on the site will be 3,223 square feet, which exceeds the maximum allowable floor area by 559 square feet. The applicant has submitted copies of Sanborn maps, which indicate that the existing cottage was built sometime between 1918 and 1930. Pursuant to the newly adopted ordinance on second dwelling units, MCS 15-56, this structure is automatically grandfathered as a legal second dwelling unit because it was constructed prior to August 18, 1984. Pursuant to MCS 15-56.030(b) of the new Second Dwelling Unit ordinance, the applicant may choose to deed restrict the existing cottage as a below market rate unit, whereby the applicant can obtain a one time 10% increase in site coverage and allowable floor area. According to the calculations below, even if the applicant chooses to deed restrict the existing second dwelling unit, the proposal would still result in an excess of 293 square feet above the maximum allowable square footage: 2,880 sq. ft. + 10% of 2,880 = 3,168 sq. ft. 3,168 sq. ft. - 7.5%(3,168) = 2,930 sq. ft. (floor area reduction pursuant to MCS 15-45.030(f)) ~~~~~ Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue 3,223 sq. ft. - 2,930 = 293 sq. ft. In order to approve a Variance application, the Planning Commission must make all of the required Variance findings, stated in MCS 15-70.060, in the affirmative. If any one of the findings cannot be made, the Variance request must be denied. The following is a discussion of the first Variance finding, which Staff finds is most critical in analyzing this Variance request. The first Variance finding states: That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district: At Staff's request, the applicant has submitted a letter providing justifications for seeking a Variance request. This- letter is attached. The applicant states that the existence of the cottage is a special circumstance in that it is a historic feature not found on other properties in Saratoga. The cottage is approximately 77 years old and was once the primary dwelling on the lot. The main structure on the property was built later in 1950. The applicant states that including this cottage -which cannot be removed because of its historic significance.- towards the total allowable square footage would not allow a reasonable sized main home. This cottage is currently not on the City's Heritage Resources Inventory. However, the City's Inventory is not comprehensive. If Staff finds that a structure may be a historic resource, it requires that the applicant obtain a report prepared by a licensed historic architect. A licensed historic architect will analyze the structure according to specific criteria to determine whether a structure is of historic significance and should be listed in a local, state or national register. Despite Staff's request, the applicant chose not to obtain a proper analysis to determine the cottage's historical significance from a licensed historical architect. However, regardless of historical significance, Staff is unable to support this Variance request. A Variance provides fora "hardship" exemption. The `special circumstance' stated in the above finding represents a hardship associated with the property. Staff finds that the existence of the cottage, regardless of its historic significance, is not a hardship. The cottage is a habitable structure that the applicant can use, or lease to another person. Moreover, Staff does not agree with the applicant's statement -that. including the square footage of the cottage in the total floor area calculations impairs the ability to build a reasonable sized main dwelling. The applicant acknowledges in the attached letter that the second dwelling unit can be included in Saratoga's inventory of affordable housing units. As discussed above, a one time 10% bonus in floor area and site coverage can be granted if the cottage is deed restricted as a below market rate unit. According to calculations, with the 10% bonus, the new home can be a maximum 2,606 sq. ft. (3,168 square feet - 562 sq. ft. (cottage)). The 2,606 sq. ft. maximum allowable square footage is based on a structure not . exceeding 18 feet is height. This is not an unreasonable sized home. The applicant does ~~~~08 Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue have the option of proposing a home that is less than 23 feet in height, whereby minimizing the further maximum floor area reduction based on height contained in MCS 15-45.030(f). The subject 7,570 square foot lot is substandard in that the standard lot size for this zoning district is 10,000 square feet. According' to MCS 15-45.030 the Planning Commission determines the allowable floor area in cases where the lot is less than 5,000. square feet. However, for all other lot sizes, the total allowable floor area is clearly defined and is a function of the net lot size regardless of the zoning district. Justifiably, asmaller -lot size will have a lower allowable floor area than a larger lot. Given the fact that the applicant is able to construct, a reasonably sized home per the calculated allowable floor area, Staff does not see any special circumstance in terms of the size, shape or topography of the subject property. Discussion of variance Request to F_iicroach within the Minimum Required Side Yard Setbacks -The applicant is seeking a Variance to encroach 1 foot into the required side yard setback of 6 feet at the first story (east elevation) and by 1 foot within the required side yard setback of 11 feet at the second story (west elevation) setback requirement. In the attached letter, the applicant has provided justifications for requesting this Variance. Again, in analyzing this request in terms of the first Variance finding described above, Staff does not see any special circumstances applicable to this property that would justify- such a minor setback encroachment. In reviewing the submitted floor plans, the design can be modified such that there is little to no change to the interior space of the rooms. The 50-foot width of the lot is substandard for this zoning district. However, the MCS 15- 65.160 already provides an exception for side yard requirements for substandard lot. widths. (The side yard setback for a lot which meets the standard width of 85 feet for this. zoning district is 10 feet, whereas the side yard requirements for the subject lot is 6 feet.) Staff does not see a plausible reason to provide any further exceptions for this lot by granting a Variance. Unlike some of the previous Variances granted at neighboring properties, there are no existing structures on the site that would justifiably hinder compliance with the setback requirements. Also in reviewing the Arborist Report (attached), Staff does not feel that a 1-foot modification would have any more impacts on the Ordinance size trees on the property than the submitted design. Therefore, Staff is unable to support this Variance request. Required Variance Findings for both Variance Requests 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. . Variance request to exceed total allowable square footage on the property: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that the presence of the cottage, regardless of its ~~~~~9 Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue historic significance, is not a hardship constituting a special circumstance. The cottage is a habitable second dwelling unit. Moreover, the presence of the cottage does -not impair the ability to build a reasonable, sized main dwelling. Variance request to encroach into the minimum required side yard setbacks: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that MCS 15-65.160 already provides an exception for side yard requirements for substandard lot widths. Staff does not see a plausible reason to provide any further exceptions for this lot by granting a Variance. Since this is entirely new construction, the floor plans-can be modified to comply with the setback requirements. 