Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter ABSENT: Commissioners Barry &t Uhl STAFF: Planners Livingstone, Oosterhous Est Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 28, 2004. (Continued to 3/11/04 due to lack of quorum) Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 11, 2004. (Approved 5-0) 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 staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 19, 2004. 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). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). 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 pd``rsuant 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 #03-269 (397-03-057) ASHJAY,14403 Sobey Road; Request for design review approval to construct a ground floor addition of 303 square feet to an existing 5,346 square foot home. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(6), design review approval is required because the proposal will result in a total floor area of all structures on the property of more than 6,000 square feet. The property is 55,989 square feet and is zoned R-1 -40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 4-1, GARAKANI OPPOSED) 2. APPLICATION #03-273 (503-27-036) ESTAHBANATY, 14241 Paul Avenue; Request for design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet. The property is 7,500 square feet and is zoned R-1- 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERFHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0) 3. APPLICATION #04-002 -Rezoning Various Parcels for General Plan Consistency (517-22-004, 517-20-016, 517-20-021, 517-19-082, 517-19-083, 517-19-084, 517-19-085, 517-18- 018, 517-12-020, 517-12-022, 517-12-021) Various Owners: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue, 20170 Bonnie Brae, 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane, 14931 Vickery Ave., 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Ave.; - A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD Residential Low Density, 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. These parcels are currently zoned R-1, 40,000, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The RLD designation in the General Plan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-1, 20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Information regarding the proposed rezoning is available at the Community Development Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. (ANN WELSH) (Continued from February 11, 2004) (DENIED 4-0, HUNTER ABSTAIN) 4. APPLICATION #03-183 (CITYWIDE) ZONING ORDINANCE AMEMDMENT REGARDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga. A mixed-use development is one that has commercial or office along the street frontage and residential uses in the rear or on a second floor. This proposed amendment implements Programs 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - Letters and photos from J. Thomas Roebuck Re: proposed winery at 19265 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga - Memo regarding status report on development application #02-107 located at 14651 Big Basin Way. - City Council Minutes from Special Meetings on January 24, 2004 ADJOURNMENT AT 9:00 PM TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-269 - ASHJAY Item 1 14403 Sobey Road 2. Application #03-273 - ESTAHBANATY Item 2 14241 Paul Avenue 3. Application 04-002 - City of Saratoga Item 3 20810, 20820, 20821, 20811 Audry Smith Lane 20170 Bonnie Brae 20512, 20161 Hill Avenue 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Avenue SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit 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 on the 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, February 25, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fxuitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 28, 2004. Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 11, 2004. 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 staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 19, 2004. 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). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). 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 #03-269 (397-03-057) ASHJAY,14403 Sobey Road; Request for design review approval to construct a ground floor addition of 303 square feet to an existing 5,346 square foot home. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(6), design review approval is required because the proposal will result in a total floor area of all structures on the property of more than 6,000 square feet. The property is 55,989 square feet and is zoned R-1 -40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) 2. APPLICATION #03-273 (503-27-036) ESTAHBANAT'Y, 14241 Paul Avenue; Request for design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet. The property is 7,500 square feet and is zoned R-1- 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERFHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-002 -Rezoning Various Parcels for General Plan Consistency (517-22-004, 517-20-016, 517-20-021, 517-19-082, 517-19-083, 517-19-084, 517-19-085, 517-18- 018, 517-12-020, 517-12-022, 517-12-021) Various Owners: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue, 20170 Bonnie Brae, 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane, 14931 Vickery Ave., 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Ave.; - A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD Residential Low Density, 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. These parcels are currently zoned R-l, 40,000, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The RLD designation in the General Plan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-l, 20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Information regarding the proposed rezoning is available at the Community Development Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. (ANN WELSH) (Cozitinued from Februaryll, 2004) 4. APPLICATION #03-183 (CITYWIDE) ZONING ORDINANCE AMEMDMENT REGARDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga. A mixed-use development is one that has commercial or office along the street frontage and residential uses in the rear or on a second floor. This proposed amendment implements Programs 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - Letters and photos from J. Thomas Roebuck Re: proposed ~~vinery at 19265 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga - Memo regarding status report on development application #02-107 located at 14651 Big Basin Way. - City Council Minutes from Special Meetings on January 24, 2004 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 10, 2004 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 a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us ~./ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Zutshi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Chair Hunter and Commissioners Garakani and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 14, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 2004, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-3; Chair Hunter and Commissioners Garakani and Uhl were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 22, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan 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 January 28, 2004 Page 2 *** CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO. 1 CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & GENERAL PLAN CONFORMINTY FINDING: The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the additions to the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program are consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there is no specific staff report except to advise that the Planning Commission previously acted on this item. Council subsequently added three additional items to the CIP. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission found the additions to the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program to be consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03 201 (503-48-029 and 503-48-028) located at and adiacent to 21170 Big Basin Way: Request of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 403-48-028. (Continued from January 14, 2004.) (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council the request by LAFCO to adjust the Saratoga Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels. • Described the zoning as Residential and the General Plan designation as Hillside Residential. • Stated that the reason behind this change is to give the City of Saratoga a sphere of influence over future development of this property. Without the Urban Service Area Boundary designation, the County is not required to provide the City of Saratoga with notice of pending development applications. • Stated that the proposed addition to the Urban Service Area Boundary is consistent with the City's General Plan and LAFCO's policies. • Informed that the property owner's attorney has provided a letter that has been distributed to the Commissioners this evening. • Recommended approval of this proposed Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Barry asked staff to clarify what it takes to bring a property into the Urban Service Area Boundary. Associate Planner John Livingston replied that said properties must be contiguous to the City and a resolution be adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Barry restated that there are no specific requirements other than being contiguous to a City's boundary. Commissioner Nagpal asked for verification that the City has received no current notice of pending property development. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to confirm that under the Urban Service Area Boundary, these property owners would not have to comply with City of Saratoga design guidelines but rather the City is just given the opportunity to provide comments to the County on potential development. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked why Land Use Policy 5, regarding development compatibility, is included in the report. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that if these properties were to be annexed into the City of Saratoga, the City's design review polices would ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties and uses. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the issue of annexation would come before the Planning Commission or before City Council. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the issue of potential annexation would be considered by the City Council. Commissioner Schallop asked if the only way the City has any influence is if it were to directly receive notice from the County. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the City sometimes gives comment to the County. Sometimes they listen and act upon the comments provided. Director Tom Sullivan said that the relationship between City and County staff is better today than a few years ago. Commissioner Schallop asked if the City has yet considered the possibility of annexation. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Schallop asked if the attorney's reference to a 50 percent rule is accurate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 4 Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. This could change however with ownership changes or more properties being considered for annexation at one time. Commissioner Schallop asked if structures built on this property would be visible from the valley. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are many parcels far from the City of Saratoga's sphere of influence where structures constructed are clearly visible. Commissioner Schallop asked staff what cost is incurred in bringing the proposal for additions to the Urban Service Area Boundary forward. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied just staff time. Commissioner Schallop asked what triggered this interest. Director Tom Sullivan replied City Council. Acting Chair Zutshi asked for further clarification regarding the att:orney's letter and the comment that annexation cannot occur without their consent. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that this statement depends upon certain variables. Director Tom Sullivan added that without those possible variables, that comment is generally true. Commissioner Barry asked staff if the County has any position on the idea of bringing this property into the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the County is supportive of all cities annexing property as much as possible. The County is a social service oriented agency and not property development oriented. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. 1VIr. David Britton, Property Owner, 21170 Big Basin Way: • Identified himself as owner of 10 acres of property under consideration this evening. • Apologized for the delay in getting his attorney's letter in to the Commission. • Said that it is important that the Commission know that adding his property to the Urban Service Area Boundary would not benefit the City of Saratoga as the only way for the City to have any influence would be annexation. The City is unable to annex properties without the consent of 50 percent of the property owners. Both the Brittons and the Englishes would protest annexation. • Recommended that the Planning Commission deny inclusion of their property into the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary. • Assured that he plans to appear before Council when they consider this proposal. • Asked if his previous correspondence was included in the Commission's staff report. • Said that he is not against what the City is trying to accomplish, just that he is not exactly sure what it is the City is trying to accomplish. • Questioned the reasoning for the City to spend its money when it would receive no benefit. • Listed the likely scenario to be first, Urban Service Area; second, annexation into the City and, finally, merging of property to Hakone Gardens. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 5 • Pointed out an entire paragraph regarding the expansion of Hakone Gardens. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. David Britton what his specific concerns are. Mr. David Britton replied that if annexation occurs before he is able to sell his property the new owners would be under City jurisdiction and not County jurisdiction. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that it is probably not even possible to secure annexation under these conditions even if annexation is attempted. Mr. David Britton asked why even change the Urban Service Area Boundary. The County may not care but the property owners do care. He added that he is required to disclose this possibility as he is trying to sell his property. He is required to make it clear as to what a new owner can expect. Ms. Sara Louise Freitig English: • Said that she was so upset at the last meeting she ranted. • Said that they were never noticed about the Council meeting in August where this issue was first raised. Their first notification came on December 23, 2003. • Stated that they do not know how this issue came before Council and that this process is damaging the ability of the Brittons to sell their property. • Accused that someone is trying to stop the sale of this property. • Reminded that City representatives who visited the property in August told their agent that the property might be purchased for Hakone. • Stated that the notices sent are prejudiced regarding Hakone being next door to the property under consideration. • Declared that she does not want to have her property annexed into the City of Saratoga as the land has a better value under County jurisdiction. • Advised that this vote would have some adverse meaning to them. It would actually be damaging to be included in the Urban Service Area Boundary. It would be detrimental to the sellers of this property. • Expressed concerns that this process is reminiscent of Police Powers of the State and compared it to lands taken from her ancestors in Europe. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Schallop asked staff whether the Commission's action on this matter is simply a non- binding recommendation to Council. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the only thing on the table at this phase is the possibility of inclusion of these properties to the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary. There is nothing under consideration regarding annexation and that the potential of annexation is not an automatic progression. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that annexation would not be possible without 50 percent of the property owners agreeing to it. Director Tom Sullivan agreed but said that property owners and laws change all the time. Acting Chair Zutshi pointed out that Council would consider this item and these families could speak to the Council at that time. Director Tom Sullivan added that after Council takes action, the next process would be before LAFCO. LAFCO makes the final decision. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this designation would give the City a chance to have a seat at the table when the County discusses development of this property. This is valuable to the City. Said that she is concerned about hillside development and the amount of cement that is added to hillside properties. She would like to see the City able to comment. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that the City could actually choose to comment on development at any time. The only real difference is that the City will received public hearing meeting notices. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City receives the County Planning Commission agenda but has never received their Design Review agenda or their Grading Review agendas. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Hakone is automatically noticed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the City would be notified as the property owners of Hakone Gardens. Again the City currently only gets the County Planning agendas and not the rest. Commissioner Barry pointed out that another important issue is the fact that the County is not in the business of design guidelines. The City is invested in the character of the neighborhoods and hillsides. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that people buy County properties for that reason, there are less stringent requirements. Commissioner Barry said that annexation is not being voted upon. The only benefit is the opportunity to comment on the future development of these two properties. There would be no control to stop development but just to register a comment on the proposed development. Commissioner Schallop reminded that that option exists right now. Commissioner Barry said not practically speaking. Commissioner Schallop said that the concern he has is the timing as some interest seems to be there for Hakone Gardens. Said he is not sure what the trigger is for this action. Director Tom Sullivan said that when the Crty realized the property was on the market it was also clear that potential development might of this property might be eminent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Barry reminded that the property has been on the market for two years. The City did not just jump on this process immediately upon its being put on the market. Additionally, the County encourages this action. Said that despite how it might seem, there are no nefarious motives here. It seems pretty straightforward to have a design review voice. Commissioner Schallop said that the City could speak anyway. He added that it is not clear that annexation is coming next. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that the possibility of annexation was of concern to her as well. However, she considers this process to be simply an issue of Urban Service Area Boundary in order to get design review opportunities. • Said that she does not agree that Hakone Garden is a strange link, it is a logical link. • Stated that the County's land use capabilities are at issue and that the City's Land Use Policy seems to indicate annexation. • Reminded that the annexation would require participation by the landowners and would not occur without agreement of a majority. • Advised that she is inclined to support the Urban Service Area Boundary adjustment. Commissioner Barry suggested that the sentence in the Resolution regarding possible annexation be removed. Director Tom Sullivan said this could be done. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-201, recommending that Council approved the proposed expansion of the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include APN 503-48-29 and 503-48- 028 with the removal of text indicating the possibility of future annexation from said Resolution, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan: • Restated that the Commission has taken action to adopt a Resolution recommending approval to Council with the stricken language that refers to possible future annexation. • Advised that this matter would now go on to Council for Public Hearing for which the property owners will be notified by mail of the hearing date. ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-267 (397-19-024) -MUELLER (Appellant) 19351 Athos Place: The City denied a tree removal permit for three Eucalyptus trees located at 19351 Athos Place. The property owner has Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 8 appealed the denial. The trees are located in the side yard, toward the front of the residence. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the City denied a Tree Removal Permit for three Eucalyptus trees located on the side yard along the left property line and fence. The property owner has appealed that denial. • Said that the City Arborist has since inspected the trees and found them to be in good to fair condition but in poor structural condition, which supports their removal. • Added that the adjacent neighbor has provided a letter in support of the removal of these three trees. • Recommended that the Commission conducts a public hearing and takes appropriate action. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the initial denial and asked if the lack of opinion on the economic enjoyment of the property is important. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the inspector thought this was not a relevant criteria in this situation. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the Arborist's report mentions the poor trimmings/cuts made on these trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that when such trees are topped, new sprouts become limbs that are weak and therefore can more easily fall off in weather and wind: Acting Chair Zutshi asked if these trees are a special species as had been implied during the site visit. Commissioner Nagpal reported that Chair Hunter had thought it might be an unusual species of Eucalyptus during the site visit. She asked if the Arborist believes that replacement with three trees is a sufficient mitigation for the removal of these three trees. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. John Nance, 19363 Athos Place, Saratoga: • Said he is the adjacent next door neighbor, to the north, and has lived here since 1968. • Reported that the Muellers are the fourth owners of the neighboring property. • Advised that these trees were planted in 1967 or 1968. • Said that he emailed his support of this request and was disappointed that the Tree Removal Permit was denied. • Asked if the Commission saw his email in which he outlined his reasons to support the removal. Commissioner Nagpal assured Mr. Nance that his email was included in the staff report packet. Mr. John Nance: • Stated that he still believes what he originally wrote. • Said that his main concern is fire hazard as these types of trees burn furiously almost immediately upon ignition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 9 • Said that he is fearful that if there were to be a fire these trees would present a large fire hazard. • Advised that over the last 35 years, he has cleared debris from these trees off his driveway, which runs along the property line, next to these trees. There is debris every season and he cannot put a car in the driveway for 20 minutes without finding drippings on the car. Oil from the trees stain cars and the driveway. • Added that the tree has resulted in cracks in his driveway. • Informed that he has inadvertently been the water source for these trees every time he hoses down his driveway to clean the debris. • Pointed out that there are many trees in this cul-de-sac and that these trees do not have any significant aesthetic value to the neighborhood. • Said he hopes the Commission will recommend approval for removal of these three trees as there will be no negative consequences by their removal. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Mr. Nance if any branch has fallen on his property causing damage. Mr. John Nance replied once when the tree was being trimmed. However, smaller branches fall all the time. Commissioner Barry pointed out that there is no recommendation in the staff report as to where the replacement trees ought to go. Asked Mr. Nance if he has any suggestions. Mr. John Nancy said he hopes that there are no tall trees replaced along their shared property line. He added that his neighbor has a nice large property and he leaves placement of the replacement trees in their hands. Ms. Cindy Mueller, Appellant, 19351 Athos Place, Saratoga: • Expressed concern that these trees represent a major safety and liability concern. • Said that she has owned her home for three years and had the trees maintained by a tree company at a cost of $800 per year to trim and top each tree. However, she has learned that this regular trimming is actually hurting the structural integrity of the trees. • Added that there is no other way but to trim these trees. If not, they grow outward, over rooftops. • Informed that the Arborist has recommended trees but that there are not appropriate for this same location. • Advised that she would like to have time to review a landscape plan for appropriate location of the replacement trees as part of a planned extensive remodel of their home. • Said that there are lots of trees on the property, they are completely surrounded by trees. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Mueller what time frame she would require to figure out the replacement location for the new trees. Ms. Cindy Mueller said she is not sure. They need to rebuild the fence, find an architect and go through the design review process with the City. This may take a year or more from what people tell her. Assured that the trees to be removed are not a rare species per the Arborist. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 10 - Commissioner Nagpal expressed support for flexibility in the replacement schedule and asked staff for a recommendation. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff generally tries for three months but that there is no hard and fast rule. If an extension is requested, it can be granted. Staff will keep .a record and check back. Commissioner Nagpal said the most compelling reason to support removal is the Arborist report. Criteria No. 1 is met. Said that she is leaning toward supporting this Tree Removal Permit. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that this is the least controversial Tree appeal he has heard ;>o far. • Said that he relies heavily upon the Arborist report and the Arborist feels that Criteria No. 1 has been met. • Stated that with replacement trees and flexibility on the City's ~aart on the timing of the replanting, he can support granting this appeal to allow the removal of these- trees. Commissioner Barry expressed her agreement and said that she appreciated the comments by Ms. Mueller that pruning contributed to the damage of these trees. Said that she is comfortable with the Planning Department tracking future replacement of these trees. Acting Chair Zutshi said that she had thought these trees looked nice originally but that the Arborist report influenced her position. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that if a City inspector has a doubt, they are told to rule in favor of saving the tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted an appeal (Application #03-267) to allow the removal of three Eucalyptus trees located at 19351 Athos Place, allowing the property owner some flexibility in the timing of planting replacement trees to coincide with a pending major residential remodel, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #03-092 (397-19-024) - CHU 19554 Three Oaks Way: Request Design Review Approval to add 1,504 square feet to the existing 3,169 square foot house with an existing 434 square foot garage for a total floor area of 5,107 square feet. The addition includes a new 1.007 square foot second story addition to the existing house. The gross lot size is 40,140 square feet and zoned R-1- 40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 11 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the addition of approximately 1,500 square feet to an existing 3,000 square foot house for a total of 5,000 square feet. One thousand square feet represents a second story addition. • Reported that the impervious surface of this property exceeds the maximum allowable. The owners will remove the existing driveway, about 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. • Described building materials to include redwood board and batten siding, stone veneer base at the front facade and a brown roof of weathered composition shingle. • Explained that the proposal meets Design Review guideline policies that include integration with the environment, planting of new trees, protection of the privacy of adjacent neighbors, no view impacts and no trees to be removed. • Advised that 15 15-gallon oaks will be planted as well as six 24-inch box trees. • Stated that no negative correspondence has been received and that the neighbors have been shown the plans. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry asked what the lot coverage would be. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied 42 percent of net. The existing coverage is 57 percent. Staff is supporting the proposal with the reduction of impervious surface from 57 to 42 percent. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this percentage still does not meet Code standards. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. However, these are existing conditions that the applicant is reducing. Commissioner Barry asked if anything else could be made pervious. Director Tom Sullivan said that the new driveway is interlocking pavers. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about existing conditions. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the lot currently has 57 percent lot coverage. The applicant is removing approximately 5,000 square feet of this coverage. While 35 percent coverage was the goal, the applicant inadvertently based their percentages on gross instead of net. Staff is supportive since the applicant in theory could just leave it as is since it is an existing condition. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification that some of the new square footage is on the first floor. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes, about 500 square feet. The remaining 1,000 square feet is a second floor. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that the applicant does not have to meet lot coverage standards with such a remodel. Associate Planner John Livingstone said not if it is an existing situation. It is considered to be a legal non-conforming situation that is not being made worse. Commissioner Nagpal said that the lot coverage is actually improving from 57 to 42 percent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan added that it cannot be allowed to get worse per Code. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr.. Mark Robinson, Project Architect: • Said he was available for any questions. • Said they have tried to do whatever possible regarding excess paving. • Pointed out that most of the addition is second story with a small first floor addition at the back of the house. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether pavers could be incorporated around the pool. Mr. Mark Robinson said that planned material is flagstone. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Barry said that understanding the issues, she is fine with the proposal. The design is articulated and interesting. She will support it. Commissioner Nagpal supported the comments of Commissioner Barry. Commissioner Schallop did also. Acting Chair Zutshi said that the applicant has done a wonderful job. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-092) to add 1,504 square feet to an existing 3,169 square foot home on property located at 19554 Three Oaks Waylby the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEM5 Commissioner Nagpal reported that Phyllis from the Heritage Commission is seeking volunteers for the Mustard Walk. • COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 13 There were no Communications Items. • AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Acting Chair Zutshi adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Schallop Staff: Director Tom Sullivan. Associate Planner John Livingstone and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~~ ne ~/ APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 28, 2004. As there was not a quorum available of Commissioners present at the January 28, 2004, meeting, the adoption of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting on February 25, 2004. ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 5, 2004. 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). AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Chair Hunter announced that in compliance with ADA, anyone requiring special assistance in order to participate in this meeting should call the City Clerk 48 hours prior to a meeting to enable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 2 *** CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #03-187 (517-22-003) - BORELLI 20200 Hill Avenue: Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two-story house to a one-story house. Increase the floor area from 6,730 square feet to approximately 7,402 square feet including athree-car garage and a 3,089 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be reduced from 26 feet to approximately 22 feet, 6 inches. 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: • Advised that the applicant is seeking modifications to building plans changing an approved new two-story residence into aone-story residence with an increase in floor area from 6,730 to 7,402 square feet, including athree-car garage and an increase of the basement from 1,700 to approximately 3,000 square feet. • Added that the maximum height would be reduced from a 26 foot high two-story home to a 22 foot, 6 inch one-story home. • Said that a secondary unit would be constructed in the basement area and that a one time 10 percent increase in allowable floor area is being allowed with the deed restriction so that the second unit would only be rented out at BMR rates. • Informed that while this increase also allows the Community Development Director the authority to waive garage space for the BMR unit, Director Sullivan has denied that option and is requiring the third garage space for this home. • Stated that the originally proposed horizontal siding is bein€; replaced with stucco with a stone veneer. There will be dark green trim around the windows and a slate the roof. This is a large lot and the home will be centered on the lot. The project meets design guidelines and exceeds minimum setbacks. • Advised that the project will include the replanting of 100 trees and that the structure will integrate with the environment, provide a minimum perception of bulk and create no privacy. impacts. • Reported that of the 100 trees on site, 68 are protected. Originally, it was proposed that 14 trees be removed. With this modified proposal six additional trees will need to be removal or a total of 20. The Arborist is recommending replacement trees. The applicant is proposing six 48-inch box trees, 15 36-inch box trees, one 24-inch box tree and 9 15-gallon trees. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to plant 85 Toyons, which can be either bush or tree form. • Explained that Tree #73, a 26-inch Coast Live Oak, was rated as being in excellent condition and health and specific conditions were imposed to protect that tree, which the applicant has been doing. The required measures have been taken. At this time, the applicant is now asking that Tree #73 be permitted for removal. The Arborist agrees that the tree's heall:h and stability would be impacted by construction. However, staff is recommending the retention of Tree #73, which is a gorgeous tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 3 • Pointed out that one letter has been distributed this evening in support of the project. One phone call was received in opposition and that person had said he would attend the hearing. • Stated that the ro osal is consistent with the General Plan and recommended approval. P P Commissioner Zutshi asked staff to elaborate on the second unit. Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant will be under no obligation to rent out his second unit but a deed restriction would be filed that states that if the unit is to be rented it, it would have to be rented out as a BMR (below market rate) unit. Commissioner Barry explained that this is a part of the City's Housing plan to meet its State-mandated housing stock. Director Tom Sullivan concurred and agreed that it is a part of the Housing Element. Commissioner Barry asked if this is an enticement. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the basement is already being formed and questioned whether it is currently at 1,700 or 3,000 square feet. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the applicant had increased the basement beyond the approved 1,700 square feet without permits. A Stop Work order is currently in place and work cannot be continued on site until this issue is resolved. Commissioner Barry asked if there is a kitchen incorporated into the second unit and questioned whether a kitchen must be included in order to count that unit as a BRM unit. Director Tom Sullivan replied that a kitchen must be included to count as a BMR unit and pointed to the second unit's kitchen location on the project plans. Commissioner Barry asked if the applicant is willing to give up all living space in the basement if the second unit is ever rented out. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said she had two questions. First, is the person who wrote the letter a neighbor to the project. Second, is there a more recent evaluation of Tree #73, which the Arborist had previously noted as exceptional, that was done after the cuts for the basement were completed. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that there have been two arborists monitoring the site, the City's Arborist and a Project Arborist. There have been no negative reports of adverse impacts on the trees. Commissioner Nagpal asked if special permits are required to expand the basement from 1,700 to 3,000. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 4 Director Tom Sullivan replied that both Planning and Building permits are required prior to enlarging an approved plan. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the whole 3,000 square foot basement is now framed. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any penalty for doing the work improperly. He added that the extra basement space would have to be refilled in the event the Commission does not approve the expansion to 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Barry pointed out her observance of copper on the color board and pointed out that copper is not mentioned in the staff report. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that copper was previously approved for the gutters and dormer. Chair Hunter asked if the 10 percent extra square footage is on the first floor. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Uhl asked why basement space is not counted in site; grading. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that this is simply the way the Code reads to not count basement space or pools. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Toby Long, Project Architect: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to introduce their proposed changes. • Reported that he started working with the Borellis about six to eight months ago. • Said that it became clear that the second story created issues regarding future accessibility. The Borellis plan to stay in this home for a long time. • Explained that the new wing will house the two bedrooms that would have been upstairs. • Added that he has reduced the house height by four feet by going from a two to a one-story home. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Long to point out the new space. Mr. Toby Long: • Showed an exhibit that delineated the original footprint and t:he new first floor space in different colors. • Said that he has worked to maintain the integrity and architecture of the previous approved project, maintaining many of the details, exterior palette of materials brut with the change to stucco from the wood siding. • Said that stucco is more fire safe. • Displayed a second exhibit, a color rendering comparing the one and two-story structures. • Stated that the one-story offers a significant reduction in massing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 5 • Showed a third exhibit that demonstrates the elevations. • Offered a fourth exhibit that shows the plans for new trees on site, including 85 voluntarily planted trees. Commissioner Uhl thanked Mr. Long for his great and complete presentation. Pointed out that Tree #73 is exceptional and asked why not continue to work around that tree. Mr. Toby Long: • Explained that it was previously understood that it would be an ambitious exercise to retain that tree. • Added that problems have arisen since construction began but not as a result of the changes proposed this evening. • Said that the structural integrity and health of the tree may have been compromised. However, there have been no exposed roots and the tree's roots seem to be deep. • Advised that they have worked diligently to preserve this tree. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the applicant wait to remove this tree. Chair Hunter advised that the Commission would vote on this issue. Commissioner Barry asked whether there are plans to remove Tree #73 immediately if the request for removal is approved or if they plan to wait and see if the tree survives through the construction process. Mr. Borelli, Project Applicant and Property Owner, 20200 Hill Avenue, Saratoga: • Assured that he hopes to keep this tree and has no objection to doing so. • Reminded that they have not removed many trees and that he did not buy this property to tear down trees. Rather, he bought the property because of the trees. • Said he has no desire to take this tree down and is surprised it has not been more damaged. • Stated that they may actually be able to keep it. Commissioner Garakani asked when the plan to add 1,300 square feet of basement space was decided upon without proper permits. Mr. Borelli: • Said that with the one-story structure they will need mechanical rooms at both ends of the house, including one under the garage area. • Added that he had spoken to Planner John Livingstone in September as well as the Building Department regarding this possibility. • Reminded that the added basement does not represent a change in the footprint. • Said that he is aware that if he does not receive approval for the expanded basement this evening he will have to fill that portion back in. • Said that he has worked on this project for three years and wanted to get on the agenda in December but was unable to do so. • Said that as it is going, it will be another two years before he can move into his new home. • Stated that he is not getting any younger and that both he and his wife are retired. They want to have as much time with this house as possible. • Agreed that if they did wrong, it was wrong. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Robert Ziger, 20292 Caya Montaloo, Saratoga: • Said he is in opposition to the removal of Tree #73. • Pointed out that the Tree Ordinance protects trees and that there are no criteria to support the removal of this tree. • Said that there is very little room for error regarding Tree #73 and that the existing approved plan allows for non-encroachment on that tree. Chair Hunter told Mr. Ziger that she appreciates hearing quotations from the City's new Tree Ordinance. Mr. Robert Ziger: • Replied that lots of work went into the development of the Tree Ordinance and that he was very involved in the process. • Said that this is a large house on a large lot. They are retaining lots of trees. • Said that he is also concerned about retention of Trees #4, 67-69, 73-75 and 82. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the City's current Arborist did an update for this application and that the former Arborist did the original report. Mr. Doug Anderson, Project Arborist: • Said that the spirit behind their Tree Removal Permit request is to protect the neighbors in the event that the tree suddenly needs to be removed. • Said that they plan to continue to do everything possible to protect the tree but that it would be nice to have an existing permit on hand in case removal is required later on. • Assured that they are working hard to retain this tree. • Said that all trees considered to be possibly impacted by construction are still currently in excellent conditions. • Stated that Tree #73 would only be removed in a worse case sce;nario. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the extra 10 percent bonus in square footage is now causing the tree to be more endangered. Mr. Doug Anderson said that tree retention is a dynamic process anal that there is really no way to know if roots are underneath until excavation occurs. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a bond on this project. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the ramifications are should the tree be affected. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the bond would be applied to the replacement. Director Tom Sullivan advised that prior to issuance of occupancy and release of utilities, the Building, Planning staff and City Arborist do a final inspection before releasing bonds. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Barry suggested crafting conditions in the event that no Tree Removal Permit is granted. Commissioner Uhl said that there are a lot of good things with this project change and that they changes are not directly impacting Tree #73 any further. Mr. Doug Anderson reminded that there were concerns about Tree #73 even with the original approval. Chair Hunter asked about where additional excavation would be. Commissioner Uhl asked why a crawl space would need to be near this tree. Mr. Toby Long said that it would not be located closer to the tree. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the crawl space is under the existing footprint. Commissioner Uhl asked why this changes anything from before relative to Tree #73. Mr. Toby Long replied it doesn't. Commissioner Nagpal asked why then is the possible removal of Tree #73 up for discussion. Mr. Toby Long replied that Tree #73 is a separate issue from the modifications to the building plans. Challenges to Tree #73 are a result of slope and cut for the excavation of the basement that encroached into the canopy. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that this was already approved before. Mr. Toby Long said that they want to be able to remove Tree #73 if it becomes jeopardized. Mr. Borelli added that the proposed addition is no closer to the tree and that the crawl space mentioned was approved with the original plan. Mr. Doug McCuen, Project Builder: • Announced that the decision to expand the basement prior to obtaining proper permits was his and he is responsible for that action. • Said that he had believed this issue would not require additional Planning Commission review. • Assured that the dirt excavated for the basement is still on the property and could be put back in place if the expansion request for the basement is not granted. • Apologized for his actions and reported that the project is stopped right now. Commissioner Barry offered her appreciation to Mr. McCuen for owning up to his responsibility. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that Mr. Borelli is serious about his trees and will do everything to save them. • Stated that right now the trees on site appear to be in good condition and that they appear to be doing everything right to preserve the trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 8 • Agreed that the proposed house is large. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the process would be if the Commission elects not to allow the removal of Tree #73. Director Tom Sullivan replied that if something happens to the tref; prior to final, they can apply for a Tree Removal Permit with proper public notice going out to surrounding property owners. The permit would be issued based upon a substantiating Arborist report. This process is faster than design review. Commissioner Nagpal said that the site is large and has many trees. She is in favor of going with the staff recommendation to retain Tree #73 and hope for the best. Commissioner Barry: • Thanked the architect for his presentation. • Agreed that cone-story home is much nicer than atwo-story home and represents a good design decision that will look very nice, providing a cleaner and more pleasant appearance. • Expressed appreciation for the willingness to accept a deed restriction to help the City meet its Housing obligation. • Explained that the City gets credit for the BMR unit. • Agreed with Commissioner Nagpals' position to retain Tree #73. • Added that there is a fairly speedy process for Tree Removal Permits if one becomes necessary. • Said that she is against decorative copper as it is a toxic metal that should not be widely used but, since this issue was previously approved, she would not object at this time. Commissioner Uhl: • Stated that this is a beautiful project and that this proposal offers nice design changes. • Agreed that aone-story home is better than atwo-story home. • Said that he is not sure what can be done if something happens 'to Tree #73 and that there is no point in conducting an administrative process after. • Said that it is the consensus of the group to protect Tree #73 and there is no point in bringing that issue back. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the only reason it would come back to the Commission is if an administrative decision is appealed. Commissioner Uhl asked if the tree is damaged, it simply comes down. Director Tom Sullivan replied that it depends upon the extent of damage. Appropriate action is determined by the Arborist. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that there are ways to protect trees and bonds to insure them. The owner is committed to doing whatever is necessary to preserve his trees. • Said that he was also concerned about other trees proposed far removal and that he does not see a reason for their removal as they serve as screening trees. • Stated he did not mind the modification of the residence but he does mind the removal of any additional trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Barry asked why other trees need to be removed if they are not near the house. Associate Planner John Livingstone responded that some are small, not all are protected and they would be replaced with nicer and prettier species. Chair Hunter said that she did not notice any as extraordinary and pointed out that Mr. Borelli is from Carmel, a community equally protective of its trees. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for retention of Trees 73, 74, 75, 68, 67 and 69. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the approval for those trees to be removed was already approved previously. Chair Hunter: • Pointed out that no pool is planned for this property. • Added that there are plans for dirt paths through the oaks. • Stated that this is a beautiful house and that she prefers the single-story format. • Said that she is not prepared to remove Tree #73 and agreed that the owner is taking beautiful care of the trees on site. • Advised that they will continue to take such good care especially if there is no pre-approved Tree Removal Permit in their pocket. • Recommended approval of the modifications to the house. Commissioner Garakani restated his su ort for the retention of Tree #74. PP Chair Hunter reminded that the applicant is planting 100 new trees. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that the applicant already received approval for the removal of Tree #74. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that with the changes to the house, this can be considered a new project. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that modifications do not necessarily open up the entire approval. The applicant can go ahead with what was originally approved. Chair Hunter recommended approval of the building plan changes without the removal of Tree #73. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-187 to allow Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two-story house into cone-story house on property located at 20200 Hill Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Borelli voluntarily agreed to remove Tree #74 from the removaa list. ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-002 - Rezoning~Various Parcels for General :Plan Consistenc~(517-22-004, 517- 20-016 517-20-021 517-19-082 517-19-098, 517-19-084, 517-19-085, 517-18-018, 517-12-020, 517- 12-022 517-12-021) Various Owners: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue, 20170 Bonnie Brae, 28010, 28020 28-21 28011 Audrey Smith Lane; 14931 Vickery Avenue, 20500, 20550. 20568 Lomita Avenue: A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD (Residential Low Density), 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. These parcels are currently zoned R-1- 40,000, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. 'The RDL designation in the General Plan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-1-20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Information regarding t:he proposed rezoning is available at the Community Development Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting on February 25, 2004, as noticing was missed for approximately 12 homes that are impacted by the changes. • Advised that legal noticing is required within 500 feet of a project site. • • Added that the proposal is already being properly re-advertised for February 25`h Director Tom Sullivan added that anyone present this evening could elect to testify this evening if they so wish. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this change means that these properties can be subdivided. Director Tom Sullivan said that some could while others cannot. Commissioner Nagpal stressed the importance of noticing neighbors and asked if the only reason behind this action is to achieve consistency between the Zoning anti General Plan. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. He added that it has been :Law since the 1970s to have Zoning consistency with the General Plan. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh added that only one property on Hill Avenue appears to be sub-dividable as a result of this change. Commissioner Barry said that she drove around to each property and was concerned about the subdivision issue. Stated that she is reassured that only one properly could do so. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that she could analyze the possibility of each lot if the Commission so desires. Commissioner Barry pointed out that there is really no choice. Achieving consistency has to be done. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi asked staff if this is the only area found to be inconsistent. Director Tom Sullivan replied so far. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that staff is still looking. Director Tom Sullivan added that there are 12,000 parcels in the City. Chair Hunter asked when the General Plan is reviewed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a specific State-mandated deadline for updating the Housing Element. However, the remainder of the General Plan should be reviewed each year and updated ever five years or so. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Gary Smith: • Said that he is willing to return for the next meeting. • Stated that his family has title documents from 1957 that show that his parcel could be subdivided. • Added that right now his parcel is Zoned R-1-40,000, which would prevent him from subdividing. • Said that he located the title documents about nine months ago as evidence of his family's long- standing understanding that their property could be subdivided. • Advised that he wanted to explore their options and approached City staff. • Expressed his appreciation for the diligence of the City staff. • Said that he was unaware of the requirement for conformity between Zoning and the General Plan and that he is glad to learn of that fact. • Assured that if his property is to be subdivided, he would respect all requirements. Commissioner Barry asked if the City could do a General Plan revision and change Zoning. Director Tom Sullivan said that this would require study as part of a larger scope. By State Law, one does not change the General Plan to be consistent with Zoning. This is usually done on a larger scale. Commissioner Barry suggested that the bar be raised. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission does not have the authority to increase density. Commissioner Barry asked if the density could be lowered. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes as part of a whole area with a larger view. The R-1-20,000 Zoning is prevalent in this area in question. ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2004 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission of the upcoming joint meeting with Council on March 17th. Dinner and refreshments will be provided. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Hunter advised that she attended the Heritage Preservation Commission and stated that John Livingstone is doing a great job with the HPC. She added that the HPC would be applying for a $500,000 grant next week for use in fixing the historic park. Commissioner Uhl advised that he would be in and out of Singapore over the next few months and will miss the March 25th meeting. Chair Hunter advised that she too would be absent from the March :~Sth meeting. Commissioner Barry reported that she would miss the next meeting on February 25th COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mark Weider ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • i~ i~ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-269/14403 Sobey Road Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Mike Amini (Applicant) / Javad and Mitra Ashjay (Owners) Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Associate Planner ~~~ Date: February 25, 2004 APN: 397-03-057 Department Head: i __- _ ___--_---a _ ~c~es __ f 7 ~ / ~~ ~ i, ~ r 'I` \ ~ ~ _ _ _1 ~` - \ ~~ -..-- --Road ---.~ '~ i ~ (" l ~ -~ f ~ ~' a ' ,o -_-- --- - ,~r- '' - --=-.~= Odd _ Wood Rd. Co _. _.. __ r ._. ___ ___ If ~ cr wO~d i j ~ 300 375~ft j - ~ ~ i t ® 14403 Sobey Rd. n Properties w ithin 500 feet of 14403 Sobey i• /~ _ _ 14403 Sobey Road 0®~J~~~ is ~ I - ~~ ~~ ~L - __ r i i ~ ,3i ~ ~ ~~ Application No. 03-269; 14403 Sobey Road CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 12/08/03 Application complete: 01/15/04 Notice published: 02/11/04 Mailing completed: 02/05/04 Posting completed: 02/06/04 ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential -Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 55,989 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 10.9% GRADING REQUIRED: None required ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project, which proposes to construct an addition to asingle-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 (e) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions and ~~lterations not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. The home is located in a developed area. • ~~~~~~ Application No. 03-269; 14403 Sobey Road PROJECT DATA: Proposed Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable: 33.6 % 35 Building (main): 4.593.5 sq. ft. Walkways, Patios, 14,231.5 sq. ft. Driveways: (3,920 sq. ft.) Tennis Court: (to be removed) TOTAL: 18,825 sq. ft. 19.596 sq. ft. (Impervious Coverage) Average Slope: 10.9 % no change Floor Area: Maximum Allowable: ls` Floor: 4,896 sq. ft. f Attached Garage @ lower t. 752 sq. level: Accessory Structure: 525 sq. ft. Accessory Structure: (119.8 sq. ft.) (to be removed) TOTAL: 6,173 sq. ft. 6,200 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement: (of addition area Front: 76 ft - 0 in. 30 ft. - 0 in. only) Exterior Side: 37 ft. - 0 in. 25 ft. - 0 u1. Height: Maximum Allowable: Height of Addition: 16 ft. - 0 in. 26 ft. - 0 in. i~ ~~®®~3 Application No. 03-269; 14403 Sobey Road PROJECT DISCUSSION: i The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 302.5 square foot addition to an existing Mediterranean style home with a stucco exterior and. concrete the roofing to match the existing structure. The height of the addition will be 16 feet. The applicant proposes to remove the existing tennis court and cabana. The home is currently undergoing some remodeling with additions, labeled as `(N) Addition A' and `(N) Addition B' on sheet A2. These additions were approved by Staff last year, and did not fall under the scope of design review. The removal of the tennis court and the cabana were approved as part of this previous approval. However for this application for a building addition, Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-45.060(6) requires design review approval from the Planning Commission when as a result of expansion the gross floor area of all structures on the site would exceed 6,000 square feet. Neighbor Review Staff feels that the proposed addition is minimal in relation to the existing scale of the home and would not have any negative impacts on neighbors. Nevertheless, Staff did require the applicant to show the plans to adjacent property owners who voiced no concerns. Their review letters are attached. Trees No ordinance-sized trees would be impacted by the proposed addition. The conceptual landscape plans show that the brick patio in front of the 120 square foot cabana is to remain. Even though the