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Variance request to exceed total allowable square footage on the property: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that the applicant is proposing a new structure. Since this is an older area of Saratoga, there may be structures built prior to current floor area requirements. However, in Staff's- view, these structures do not. set a precedent for new construction. All new construction in the ,vicinity is subject to the same floor area requirements as a function of the lot size. Moreover, in Staff's analysis of other Variances granted in the vicinity of the subject site, no known Variances for similar sized lots were granted to exceed the total allowable floor area for all structures. on the site. Variance request to encroach into the minimum required side yard setbacks: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that all new structures within this district are regulated by the same setback requirements. Staff has noted several setback Variances that were granted for properties in the vicinity of the subject site. However, most of the Variances were granted in the past for detached garages on lots with pre-existing homes. In other cases existing structures on the site prevented proposed- building addition of a garage to conform to the required setbacks: The Municipal Code has since been revised such that it now allows accessory structures (such as detached garages) to be located in any required setback subject to Planning Commission issuance of a Use Permit, and not a Variance. The subject project proposes new construction with an attached garage. There are no special circumstances on the subject property that prevent the applicant from complying with the required setbacks., 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. . Variance request to exceed total allowable square footage on the property: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that a total square footage above the allowable limit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. ~~~~~~~ Application #02-248; 20665 Lomita Avenue Variance request to encroach into the minimum required side yard setbacks: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the minor setback encroachment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Conclusion Staff finds that the project is fine in terms of its overall design and is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. However, approval of this application is linked to the granting of two Variances. Since, Staff is unable to make all of the necessary findings to grant the Variances, Staff recommends, that the Planning Commission deny the entire application #02-248, which seeks Design Review approval and two Variance approvals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Application #02-248 by adopting the attached Resolution. • • Attachment 1 I RESOLUTION OF DENIAL NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA KATZ; 20665 LOMITA AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval and two Variance Approvals to demolish the main structure .and construct a 2,661 square foot two-story home. The applicant has rec{uested two Variance approvals for the proposed new home to: (1) exceed the maximum allowable floor area for all structures on the site by 559 square feet; and (2) to encroach within the required setbacks for the first and second stories; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, The proposed home is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality .- Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, while the proposed project implements all of the policies of the Residential Design Guide Guidelines, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for two Variance approvals, in that the following findings have been determined for both Variance requests: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive ,the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Variance request to exceed total allowable square footage on the proper :This finding cannot be made in the .affirmative in that the presence. of the cottage, regardless of its historic significance, is not a hardship constituting a special circumstance. The cottage is a habitable second dwelling unit. Moreover, the presence of the cottage does not impact the ability to build a reasonable sized main dwelling. Variance request to encroach into the minimum required side yard setbacks: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that MCS 15-65.160 already provides an exception for side yard requirements for substandard lot widths. Staff does not see a plausible reason to provide any further exceptions for this lot by granting a Variance. Since this is entirely new construction, the floor plans can be modified to comply with the setback requirements. 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.. Variance request to exceed total allowable square footage- on the property: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that the applicant is proposing a new structure. Since this is an older area of Saratoga, there may be structures built prior to current floor area requirements. However, in Staff's view, these structures do not set a precedent for new construction. All new construction in the vicinity is subject to the same floor area requirements as a function of the lot size. .Variance request to encroach into the minimum required side yard setbacks: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in-that granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that all new structures within this district. are regulated by the same setback requirements. The subject project proposes new construction with an attached garage. There are no special circumstances on the subject property that prevent the applicant from complying with the required setbacks: 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Variance request to exceed total allowable square footage on the property: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that a total square footage above the allowable limit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Variance request to encroach into the minimum required side yard setbacks: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the minor setback encroachment will not be detrunental to the public health, safety or welfare. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the Application #02-248 for Design Review and Variance approvals has been denied. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City-Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen. (15) days from the date of adoption. ~~ ~~~~.~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the.City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of May 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: .Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission i~ ~.."~U~'~.5 •I Attachment 2 ~~ March 1 2003 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ -. ~ . :MAR 2 4 2003 Lata Vasudevan C1TY OF SARATOGA City of Saratoga Planning Department -~~*~nnuN~TV nFvF~ ~°"^~_ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue .~ ~ ~~~~~~ Saratoga, CA 95070 ~ ~ ~I~~ 13 Re: 20665 Lomita Avenue 'v Application No. 02-248: Design Review, and Variance Applications Dear Lata: Following is additional information of how the proposed residence at 20665 Lomita Avenue, can meet variance fmding outlined. in Article 15-70.060: 1. With regard to our request to exceed the maximum allowable square footage: We . consider the secondary dwelling unit that currently exists on the rear half of the property to be a special circumstance. Adding the unit to the allowable .square footage seriously impacts the ability to develop a reasonably sized main dwelling. Although removing this unit to comply with the allowable square footage may not be considered a hardship for the client by staff, we do feel that fmdings can be made to support our variance request because it is a special feature not typically found on other properties in Saratoga. The second dwelling is approximately seventy-seven years old and was the original primary dwelling on the property. These findings were verified through the Sanborn fire insurance maps dated 1918 and 1930, as well as an aerial photograph showing the building. These documents were found at the San Jose library. This, we believe,, is of historical significance in that the exterior is essentially unchanged from the original design, which might be typical of the architecture for a local laborer's family from that era. Furthermore, the secondary dwelling can potentially be included in the Saratoga City inventory of affordable housing units. In my discussions with Tom Sullivan, he felt that the unit would grandfather in as a legal dwelling since it was built prior to 1984. 2. With regard to our request to exceed the minimum setback requirements of the first story on the East side, fmding for the variance can be made as follows: Because ofOrdinance-protected trees found at the rear half of the property, the proposed residence has been placed in a similar location to that of the existing residence. At the first floor, we are not proposing setbacks that are closer to the side property lines than that of the existing building. The first floor setback (5'- . 0") at the garage is actually 1'-0" greater than the existing, and is similar to those homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Since we are increasing the setback at • this side, and proposing aone-story building element that is lower in height than the existing building, findings can be made that granting the variance does not constitute a special privilege. In regard to the variance to exceed the minimum setback requirements for the second story on the West side, findings are made as follows: The second story is at 10'-0" which falls 1'-0" into the setback. This is on the building side that faces the rear yards of properties on Oak Street, which significantly decreases the impact. Two of these properties on Oak Street with the same sized lot as ours have second stories that are well within the allowable setbacks. Furthermore, due to our lot being a narrow substandard size, the integrity of the house design and associated living space would be significantly compromised. Therefore, granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege that is different than given previously within the neighborhood. S~incerely,~i ~` Ann Katz and David Katz • A~~ 1"~8 • • • Research on Cottage 20665 Lomita Avenue ~~~:o~~ ~ MAY 0 5 2003 C[TY OF SARATOGA ~n141MUNiTY DEVELOPM_F'''" Th.e Central San Jose Library had copies of the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps for the- South side of Saratoga (see enclosed copies of the maps). The maps were on microfiche, and included surveys of Saratoga performed in 1918 and updated in 1930. The 1918 map showed no primary dwellings on the tract, bounded presently by Oak St. (not including the -four historical houses on Oak St.), Aloha Ave., Komina Ave. and Lomita Ave. The updated 1930 map shows two houses; one is the cottage in question on Lomita and the other is on Komina directly behind the cottage. An aerial map of Saratoga from 1937 at the museum also shows the cottage, which is the only house on the street besides the old McCarty farmhouse. The Sanborn map drawing shows from an overhead perspective what each structure in the Village vicinity looked like, including construction materials (e.g. frame style), roof type (shingle), chimney type and number of stories. The cottage today looks exactly as it did in the 1930 drawing. The actual date that the cottage may have been built is estimated to be around 1925, since -the land was deeded to Joseph and Jennie Fama on February 5, 1924, from afive-acre tract owned by T.S. and Louise Montgomery. When I had called the San Jose Library (California Room) I spoke to one of the librarians who looked up a census report from 1920. It showed that there was a Joseph Fama in Saratoga who was listed as a laborer. In conclusion, the research indicates that this Cottage represents an example of a local laborer's dwelling from the era of 1920's Saratoga. Furthermore, since the McCarty house was near completely remodeled and expanded approximately eight ,years ago, the Cottage is the only remaining house on Lomita Avenue that exits in its original architectural state. Q~ ' lVB/!9P ~L: ' a' ~~`~~ i ~`~1~~(a/7JN1 s. /RC R[RRM. fR[ J4fn a /~fa/ yw-~a /.N II. LH<-f•/'Jd/// //JJ,at ! 4a WJ)' ,,~~/f ,.: N o cxPVJ. ~... /:. ~~: fimn fe/,.?aa ~teyera0(sYJ. re/,sa' ~ ~ ~ '_ OOt7~is/Jv! d //77.6~e /Y.0/J1m7t/ .. ~. ,~~~~^p~~•p. ~0117~~Ld/,Wpe AGY~/EfmfVi/ i~ ~-@t.. tibrf7/fir ~vI La/7flrN'.A: BJ f.'.. .fit": fl,.r ~.: Iy617f JAAIS~ pLy' /(I6lY. ~d/OT 3 5 I#MrLW'Lillby O'.~.r/!la/Id N/ni%1Q _ .Y, ,x I' /Il ~M [n LW.PJJp MH(i AR~~ .., w/lhry .. -t..^ J ~'/ .~ivlOt`rl' ~ !b/J/RA'ru aaro eN h~A' ~- P•% f•L. s (•RVro s<w :.w-.e, n'!ry'Jen' 86~~ Nf CLtl'~/!/L tao'eMm. Hatt. Of./n •. (Jar. f•a JJJfq .. . 9.e ~ ~ rJ ~~~: ~~o~ ~ 4 ,t ~~ ~. • ~...' ~. as~ ~ i ~ w - ~ .. . Gv ~f'. ~~ L9 ~ 19 i.]~ SC:: 4-~J' l: ' // ~-1. ~~•-~~ ;`; "~`~ .~ ~ . a:: ~~~ - _ ~ X -.. CGWR. /flN. /,930 aesr e.s w ~ o~~nut1 w nt r~muaa v aY~ J~repi! eJ~ A/~f~/of~~y~w~•:wrMr ~']~•pccM~a~e`/~ /`,f~/ ~/ . Q6/NF NAC. • ~ ~O rIf11 /M7/J.J ~ . NFF7 !/RE P[FCCS.; ELL+G. 4/dHhf t . ~. ..r, ... _ ~, ':., , ~s~E \ MAR 00 ! i 3, 1 2 3 ~.. "- `.r . - ' ~ ^. CI1Y OF'SARATOGA _ ,f - - _..~ - ~ ~ -' J?p1TU1'f~i r„-v.-i nZ• •- .. ~~' \ a ~ RE51 ~ _ ~,n L /ay.~ .L2 ~ / \ 95 99 93 ,92 9/ 9D. . B9 BB B7 eA, B5 BO B3 BI B/ ^~ ~" ~`~ . Bo 79 T1~` jx ~P LOS GATOS ~ ~- ~' s ~~ ~ a ~~ ~~ := n~/>" P e <. e~~ s u m a L u c ,z az .. w i a iw ~. 'Qf _ 1 n an ~ we. ~.w~. Jq ~ a s ~. ~ n .a ~;~. 7 _ B 9 ~ii a , a ° m _ B ... Y _ ~ '4 r- JY ' K r ~.SD .. .. - --Y-..w.. _ :%~ ~ ~ d i ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C /~ Grs[L'r. ~ 267 ~. ~ ~ s~ M~wf.,sawe a .~ d ~ r _ e ~ ',, J i i ~ a ~ c~c: ,ate.. ~. 1 :'` ~ r ~ ~ 6 .-r-- I s ' i ~ned~i / ' / y ~ t ---y_ _ w(w. E =r - d .. _ - ._ ~fi ~' 7Eisi4VN6LUMBf.Q ~ di~en' ~ ~.. p _ m'• ~7J'6E- AMT. /SgAao? 1, II cc r I j k pp A I nco Y ,: co # ~ ~ Fy3 ~r ~ tip s ~ Y;j, ___ .9 RM ~ ~. ;, ~ ~: ~'' G~Ct'r. zdo c~ts~ ~L~errx'J~ ~. 4) J I i ~ 0a ~ 7Xt~ RiS ~ E ~,~, , a s -I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ;lpa c 6 Iv r.. 7 iE~.~,,,, ~~ d Y' x o TEA,,gVN6L/IMBEiQ CG~ s/~n:' 4~ N . ,` r '"=s,, ' ~T ~ ^: r'~ 5 ^~ La?rbE+r.' Jhed Rv. ~. lC ~pr • n• rte. -~~ 1 r'r .,f~ ..~.~-~.. ~ 1 ~~ .fit.. v ~ £s! 0 ~ , ~ ~' ~', ~ , . ~~ ~ ~~fF~ 'e __ _ -. , ~ ~.. - ~: ~; ~t ~ ~ .~._• I mate ~;. ~ - ~. ~ u. i °~`?~c i ,w. NFA;. ~IF'(/70i/ 35~,C~~-. - Y .iisr'`~ °~~a: ~ ~ ~~ . - ~ .~...' .... ~ _ _ __ Q 1 i / /f ! ti -~.:: i r bs Fwo 4 t4i C 9k „+ ~:,~* ~' ~-~ ti ~~¢[Je r`; p t~ ~ Fri.,, e ~ u ;Pat+~) i ~. _ ~~~-c n-~ E' ~ .`m ~ c y ~ ~ ~ "~ ~~ ~ c c ~ ~ N c ~ ri ~ k Ste-.. ~,~ r~;, C k ~ ~+ 'a s ~; Neighbors who have Reviewed Plans for proposed project at. 20665 Lomita Avenue for David and Ann Katz Roeland and Megan van Krieken . 20655 Lomita Avenue (Directly next door to East). Bob and Pat Himel* 20670 Lomita Avenue (Directly across the street South) John and Kathryn Holt* 14690 Oak Street (Directly next door West) Robert and Elizabeth Nast 20645 Lomita Avenue (Neighbor) Edward Popa 20660 Lomita Avenue (Directly across the street catty-comer South East) * Letters of support enclosed •I • • ~~®a~~~ i• ,. i~ Attachment 3 ~'~0~2'7 i • • October 3`d, 2002 Dear Saratoga Planning Commission: My wife, Pat, and I live directly across the street from David and Anne Katz who live at 20665 Lomita Avenue here in Saratoga. The Katz's are planning on building a Victorian style house on their present property and have been sharing their plans with us as they have been designing the house. We understand what the building codes are here in Saratoga and support the variances the Katz's have requested from the Planning Commission. It is our belief that the lovely home they will be building will enhance the overall quality of our neighborhood and of the City of Saratoga. Sincerely ~'rr~~ -' ~~~ ~ Bob and Pat Himel 20670 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Phone: 408-867-0877 • ti'Q®~2~ ohn and Kath n Holt i J ry September 17, 2002 Saratoga Planning Department . City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Saratoga Planning Commission, We are both in full support of the proposed renovation by Mr. and Mrs. Davis Katz at 20665 Lomita Avenue. We have reviewed the plans to create a Victorian style residence, it is well, designed and when completed will add much to our neighborhood. We also understand that they are seeking a variance for an additiona1460 square feet in allowable total floor area. We are completely supportive of their request for a variance. We do not feel this small amount of square footage will be a detriment to the neighborhood and it will allow this structure to be come a home for their growing family. Again we want to stress that we are full agreement and completely support their request for this variance. Sincerely, c~ A. Holt ~~ i~ 14690 Oak Street Saratoga, California 95070 408-867-1993 ~ ~®~2~ Cl September 15, 2002 • Dear Saratoga Planning Commission, We have both review the Katz's plans for building a Victorian style house at 20665 Lomita- Avenue. We understand they are seeking a variance .for an additional 460 square feet in allowable total floor area.. We understand the Saratoga building codes and totally support their request for a variance for additional floor area. In addition, the plans are very considerate of our needs, as their neighbors to the east. The house is very well designed and we wish them many happy years in their new home. Sin rely, ~/G%--~ Roeland van Krieken Megan van Krieken 20655 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-867-9431 • • ~~®u~~ • Attachment 4 • :.,;~~~ :~ ~.~: _:ti ~'4.' j M1 .?:s .~ -'jJ~ ~~ ~~~ , ~... •. 20665 Lomita 'Main Structure .. ,~~ ~~~ 'i ~Y ~! • ii N T ~~ t. T ~ ~~: p c ` v? 4} d Xt.. ~~ C ~t h~ '~- ~. ~ 1 ~* } ~ a , , Y ~ r ~ ~.. !__i • 3 y`~=i,, 7Yf , [S • • • ~ ~t ~ ~„ ~ ~.- ~ ~ ti5 , _ of ~r~'`~ ~ ~~, Y ~__ _. ... _.. . ~?_ _ - _ _ ,_ -.. _, r ~. __ _ _ ~• "" -- ..., ,. __ ` .. Axs w it z -~ x .,.3; ~!£ ~~ s j ~ ~~~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~~~ i. ~~~~ ~_ ~ ~~~ r ~ti. . ~ "~' _._ :,~ ,...., ~_._ ..,4.n ,..~ ,_ . -" ~~ ~'~3®~~4 BARRIE D. COATE =: ~_ and ASSOCIATES ~~` Horticutural Consultants - ~ ~ ~ 23535 Surnrnit Road f"P~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 408353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE KATZ PROPERTY 20665 LOMITA AVE. SARATOGA i• i~ Prepared at the Request of Kristin Borel Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist November 21, 2002 Job #11-02-217 l~C~~~~~ ,,, U DEC 1 9 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA~'~~~;~~ TREE SURY~f' AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE KATZ PROPERTY 20665 LONf1TA AVE., SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence and to construct a new residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance: Recommendations aze included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by Britt and Rowe, Architects, Los Gatos, Sheets AO-A8, dated 7-01-02, and the Grading and Drainage Plan prepazed by Westfall Engineers, Saratoga, ,Sheets 1, 2, dated October 2002. Summary This proposal may expose 7 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #3 would be removed in order to construct the new residence. I recommend that it be replaced. Trees # 1 and 2 would not be expected to survive the construction of the foundation footing as proposed, but these trees . may be preserved if mitigation recommendations are followed. Procedures are suggested to protect the retained trees from construction practices that would likely pose significant risks to their well being. A bond equal to 30% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 7 trees on this site that may suffer some level of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The 7 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 -Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree # 4 - Deodaz cedaz (Cedrus deodara) The particulars regarding these.trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text.. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 7 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Fine 1,2,3 4,5,6 7 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions.. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. The root collars of Trees #2, 3, and 5 have been covered by potting soil bordered by a metal retainer to hold the soil around the base of the tree. Although no annuals exist at this time in these beds, it appeazs that these areas have been used to plant annual color, which appears to have been irrigated by hand. This condition exposes the root collazs of these trees to serious root collar diseases that have the potential of killing a tree if infected. I recommend that this soil be removed from the base of these trees including the metal retainer.. i PREPARED BY: MICH4EL L. BENCH, CONSULTINGARBORIST NOVEMBER 21. 2002 ~~~~~V TREE SURD"F_1"AND PR1~:SF.Ri%ATIOA' RECOhL1TEND.AT 10~1'SAT THE 1CATZ PROPERTY 20665 LOA•fITA AVE.. SARATOGA ~ cable has been stretched between Trees #2 and 6, I assume as support for the trees. It must be removed. Cables wrapped ound trunks girdle the trunks. Support cables must be installed by a trained azborist, using equipment designed for this use. Risks b Trees by Proposed Construction Tree #3 is in conflict with the footprint of the proposed new residence. l recommend that this tree be replaced: The plan proposes to construct a new cellar at approximately the same location as the existing cellar. The east end of the cellar, which is located inside the root zone of Tree # 1, is, located approximately 2 feet west of the existing cellaz east wall. Provided it would not be necessary to excavate further east than the existing east cellar wall to construct the new cellar, the root damage to Tree #1 should be minimal during this construction. Extending the cellar into the root zone will certainly cause significant root damage. The foundation footing of the proposed new residence would be located a few feet from Trees # 1 and 2. Both of these trees would likely lose an estimated 40-50% of their total root mass by the trenching for this footing. They would not be expected to survive this quantity of root loss. Even if the plan were designed with the new residence at the same location as the existing residence, the root damage to Tree #1 likely would be too severe to expect survival. In all likelihood, Tree # 1 has grown awell-developed root system under the existing residence. Obviously one option would be to remove Trees # 1 and 2. In this event, I recommend that two large coast live oak specimens be planted in the frontyard as replacements. Another option would be to construct the foundation, including the footing, by an engineered pier and beam design. In this event, a pier and on-grade beam design must be required, which would involve obtaining an engineered drawing that must be included in the construction plans. However, it would be essential that this design meet the following requirements in order to be effective in protecting the root systems of these trees: ~. The piers must be a minimum of 6 feet apart and no greater than 15 inches in diameter. 