removal of the tennis court and cabana were approved by Staff under a previous proposal, Staff is requiring in the conditions of approval that the applicant carefully remove the cabana so that the roots of the nearby, protected tree are not damaged. In addition, Staff is requiring a final landscape and irrigation plan for review and approval prior to issuance of permits to ensure there is no trenching within the root zones of protected trees. Perimeter Fencing The existing fencing and gates constructed with a stucco base wall, pilasters, and wrought iron on top is in violation of MCS 15-29.010. This code section requires that any fence or wall located within a front yard or an exterior side yard of a reversed corner lots shall not exceed 3 feet in height, with entrance gates not exceeding 5 feet in height. The fencing on the site varies from approximately 4 to 6 feet in height, with pilasters that are approximately 6 feet in height or higher. An approximately 6-foot tall trellis structure is situated at the corner of the site at the intersection of Sobey and Ten Acres Roads, which is also not in compliance with the Municipal Code. • ~ Please refer to MCS 15-06.420(g) for the definition of `reversed corner lot.' ®~~®~ Application No. 03-269; 14403 Sobey Road MCS 15-29.010 makes a special exception to allow lawfully constructed fences installed prior . to March 20,1987, with a height of up to 6 feet if it did not interfere with safety standards. Staff did a permit search and was only able to find a building permit issued in 1989 fora a- foot high masonry wall and 5-foot high pilasters at the same location of the existing fence. The approved building permit was in compliance with MCS 15-29. Apparently, Staff has come to learn that 3 years ago, the prior Planning Staff gave verbal approval to construct the existing fencing at its current height. Nevertheless, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed addition with the condition that the existing fencing is brought into compliance with MCS 15-29. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance is not required for the proposed 302.5 square foot addition, which is located in the relatively flat area at the front portion of the lot. Residential Design Handbook Policies The proposed addition implements the following policies contained in the Residential Design Handbook: Policy #l: Minimize Perception of Bulk The proposed addition is minimal in relation to the size of the home, which is situated on a fairly large lot. The addition is neither disproportionate to the existing home, nor would it negatively impact the scale of the existing home. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The external appearance of the addition will match the existing structure that has stucco siding, painted with earth tones. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views Since this is a single story addition and the surrounding homes are either obscured by foliage or are situated far away, there is no interference with views or privacy. The applicant has shown the proposal to the adjacent property owners who have, so far, not voiced any concerns. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views Impacts on views are not an issue with this proposal. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed addition will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be connected to energy efficient heating and cooling appliances that currently exist at the home. • ~~~®~~ Application No. 03-269; 14403 Sobey Road ConclUSion Staff finds that the proposed addition implements the City's Residential Design Policies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving Design Review Application #03-269 with conditions including the specific requirement stating that the existing perimeter fencing -including but not limited to the stucco wall base with the wrought iron above, gates and the trellis -shall be brought into compliance with MCS 15-29 and other applicable Municipal Codes prior to final inspection approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Letter signed by neighbors indicating they have reviewed a copy of the proposed plans. 3. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 4. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A". • • • ~~®~~~ Attachment 1 • ®~~®~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. _ Application No. 03-269 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ashjay;14403 Sobey Road WIiEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review to construct a 302.5 square foot ground floor level house addition with a height of 16 feet, resulting in the gross floor area of all structures on the site to exceed 6,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly r.~oticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct an addition to asingle-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 (e) of the Guidelines for the Implernentation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions and alterations not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. The home is located in a developed area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the following City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk The proposed addition is minimal in relation to the size of the home, which is situated on a fairly large lot. The addition is neither disproportionate to the existing home, nor would it negatively impact the scale of the existing home. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The external appearance of the addition will match the existing structure that has stucco siding, painted with earth tones. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views Since this is a single story addition and the surrounding homes are either obscured by foliage or are situated far away, there is no interference with views or privacy. The applicant has shown the proposal to the adjacent property owners who have, so far, not voiced any concerns. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views Impacts on views are not an issue with this proposal. • ~~~~~~ Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed addition will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be connected to energy efficient heating and cooling appliances that currently exist at the home. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 03-269 for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference, with the condition that the existing perimeter fencing - including but not limited to the stucco wall base with the wrought iron above, gates and the trellis -shall be brought into compliance with MCS 15-29 and other applicable Municipal Codes prior to final inspection approval. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. The complete construction plans shall show details as to how the perimeter fencing is brought into compliance with the Municipal Code. The complete construction plans shall include a final landscape and irrigation plan for Staff review and approval, with the correct species of all protected trees properly labeled. All proposed vegetation shown on the approved landscape plan -including but not limited to the areas where the cabana and tennis court have been removed - shall be completed prior to final inspection approval. 4. The proposed removal of the 120 square foot cabana shall be done carefully so as to not damage the roots of the nearby, protected tree. 5. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." FIRE DISTRICT 7. Applicant shall comply with all Santa Clara County Fire Dept. conditions. • ~~~~~~. CITY ATTORNEY 8. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. 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. • • ~®0®~.~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 25th day of February 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~®~~~.~ Attachment 2 ~~®~~~. ~~ ' ,,,Nei bbor Notification Template for ~- ~„~"' g - '~- ~- ~ `'" ~1 `~ Development Applications Date: ~aNuaY 'r•~-~'i~- ~ ~ ,I J~~t~'~~l~ljl~r.,t PROJECT AD RESS: l~C', ~~~~ ~>~a~~ ~ t Applicant Name: 1 l r k N~ ~ %9'I ~,~~ 1 " Application Number: ~ ~ ~" ZE' 1 - 1,P~3/~~1 •~ViC~~~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applic' nts to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening oj~ the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. CMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concems are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ ~ ~ ~ C=am %L'l ~ ,.=-~~~ 2~ZL ce r !~~; j' ~ ~~~~i '" t' ~C' d " ~-~.~~ -- ~' ,~ `, .~ y ~_ ~' ~ ~ L5 ~ ~ U ~ u Nei borName: ~2.~j ~ i~ S/.~~''~~%4~~~--~~~~S/E~ J gh ~ f Neighbor Address: JAN 1 3 204 CITY OF SA F '• . ~ ~ ~ ~- ~~, ~~ , ~~'~:-~~~~ _F/~; Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ / /~-~ ~~ Signature: • Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ®~"~~~.~ . Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~,7Nua r . "~- %Zlx'~~- PROJECT AD RESS: l~Ci~~ ~~~Cix ~~'~aC~ J`-'!~`~tOl~~a . C' Applicant Name: r(rk~ ~ i~'1if~ 1 Application Ntunber: /.~ ~" z~'~ - ~~'~~/. ~ ~ 1~ ~'iC~~C~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applic' n work with their neighbors ro address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public~hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity. to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. C'My signatwe below certifies t}ie following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. CMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concems are the fo1loN~ng (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~l ~ (~ ~~~ >~. Neighbor Name: ~ P~'t'~~~ y~~~0 n ~, Neighbor Address: 1`-'~'~~~ olDwoo~ ~ Neighbor Phone ~ Printed: -. f.: ~; C/TYCi. ~ . g~7 338 ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~®~~.~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications PROJECT AD IZESS: /¢~~~;~ -~`J~Ciy ~~~.~C~1 , `~~~~`~ ,~ Applicant Name: 1 t r k ~; ~ ~f~ /~'1 i '" %, . _ ,~ E ;~ - l~t`'-tea'/Cl/~ l\~E% V'll~~C~ Application Number: ~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applic' nts to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening o~~ the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the si,~nature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. C~vly signatwe below certifies the following: ]have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and 1 do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certif es the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and 1 have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concems are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name. ~_ v ~ ' ~ ~ T~ Neighbor Address: ~~~ ~ ,~ ~, ! ~ ~ ~ '`f~~~J D1.