2. The digging of the piers must not damage or sever large roots. This means that the digging must be done such that no root bark injuries would occur. It also means that the piers may have to be relocated a few inches if a large root (2 inches in diameter or larger) is encountered. This would require that considerable care must be taken to dig the pier hoies_ This would only be necessary for any pier within l8 feet of the trunks of these trees. The digging can be done by hand, but the preferred method would be by the use of an air spade or a water jet. This would only be necessary for the first 24 inches of soil depth. 3. The beam sections, which span the piers, would have to be constructed completely on top of the existing grade. This includes the footing. No trenching or excavation may be done between the piers. Fill soil may be piled against the pier and beam foundation once constructed to create surface drainage from the new building. The Grading and Drainage Plan proposes a swale on the east side of the new residence between the foundation. and Tree # I, and a swale on the north, east, and south sides of the existing cottage located behind the proposed new residence. If a swale were to be accomplished by a soil cut, the adjacent trees would no doubt suffer some root damage. The trees that may be adversely affected by this would be Trees # 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In my experience, the root loss from this is usually moderate but can be severe. In my opinion, it would be essential to create this drainage objective by using fill soil instead of making a cut. However, the elevation of the foundation may have to be raised a few inches to achieve this objective.. At locations where fill soil may not be feasible, the affected trees may be severely damaged. Trees # 1, 4, 5, and 6 appear to be at significant risk. Since the lot is long and nazrow, the management of materials and equipment may be a rather significant risk to Trees # 1- 6. It appears that these trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that ~e typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the PREf'.4RF.D BY.• A4ICHAEL L. BENCH. CONSULTTNG ARBORIST NOL'EM$ER 2l, 2002 TREF. SURVEYAND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONSAT THE rCATZ PROPERTY 20665 LOMITA AVE., SARATOGA root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will- be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations- 1. I recommend that the foundation of the residence be constructed by a pier and beam design that meets the standards described in the previous section. I recommend that this design must be engineered, reviewed by the city arborist, and included in the approved construction plans. 2. I recommend that no soil cuts be made to construct the drainage Swale proposed around both the new residence and the existing cottage. I recommend that these proposed swales be constructed by the use of fill soil. If the elevation of the foundation of the new residence must be raised to achieve this objective, I recommend that. foundation be raised. 3: I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence `. must be in place before the arrival of any other materials or equipment and-must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must'not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. T'he contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 4. If Trees # 1 and 2 are retained, I recommend that a root buffer be required to protect the root systems from soil compaction primarily, while allowing workers to fimction on top of the root systems of these trees. A root buffer . consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full . sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. I recommend that the buffer be 8 foot wide (the length of plywood sheets) adjacent to the foundation. This allows for an 8 foot work space on top of the root buffer. Protective fencing must be in contact with the root buffer on the side opposite the foundation. This buffer is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This buffer must be installed in conjunction with the protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. At the time of the construction of the drain adjacent to the foundation, two feet of the root buffer nearest the foundation may be removed, but the remainder of the buffer must remain until given final approval. S. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the canopy driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 7. Any old imgation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut offat grade and left in the ground. 8. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees # 1, 2, and 4 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. ~ i PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTTNG ARBORIST NOVEMBER 21, 2002nnd~ QQ. . TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE KATZ PROPERTY 20665 LOMITA AVE., S4RATOGA 4 Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. rist and accordin to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 10. Any pruning must be done by an ISA cemfied arbo g 11. Landscape pathways and other hardscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. 12. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 13. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. 14. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum`of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 15. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. ~7. I recommend that the root collars of Trees #2 and 5 be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark.. This must be done by an ISA certified arborist or by a landscape contractor experienced with this procedure. The use of an air spade or pressure washer to remove the excess soil is preferred. A space of approximately 12 inches around the trunk must be exposed. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 18. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Tree #3 has a value of $5,165. This value is equivalent to one 48 inch boxed native specimen. An alternative equivalent would be four 36 inch boxed native specimens. Because of the limited space, I recommend the replacement tree be a. single larger specimen. Replacements are suggested. Tree #1 has a value of $4,635, and Tree #2 has a value of $5,209. If these trees are removed, I recommend that they be replaced based upon their value. At this point, I presume that Trees # 1 and 2 would be preserved. The combined value of the retained trees, including Trees #1 and 2, is $36,095. I suggest a bond equal to 30% ($10,825) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure their protection. Please be aware that 36 inch boxed specimens, or larger, and sometimes 24 inch boxed specimens a may not be available ~at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be PREPARED BY: M/CHAFE L. BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVF.A~fBER 21. 2002 ~.~~~~~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESER ~:9TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE KATZ PROPERTY 20665 LOMTI:9 AVE., SARATOGA 5 required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of pemuts. Crrowers will hold trees upon request. Thus, delivery may be scheduled after construction is completed. Acceptable native tree replacements are:. Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye -Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -.Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submitte 0 Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~.~ B e D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl.. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platfomn Buffer Map • • PREP.9RED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 21. 2002 ~'''~®~ `mss' (~ ' ,~~. - - ~°~-~ ~~ BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length .upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade; nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A smal I part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. ~ ~ ~: ~®~~ Job Title: Katz Job Address: 20665 Lomita Ave. Job # 11-02-217 ~ ~ ~~ n~ Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend. , 1 ~ I I I I t ~ I I I I I I ~ I I ' ' 1 I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I ~ I~~ 1 ~ ~ I~ I~ i BARRLE D COATE ' ~ ~ ' i 1 ' ~ ' { ~ ' ' ' ' i i i ~ ~ ~ : v I ' ~ ~ : ° ` -- W W Q and ASSOCIATES ~ ~~ I W I i . ~ ~ I I F- i I I I v I ~ ~ ~ °' ~ ; I Z ~ f- I ` ' ° ` ' _ ' 1 1~ I ~~ ~ I ~ ~ I w o ' ~' ' I I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ cn W~ u~ I ~ ~ i O "J 052 I w I ~ ~ Z ~ 1 ~ F Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ O ~ t p ~ $ p _ ~ ~ I ° ~ ~ ~ O ~ w ~ ~_ ~ w I ~ ~ ~ ~ o (408) 3531 I ~ eo ~~ I ~ I I " ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~~ I ~ I z F z z I O I z ~ ~ o ~ Z -' cn I C I I d w l ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ I°~ ~ r I ~ o! ¢ I ~ g ~ ~ I 1 ~ _ F I~ ~ 23535SummilRoad 'Lv ~ I I I o! '? w I z ~ ' ~ ~ `~ i I W~ I Z w l ~ ~ ~ W z a I p ~ p I O U l w ~ p p I ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ a ~ los Gabs, G 95030 I y ~ '~~ 1 ~ ~ I i I ~ I . ~ ° O I % F i V ~ ~ ~ ~ V I I ~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ W i ~ Z_ F ~ ~ (~j ~ `'S I ° ~ Y ~ V i V f2 ~ (2 i O > ~ , W QQ 2' W J i~ ° ~ ~ i i i° J i Z U I W i° i Z, O i O ~ W 1 W , (, _ I _ _ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ` p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 W i u~ ~ ? ~ O ~ O ~ I ~ w I z I w ~ w z I ~ w Key # Plant Name O ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ° _ ~ ~ 2 I cn ~ U ~ U ~ ~ U I U ~ U ~ U a I ° I o: ~ ~ 1 Coast Live Oak 18.0 ; ~ , ~ ~ 119 1 ~ 140 140 ~ ~ 1 1 I 2 ` 3 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ; I i I I I I I I Clusarcus a rifolia : I i ~. ! i ~ ° ~ s . in 254 X $27/sq . in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 90% _ $ 6,180 X loc. 75% _ $. 4,635 Total Value 2. Coast Live Oak 18.0 fi x= 15.0 ~ X19\7Z3 40 ~ 40 1~ 3 i 4~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ { I I I I { i t 13 I ~ I ~ I ' { i ~ t I I I I I I i I I I I I sq. in 343 X $27lsq . in. _ $ 9,261 X sp. class 100% _ $9,261 X cond. 75% _ $ 6,946 X loc: 75% _ $ 5,209 Total Value 3 Coast Live Oak 19.0 ; 20 j 35 40 1 2 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ I ' i ~ , ~ i ` I ~ i 1 , ~, i ~ I I ' I I I ' . in 283 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,651 class X sp. 100% $7,651 X cond. _ 90% _ $ 6,886 X loc. 75% _ $ 5,165 . Total Value 4 Deodar Cedar 15.01 i I 16 = 50 35 1 I 1 2 i 1 _ ~ ~ ~ = I ~ ~ Cedrus deodara I ! I i I I ~ ~ i ~ : . in 177 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 100% _ $ 4,769 X loc. 75% _ $ 3,577 Total Value ~ 5 Coast Live Oak I 20.01 x I I 1 15.01 I I I 122 140 135 I I I 1 1 2 1 3 1 I I I ~ I I I I _ ~ 13~ I _ 1 1 i I ~ I I I I I 1 I . in 403 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 10,881 X sp, class 100% _ $10,881 X cond. 90% _ $ 9,793 X loc: 80% _ $ 7,834 Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak 23.0 ; . 24 j 45 50 1 ~ 2 I 3 I i ~ ~ I I I ~ 1 I ~ ~ I I ~ I I I I I 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? , . I I I ~ 1 } ~ ~ ~ I I . in 415 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 11,212 X sp. class 100% _ $11,212 X cond. 90% _ $ 10,091 X loc. 80% _ $ 8,073 Total Value 7 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ~ ~ f ~ 13 ! 25 ~ 30 1 I 2 ~ 3 j 1 ~ ~ ~ = I ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 I 1 j I I i ~ i ~ t ~ I I I ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ' . in 113 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. class 100% _ $3,052 X wnd. 70% _ $ 2,136 X loc. 75% _ $ 1,602 Total Value A REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~+ 5-gai = $36 15-gal =-$120 ~~ 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box 000 52"box a $7,000 72"bo,000 • 1=BEST; 5 =WORST ~1of1 A finch Plywood and Wood Chips Platform Buffer ' for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy --~ which Must Be Used for Poot Traffic i• ~~ Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Er Associates Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~ ~®~~~ Attachment 6 ~ ~::. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS: COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) I, f,..,,~~~ U~t,~i(~ Q Ua~..J ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga b, Planning Commission on the _~~`~day of 2003, that I deposited in the United States -Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said ersons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • ~~~~~F.~ WALTER S & MARILYN FRANK BEHNKE CHARLES J & ELSBETH 1VIARCHETTI or Current Owner STAUSS or urrent Owner 14510 BIG BASIN WAY 161 or Current Owner SAINT CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070 PO BOX 1848 S ATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATOS CA 95031 DORIS K & FRANK BEHNKE TRAFALGAR INC CRAIG & SARI AMBROSE or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 13691 BEAUMONT AVE 1735 WESTBROOK AVE 14683 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS ALTOS CA 94024 SARATOGA CA .95070 JEANNE T ALEXANDER JON & LINDA KRAIN G D & ANN COVELL or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 14701 OAK ST 14730 6TH ST PO BOX 1202 SARATOGA CA 95070. SARATOGA CA 95070 CARMEL CA 93921 RON & LINDA RINGSRUD ANITA HUNTER MARGUERITE M BURKET or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 14706 6TH ST 14700 ST CHARLES ST 14200 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT BARATTA-LORTON JOHN K & CATHERINE CLARENCE E & CAROLYN or Current Owner HOWARD SCHULTZ 14599 BIG BASIN WAY or Current Owner or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 20620 KOMINA AVE 20606 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~RI J KINLEY BARCO ANDERSON ROY 5 & HELEN CAMERON or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner. 20588 KOMINA AVE 20574 KOMINA AVE 20560 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN J & ALEDA COOK VEIS ASIM & ISHA ABDULLAH or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20550 KOMINA AVE 20540 KOMINA AVE 14755 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 BIONDILLO MIGNONA V & ERNEST STEVEN & HEATHER METZ or Current Owner WESTBROOK or Current Owner 14771 ALOHA AVE 15340 or Current Owner 20611 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA .95070 20601 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ALAN H ROSENUS DAVID T & KAREN BURSE ROBERT & ELIZABETH NAST or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20621 LOMITA AVE 20633 LOMITA AVE 20645, LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ST VAN KRIEKEN DAVID A & WATT-KATZ KATZ JOHN & KATHRYN HOLT ~urrent Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20655 LOMITA AVE 20665 LOMITA AVE 14690 OAK ST SARATOGA CA. 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 L~JPE T COMPEAN or Current Owner 936 HARRIET AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 MICHAEL J & DEBRA CUMMINS or Current Owner 14666 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 GEORGE H MCKENZIE or Current Owner PO BOX 184 SARATOGA CA 95071 GLADYS P HERNANDEZ or Current Owner 19641 CHARTERS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CARSON MARION K AND JULIE HARDISTY OSCAR AND A TRUSTEE ELAINE or Current Owner or Current Owner 20723 ST CHARLES ST 20729 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 CHARLES A & DORIS BEHNKE DORIS K BEHNKE or Current Owner or Current Owner 13691 BEAUMONT AVE 14655 OAK ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JENNIFER TAYLOR or Current Owner 14672 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 • WARD WII.LIAM J AND SHELLEY W TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20713 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 GOPAL NANDA ET AL or Current Owner 20719 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 HOLLINGSWORTH or Current Owner 14739 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM E & TULEY-BROWN BONREALTY COMPANY INC DIPIETRO DECOKES BROWN or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 12591 SARATOGA CREEK DR 14613 OAK ST 14755 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 SARATOGA CA 95070 MAITRA SIDHARTHA AND GLASS JACQUELYN M CANINE MAGDALENE A ANURADHA TRUSTEE TRUSTEE or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 14455 PIKE RD 14110 SQUIlZREL HOLLOW LN 14607 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 FITZPATRICK JOSEPH A or Current Owner 14605 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 JENKINS PATRICIA M or Current Owner 14603 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 WRIGHT WILLIAM M III AND KENOYER DERALD R LORRAIlVE L or Current Owner or Current Owner 20661 5TH ST UNIT 2 20661 5TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-6019 SARATOGA CA 95070-6019 FONG ALLEN G AND GLADYS J MORETTI MICHAEL J AND TRUSTEE - ALINA or Current Owner or Current Owner 2039 FOREST AV STE 201 20661 5TH ST UNIT 5 SAN JOSE CA 95128 SARATOGA CA 95070 DANIEL L & CAROLYN CASAS EVELYN CRANE-OLIVER or Current Owner or Current Owner 20545 KOMINA AVE 20589 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 TYLER or Current Owner 13611 SARATOGA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 THOO JOSEPH or Current Owner 20661 5TH ST UNIT 3 SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES A & CHERRYL COMBS or Current Owner 14735 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA .95070 SARATOGA TENNIS CLUB or Current Owner PO BOX 202 SARATOGA CA ~ 95071 1~~~~~5 S~RATOGA UNIONS D or Current Owner 1 2 OAK STREET TOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CEMETERY or Current Owner BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN M & NICOLETTE TEETER . or Current Owner 14760 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 I, KATHLEEN B~SCHAUB GERALD L & LYNNE GURLEY GENEVA M & HOWARD BAKER or. Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 14732 OAK ST 14724 OAK ST 14700 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT C & PATRICIA HIlVIEL LEANNE R & EDWARD POPA JAMES H & JANE HOPKINS or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20670 LOMITA AVE 20660 LOMITA AVE 20650 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JEAN B BOGOSIAN or Current Owner 20630 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DENNIS A & JILL HUNTER or Current Owner 20606 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL J & SUSAN MCCHESNEY or Current Owner 20620 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN H & TRACY PURVIS or Current Owner 20602 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHARD H & THERESA SUDHOLT or Current Owner 20610 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA .95070 MICHAEL C INGSTER or Current Owner 20600 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~ ~~ or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner TCurrent Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner ~~~~~~ ~`'. ~'~ ~. f, h i ~^ '; ;4 .. .: ~(( .: I . i I. ~, I: - '' I, l:: f , ~I' , ~' 'I: Iv V Sheet Index AO .Title Sheet ~:~~~1 Site Plan ;A2 :First Floor Plan A3 Second Floor Plan A4 Cellar Plan AS Roof Plan A6 Exterior Elevations A7 Exterior Elevations A$ Design Sections General Notes b Bri111Rowo'u not resport lblc forlhe design, coordination or implementalinn of any work pcriomwd by consullmus, indnding, bW not ImtilrA to, structural - tngincering, soil engineering, civil engineering, landsoapo aacbilecture, andlor Title 24 rngmeering. 2. All work danepursuant to rhea drawings and specifications shall comply wish all orditanc~s and regulations which apply to do work dnd shall in any cox conformwthe lauit editionotthe"IJnifunn Building L'odd (UBC)curtently enforced, etd all current city, county. and state codes as applicable. 3. Layom for new work is largely lased upon rtladonshipsbesisting conditions. Any questions fegarding the intent related to Oe layout ntthe new work shall be - brought to Ow allenlion of RdlllRowepriorlo the eommenremem of any work. The cnntmetar shall noiily BdrilRowe of all dlscrepetwies prior m the cmm~xncanrcnro[any work. 4. Preferexe shall be.givenmhgumtllwritten dimensions on the drawings over scaled mea¢urements.The"Plans',"General Notes",and "Speciftcaliuns"ate intended w agree and supplemem once another..Anything indicated iNOn nne,md nos the others. sMl h exerutN av if in nIL In cases of direct ron0iG, the most rcsvidive shall gnveni. >. U'I, Soil and Snuctuml Engineer's specifita[iorrt shall lake preudmme m'er the toll raving uch I coral cpatfcacions. 6. Br'WNawt rcalsollr'ghts and ownership of the `Planning Uocamcnu"end Specifiwtiuns . fhe<e docmnenls may wt he used m whop ar in parr on any other prolent widlmn exprcsxd ronxnt linm BritdRowe 7. The owamddevdoper'client resrnes the ngM to Hake alleratiota of me design dun rag the caarsethe constmRnn as applicaNe Any changes shall he approved . - by the local plamung depomnem as applicable. All changes stall bt dacwnmted by n wrillen Change Order' and shell be epgvoved by tM1e ownuldevelopedchcN. I~- General Project Information SNe Address 20665 I,omiu Ave Saraloge.CA 850.70 Owner; paviJ and Ann Katz 2Uh65 lomila Ave. Semwga.CA 91030 (408)741-0799 APN: 517 08 Dtt Zonis; RI-IO.OIaI Im6 Aren: 8.570 sy. D. (9r.~ 7,570 Sq.fl. ~net~ Average lAt Slofrto 7.2°lo bleed en rant . 51te area I .Allowable Floor Area: Roux 7,BAOSq. R. h ssrwia for33~h bldg: --41~,}). 7,664 aq. fl. Esisling Floor Area: Hour (w hedemolished)~. LUSA sq. fl. Guess House (In remain): Sfi2 >q. [i. Proposed F'bur Area: First Level: 1,121 sq. fl. Geroge: J09 sy. fl. Secosd Leve4 I I71 so. ft. 'foMl: 2,661 aq. R. Propwut impervious: Building Footprint: 2,416 sq. ft, UtivewavlWalkslPai os t I20 so. R. I Total: 3,576 eq,h IAS%) Proposee! l:reding: See Grading and Dnlnage Plan I Ruilding Height 23-0"(n~lelkst ridge from existing grade Selbacka: RroWSed Minimum Fmnt: 25'0^ 26'-0" Frond (2"H.): 31'8" i5'~0" L Side: 8'-0" b'-U" L Sidc R`° Il-): 16'0" l l'A" R Sidc: 5'~U" 6'~0" R Side 12°s fL): IS' U" 11' 0" Rear bl'.U.' 26'-0" Rear (2n°tl.l: 69, U" 7S'-0" I Square Footage Calculations I qo9 236 s69 Ib flret floor 969 409 23b Ib 15jO total b 236 I to second floor 869 a69 16 23b Ib 10 ' 1131 total d I I i z81 ' cellar: 287 8 a 295 total b -( Front View of Proposed Residence i I I, II n Architectural Drawing Symbols March line RuiWing Stttion Drawing Symhol O Column Refua¢e Grid lndicalar Directional Nodh Artaw lapprox ) O WindawRxror Symbol Wall $ectiaNElevmion thawing Refrrence Derail Reference e Drawing Referenre A Revision Symbol Project Consultants BUILDING DF.SICNF:R: BrlltlRowe ` David Brin ~~ 108 N. Sanw ~mz Avenue Las Gmos, C:A 93030 408.354.6224 CIVIL ENCINEERIBURYEYOR Weslroll Engirrem Hurry Babiki 14587 Big Ravin Wny Bamwge, CA 95070 408,867.0244 ~~~~ o OF a BEVISIONS BY i mm~g ray db 1 ~ 03 i Location Map Vicini;~y Map r gl 6t.. Y A~ " `f~~ j L a,-r wl I v .»,C" ~t, Charles ~ ,r ~~ 1 e6 vwf ~21~ r ~ /ql k~~ ' ~ OLI 4 lfvli^. Y a w ~ i I~ w s ti' lnmit& ~ w~e'~~ ~~h ~, y) ~ pg , tt ~ d°0 I s ~ t I spa .,yn'"' s. '. z r north ~; ~J',~ rti:. M ~`~''. • • ' - ' REVISfONS BY p "' db ~' ~ `7 03 ii i min. aide hetback C hecond Boor per ordnance now v I I ~o N m A A6 as fired loq fireplace per ordinance C b AB A8 4' e j ~ ~'.p" s'o'y II~-b° g'-o' 21'•bn n. 8'•0' 35~.b' II~•0° 2~'ci i ~~'~~ o i 5 to J ~` FIRST FLOOR PLAN. ~ 1121. ~ '409 ~ (garage) p: '.o N `o s 9 _ a9. N N _o N ~9~ A AB SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1131 i I _ _ I ~ ~~I~I~I~~II~II~I~~~ ~~ I storage ~~ ~ d~~ IIIIIIIIIII I I I zat bedroom = (~ _ II ie I . _ - __ hall - j j ~ I I ~ j I I m.i bath ~ I A9 _ LJ bath I master bdrm. I I ~ ~ xat bedroom _ CJ I I I I i __ II _ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ II ~------- ~ u' ~ ~ i \I I ~------I -I / ~ i ~ roof bebN (t9P) I ~. ~ b as. a3 35~-b~ LI~O° 2~6• 49' d' `o r 0 S N .9 e Sj ~°gS E~e a'j C C 6'w ".c~a?C ;a w=r?"~~ p°C CtC n~~g C `um ~~L. ~o=~3ik a m n~:c3e a ~O ~~~~ N h yyi~ N j ~ c Q LU h. S r v N a ~ o u +~ a 0 JI C ~ I 5 10 F" ~+ z F n ~ C A A3 f'. ~, ~. r '- ~. r f F N. outline of covered . deck beloul outline of garage wal I below -^---- 3' 12 roof pitch --- ---- //I K `~ F ~ li b I qg AB i I ~ ~ I ----~-- ~---- -------r _=~ -~ ~' _ ~ ~~ ~ ~I i i outline covere porch `~\ i \~~ flat ~~~ ~ I II ~II ~~ flat ~~ - - - ~ i i ~ it--- , ~ ,~ ~. r ~l. It REVLSIONS ~anniny reu. 113 703._ air ~„oELc v~> ~~~ a~~°~fi =~=.s~~ a ~~:_~ :e m n.ccie o O ~~'~ ~ ~' N ~ ~'JU ~~ ~~ ~~. N ~~ ~ ~ a ro a ~ 4- v o o „ _ 0 0 +- t r a ~~~z n ~ o c A$ :i a t `o ' 'o _ fmi,h floor N wall plate 1 decorative Wood brackets `Q C finish floor finish grade C dining . m o I 5 to 114, I,.o~~ n vlEu turned wood wood porch columns d deck high def~ntian "class A' tompo,ition roof e I ogles fltih scale wood ehmylei e~dmg horl3ontal wood 61d In9 wood panelled sectm~al garage door w(glass p I rtes VIEW Yid e hei ht 0. ara e 1 wall plate @ garage 0 i o- finish slab 1 0 I 5 10 0 ~~ _ \~ ii ;. I I I outline of ,.~ I I I ~1 cellar Ovalle exlstmg 310° h iron ~~ i ~ L grade rail 8 cellar ~-- line door stair -! ~ _ _ ~. _ _ _ _ J ri a height C turret wall late ~ turret brick Veneer fire place _ a chase ~~ 0 ^ o ®C~~ m a finish floor wall plate a v 0 c finish floor 2 rousted porch finish grade ' wood lion rail FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH) m ~~~ wood lattice SIDE ELEVATION (WEST) • VIEW G high de' "tides P ehmgle materv fish ec call 91. hari~on gilding tan ti le nay wl Windoi ridge height Q rear of garage garaqe Wall plate a rear -~ top of grade ~, o garaqe finish slab ~9 finish (natural grade REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) bnck Veheer fire place cha5eel edge h~ight @ bedroom wall plate @ bedrooms i ~o 0 `I ~_ fmlen floor @ bedrooms a wall plate 2 family rm. j kitchen top of grade 0 `I I I fin,eh f loot C famil rmlkitchen finish l/natural grade Q family rm.. grade 2 m edge 6f coVOred deck I o I q to ridge height ~, turret wall plate ~ closet 0 m so i ;h finish floor -' N ?~ ` wall plate a foyer _~ ¢. fimeh floor _ finleh !natural s grade ~ covered Porcn SIDE. ELEVATION (EAST) e VIEW bilge height ~ bedrooms will Plate C bedrooms ' ~ ~0 m fl ieh floor Q M N wall plate ~ kitchen a 0 flmeh floor @ kitchen finieh nat.. rd a kitchen 4 ~ 0 1 S 10 nn c ~® _.~ f .. ._ _ - - ~ bEGTION A ridge height L•~ J ridge height C rear 'p N ~- Q as 0 m N of wall plate C bedrooms M ~ m. bdrm. m. bath ,~ c. bedroom cl. bath finish floor wall plate C family rm. family rn. nat.! fimeh grade e d finish floor fmlaM ~ nat. grade a family rm. DESIGN SECTION A SECTION B r ~ rid a hei ht (from oatunl grd.) r ~ wall vlatL Q N _yarage a a~ m. bedrm. I~ rir ---N ndge wall finish {loot wall plate fimeh { ~mieh In 0 0D o m N ~I o- N o I 5 to I /4"~ I'-o" 9EGTION ~ L ridge height __ ~~ wall r pbte } Ij bedroom bedroom I i _o ~ ~ ;n f. f. I N Wall pit. _yS3ye 'o o family rm nook P ro ~. 1 i I e><Ieting ~ grade f.f. __ - _ ~ - ~ e ~ ~ rld9e Height of turret i wall plate C turret J -0 0 0 N wall 0 c finish f loot ~~ fmieh f natural grd. I i } . / ;:.~~~ ,ry I I ~\ .\ i\~'=- ~ J' NM. 5wnle r _ _ B/0- S1r11/C Swa/e De~ai~ ~/1p ICJ~L~ • ORADNG NOTES ' ' 1. SLOPES OF 2%OA pB:,ATER AWAY FROM THE FOUIDATDII 6HALL MANRAIN ALONOIHE ENTIREPERMETEN FOR AOISTANCE OF! FEET MNUMUM. 2.ALL ROOFS DRAINS TO BE DISCHARGED OMOAN ADEOUATESPIASM BLOCKS. . ACCORDANCE YMTH 90IL3 ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATION AID UNDER N 9WAlL IN DIRECTgN.. _ pIR~CTW+~TER~A ROM TIE BUHDING~ FOUNDATIONS. BUILT SO AS TO 5. StABSCAST Ap11CENT 1d FOUNDATONS BHPi1 SLOPE AVMY FROM THE FgrD/ITKINS .. "1 - -- -- 15526:.___. - __._ _.. _.. ~ I I~ {112":11A II IVJ ~ ~~ ... ~r~ i ... ^ ~~\\ ~ --~-- ~ ~~ 1 \`L i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I . I:. ~ cl. r,. -~~~~~~ : ~ .._ I• I ~ s. I erc 1 ~ 45HI.P5. __.._~_~. I I l ! ~ ~. I ~ nmr6re !c. I I _ ~~ssa, a 1 'T"' '~ I r I~ I LC, ~, ____i ,`.\.e I I I ~~ II J I~t. aC _o _._7____, Ik \ `~ ~ f.0. OECtt . 56o. n, __.. ' r. 1.11 f ~ ~ ~ r~ 562. ea Y~ ~ !!!1111'''"""~ Qlfi'GEOAP s~ 1 6° TC 11 ~ S rO i 1. \$ , P ' ~J/P6//lis 11 ._._.."_ ~SEI sB 11 L, S p t i J . _. 1 1~" ~ 11562.?J 1 6 'S ~LCA'. 56d.2C C 1 11 L f~ B ~ .O.F .2 ~' ~ ~ -a I. 1 -- - - ~ -- - -~ - _ - _ _' , . I bw N ~ !A5~___._-_____.__.. 1 ___.__._ _ '1665.60 _ I A I vt. Rapored -- d W L~~/CL lY01/I 10 V (h fi~~7 I O I iieF/~eI BAICtt I ~. I ~- I I o I) ~~ /1„d ffd 3 ~ 5fi{.19 - - - I r. Q/ _ ` 561.91 _ _.. /~ 9~ v I 4 j ~- dtrlr__ _... ~ I__ _. -~-'~ ~ 1'i - I w x ~-' ~I B - ~~ P I L _ -- 56 _ ~ N I I CJ/or - ~ 6orb o 9L { r I ~ I ~ J ___. _ _. , yl ~ ~ ! T5 Jq.rx TS f6B.p '1 I /bC fSRf'/- _ IIPo f620 1 _ ~. - ~' p.~~~~~Q I 'I I _ I ~ I I~ a p S~ ~ I I II I ~~ ; it f.£ f6d8 ~ III I .I 1 Pod 56fe I I I I Txls1. enusc I ~ I I (rrrarcJ ~ II I I l I -- I I II 1 I y 1, `! II ~I I . I' I Carrel 1 ~ I I , I ' I .rDah fCd ~ I 1 ~I I I 56 j' i . 0 I I \ l I `•.5 5 1561.9 _. _ _ ~ _ _ _. _ j . 567.16 ..~_. ..'_ . ~ I ~_.ti~ - 1i I ~' ... _ - I ~ --. l' ~ II ~ -- ~~~ I , . ~1 ~ x 6 ~h.,~ y T%PI ~I r/5° ~ ' I wr. q7 S ; ~P~/ I 111 roan. '. .5BJ.5 1 ...... _.__. ..... ~'I1 ~ `__~ .. I ~ . {:1 h ! -.. A. 1 { ~ . , _.____ __ .. _.'`. 556. CC _. .. __..__ fi912 e5 :2c __.._~~' _......~._. _. T5. __ ~ _.._. , . r ot5 1 63 Ox . s-9, B) -i _ _____.. _.____._. ` I 1 . ~____ .+50,fi5 I ~C I I 1 1 w ae^ee~w sc.oo' LOM1~A AVE. A~ R.0 rr ~1 fJ C.L. I ": Ip' CURB A GUT]'ER cuRe E'OGE GF PAVEttENT RETAINI~G 1JALL BUILDING STORN pRAfN INLET SiORf/ yAfN TOP OP'CURB ELEVATION TOP OF IAVEtlfNT TOP OF R{ETAINING VALC GROUND y~l EVATfON rNAIE BIO-SNA ~~ ,4rpigJne Skne !nz L- ~~ I=2f A= G rArses liidl S,,p~ --fXf$T(NG PkG^O,SEp ___ _~.-_ L_J :r.~ O EX. 7. C. T.C. fX~ T.P. LP. fX. 7. /. -7, U. C. ~_.. -_._. .IGR -~~ ND. BY CAIE P~JISIGN ~ o',ff ," . a<<odr, `~': '~ .~ .GRADING AN~'J DRAINAGE PLAN 4 I ___ F ~~ '~ _ ~ WESTFALL ENGINEERS , I NC . 22 oeB __ _ _ ___ -- _ __ . NLn , ~- ~ ~-- - - ~ Icleo~ /C er:. f~' ~ ~ 206651.OMITAAVE.,SARATOCiA see _ _ _.... 1 I45B7 BIG BASIN VAY, SARRiOGP. 'A 95470 C40Si 06?-02!A ~ 0'' ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 • •