~ lJ V6c3b ~ ~ f~IT~ ~ G~' Neighbor Phone #: ~~~~~~ ~ _ Z~~ / • Signature: Printed: ~ G~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~~~.~ r ~~ ~~• ~` ~ ~ ~L7 ~ `Neighbor Notification Template for 'Z~ ~ Development Applications Date: ~al~ua /' . .r.~.~~- ~ - - - `- ~~%c~ . ... PROJECT AD RESS: /¢'`~~~~ -~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~`3r` .~~~ Applicant Name: / I r k~ ~ i'/~ll~ 1 r' Application Number: / J` " Z ~'~ ~ ~t'~3/~li~ ~ ~~iL~cC~ The Saratoga Planning Cvmmission requires applic' is to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Cvmmission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City o~f Saratoga. ~"My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ``I ~ n lid; <~ ~7 1/r Neighbor Name: l S~ ~'~' ~ rr~/~ ,1~J~:. ~~~~ Neighbor Address: /J ~CITy,~r ~~l gb ~ '~ZL,t Neighbor Phone #: ~ / Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department • ~~~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications PROJECT AD RESS: l¢~Ci~ -X/~JC/Y lll-~~~~~f , :7uT~~~ ~C~~~-r; Applicant Name: / t r k ~ f1 f1'II ~'1 % Application Number: / ~ '" ~~'~ ~~'~`~~~~ /\,f~' I,~1LicC~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applic nts to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants privy to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative veal! residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~~Ivly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. CMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: f'~ ~ti ~ ' '/ ~' Neighbor Address: • Signatwe: ~~~~ c N 1 ~ zpD~ 111 -a,~~YQ~s~F ' ~~~~; Neighbor Phone ~: 2~% `~ "~ ~ ~ Printed: ?~}~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~i1I~~~ • Attachment 3 • ~~~®~.~. • r-~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. (,(, S i, ~ ~ Ilrr,~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a I, citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~~ day of ~~I~~ 200 that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa lara 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 persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing 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 . ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 5 ~~ ~~~~~:~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 25"' day of February 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #03-269 (397-03-057) ASHJAY, 14403 Sobey Road; Request for design review approval to construct a ground floor addition of 303 square feet to an existing 5,346 square foot home. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060(6), design review approval is required because the proposal will result in a total floor area of all structures on the property of more than 6,000 square feet. The property is 55,989 square feet and is zoned R-1-40,000. 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 maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, February 17, 2004. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Assistant Planner I, , ___ ~- -~ ,=-- i ~~ .. I I ~ \ ' ' _I %~ ~ ~-- 1 i' ~ -~ - - ~~ ~ ~ ~ / \_ , ~- ~___ i ~ - ~ I ~i f ~, ~ a i ~~ 7•` /~ 1 ' a_ _~-:-jji _ F ~- .. ~1 I ._ ~®~~20 • • • LUCILLE G GIAMMONA OR CURRENT OWNER 14251 SOBEY RD ~ SOGA CA 95070 VINAY & SONJA KHANNA OR CURRENT OWNER 14451 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID G & LEE REED OR CURRENT OWNER 18801 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SAMUEL AND MELANIE EZEKIEL OR CURRENT OWNER 18850 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RUSSELL AND MAUREEN SCHNEIDER OR CURRENT OWNER 14425 SOBEY RD S~OGA CA 95070 F F SUEN OR CURRENT OWNER 18840 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JEFFREY M & PRISCILLA HO OR CURRENT OWNER 12790 WOODMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RUSSELL T & HARRIET DONOVAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14275 HILLTOP WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 THINH AND HANH TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14341 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DONALD AND CAROL ORGAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18843 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RAYMOND K & NATHA OSTBY JOHN A CHMIEL OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 2474 14469 OMEGA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN AND PHYLLIS FEEMSTER JAVAD AND MITRA ASHJAY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18800 TEN ACRES RD 14403 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 TIMOTHY & CAROL CORCORAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14437 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 EDWARD A & JANICE COSTA OR CURRENT OWNER 14419 EMERALD HILLS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN N & EILEEN HERINGER OR CURRENT OWNER 18803 HILLTOP WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 HAPPY C & EUGENE HONG OR CURRENT OWNER 14588 DEER SPRING CT SARATOGA CA 95070 JAY & ASHA KUMAR WERNER & MARTHA RAYMOND L & OPAL LEAP OR CURRENT OWNER SCHUERCH OR CURRENT OWNER 14439 EMERALD HILLS CT OR CURRENT OWNER 14525 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 14482 EMERALD HILLS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 TR FORMICO RICHARD AND CAROL FORTE AKASHA T NOELLE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14456 SOBEY RD 14474 SOBEY RD 14470 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 RUTH H CREMONA ROBERT & MICHELLE BLAKE TR HILLIG OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14416 OLD WOOD RD 14394 OLD WOOD RD 14372 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MA & JOHN FALCOCCHIA SAIID & MAHNAZ SHAHABI VITO A & BETTYJANE ~RCI.URRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER DIMUCCI 14275 OLD WOOD RD 14307 OLD WOOD RD OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 14343 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~®~~~ 4 QUARTERS 1NV CO OR CURRENT OWNER 14377 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 WALTER E DONOVAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14226 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 NELSON AND MARY WALKER OR CURRENT OWNER 14415 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14472 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT H & SHIRLEY DONZELLI OR CURRENT OWNER 14268 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MIKE AMINI OR CURRENT OWNER 10566 S. DE ANZA BLVD. CUPERTINO CA 95014 • ~~~~22 • ~~y V ~.., i } _~ fF...RC~NT__l=L.EYATIO.N ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ U .~ V F F ~ 17 2004 CITY OF SARATGGA • A 1s ,,,. Fewsiorvs ev I ~I PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN SHADED AREA MASTER BEDROOM ' - N8o'47'OO"E J81 83 M M lEJ SHED TO BE] REMOVED. IEJAGGESSORY BLDG 70 REMAIN 525 50. FT. O • w U o: a a ~IEJGABANA - TO BE REMOVED. IEJ GAZEBO - TO REMAIN. ' OPEN 4 SIDES. fEJ TENNIS COURT TO BE R'eMOVED. n U TEN ACRES ROAD (50 WIDD~a~ -5156 - ' =8 fi Q ~ sasAsao"w \ s2a.aa' I _~ ;~J r __ / ~ r (a 6 IP I _ m ~ ~~ j ~~ p Q~ b4 I ~ _.._L~= -.- ~_. - __~ / O26 u~ 70,00 ' / pI I~ I / ~^ / ~/ \ m ~ Yti r ~I / ~ F ~ ~ pprpF~I' q i~ Q I.'„2 ~ \ ~ 1 \ 1 ~~~ ~ ~ S N ` '~ ~ Q^ \ \ 1 1 lU b S o y ' ~ ~ ~ W~~ ~I~~~ ~ ~~ \ w ~ I ~~ ~ ~W I ~ ` } \ ~ u h) , \.~\ 'Ap ?are ` ^ I O I I IM VVV I A ~ , \ N ~ ~~\ lEJ PATIO e,~ ° ~ I s ~ ~ ;h ~ I~ ~ ~z° ~ ~ ~ e r ~ \ ~ V (E) RESIDENCE. ~ ° ~ ` ' ~ O 0 au ~'~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ pp gy .-- ' ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~ " m. r. j~ ~'~ ~~ % ' ~ ~ ~ '3 ~~ J ~ d $ u o ~ , ~ ~ ,: TO R MAIN. y _ ~ I ~ ~ ~j ~ -~` ~ . ~ \ ~ q '~psO ~ Y ~ ~ ~ 0 O ~ j ~ i ® ~~..~ y„ - lEl PATIO ~ ~ it ~, i , ~ - `~ ~>tiV~~ ~~,: ~ I ~ a m ~ , I:,r:~ ~, I~~ ~'~ _ ' ''~ \ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~_, ~Y \ ~T s V ~ o, A ~ ~ of Fg ~ 0 ~ ~ L¢ ~ ~~~ R r'a ~ 8~ I 1 ' ° t . I e ~- l ; i ® d ~~ a~ ~` 3 W ~ i I ~' ~~~ ~ ~ @ ~i ~Y ~ ~iC ~ ~ ~ y ~-' f~ / Y ~~ ~' \' 6 ~ 1 \~~ \ ~ \ ~~ A `t ,,~-~~; 4 v PARCEL "B" 51 T~ PLAN-~ i / ~i~ ~ I i ~ I I of I l/VQ ~~ qC GENERAL NOTES: VICINITY MAP ~ BEtl88T4Y ~ , ~~ ~ ' ~ ~, ! ':': me BAY'-cT ~ J Dhi RSiVBMgi~q r ~ r I. -THE pE91GVER ndW}piN9 NO PESFCNSIBILItT PLR tHE CCNiRpLtOR9, IN ilg BIDVAIlRdC}CRB OR i4O9E WOIXNG IN bJLN LPPdL TE6 x I ( Y ~ Y ~iR! ~ f „ 1F' " , , MEiHpDO UBED IN THE EXECUt RI CF THE IAORC AND 9dFETY FRKFWRE9 dNp • k ~ Mh r n 1 . 11 C V Ey(y yil.. ~ i ~ NE PROJELt lIiE. FTEOW11LN9, OR THE LACK THERE R tACEY At r Y ~ ~, ~` ~ r ,y41 1 Z. CLN1RACttJR6 t0 A65YtE PAL,GE6PONO0LIiT, UIJffLIEVFD DY tBVIEW6 ~-. I o ^ -Atj j,L " ' ~1 9 ,YY DRdWING9 Br B:PERNSION CR PERIOD'4 LO9ERJdlICN 6 ~ j ' '~ ~i ~\ 0 C~-` S taiBiPolLtfON,WIR COnRIANCE WiH CLNKdGi DLGP1ENB.FOR DI`1EN51CNb tO 0E FRF Rfrp AND LO~LAIED CN 1HE JOB RTE dND ~ 'e' 11 ~ ~r p LN ~' pp " EENEEN NDMOU4L DRdWNG9 OR 5Et5 FOR ORall'NG9 FORFnBRICAfrCN ,, ~ 'Yr~, ~ ~ PROCEl9E9~CLN9t21GDQ1 tECWIq.EllN0.UDING ENC4VAtIW. 54L%PG 6LA4dLDING BRACING, EfEGiION, FORNpIRCETCr FOR p. P.~~l -~yB`,~' 'R A L•~ ID b ~ J ff Q' . J LOLH NdiION Wi4E VAR WO YRpDE6 AND FOR SAFE CQdO tON di THE K9 SttE ~ P ) 14 ~ ~ G9 ~ 4 .~~ V' '. . N IuE FlELD OLNp t Mb F£LATNE i0 T4E CCNiPALi ppLNfEpiB R e A ~Na f + ~yT A~ ^ a S! ~ I ~ qRM - r 6 . w FaeoRreo To n1F oESGN6R oR dWER woRC sua.L rwr PPasaacm L WiIL Wi rtEN PERT 96 PI FRCM iaE CE9GYER OP WNE0. i ~ `~ ~ ~ p O ~ ~ '. ~ I 1 T+,9. Off/ ~ n ~r t! ~ THE NFORtdi PI CCN1A NED CN LHV DRdWWGS I6 W ififlF'NLPIPLETE dYp l W D WLE691N LOdJBVLt CN Litrl 4. THE SPEC:ICpi pv iRdDE PRdGiICE9 OR 4PPLICABLE STANDARDS COpE! ETC ItKARPORAtED iNEREiN DY PEFERENCEB y Tt,{Fl ~l ~ `, ~ A Ir 1 I ~ r ~ 11pR:f_=B /(.1J ! ~ . ' ~ I . WHd THE CONiPdLipi LERIIFlEb gYOLLECGE WBY 8N9PIG i4E LCNTPALL. K ~ jM ~OSY~ y I y ~ F $~~¢ } _ ~~A , y ' ~~ B. DESINGERl REVIEWR pRAJing9 PREPARED BT tHE CCNIRACtOR'B %JFPLIERS Q CS ~ I EiC. AF£ CNLT FOR CCNFOR'INILE WIYH T4E DESWN Ca~ICEPt. i EHO G88iAMP 9 ' 4 R O ' "W _ 1 F. ' ~ ~ -_ - ' ~ -~ J - ~ CGN W4L n Oi OidRi W RIOJi 9d p RENEW, YD P D TLC Q\ C ^ E ANG SKNED DT iH2 Of9fGNFR OR dWER WILL 0E ALLOLEO Al iVK JOB eltf. ~,/ I < ~ ° - N~C ~ ~ /J ! ' " u6 Ot4ER1N9E NOTED, 4LL DEtd L66 eGTIONS, AYD NOTES Oi THE DRAWUI~GO 6. WLE 4RE WTENDED TO ~ tTP LAL FOR SIMILAR 61NdiILN5 EL5EB4fRE J. 'vFZ ~ NN y , Y ~ t'' a / ,'TEAT ;~1 1 ,. CQVYRAC1pR W4L A4D 9IGN9Ya CONiRAOi COEb WARRM'-i4d14L LLORR A`o nmertptswu cmPLr mtu PEa lffna+rsc rr~ccN+Rdcr I i~sI}G_ 6D '~-..., ~ -,°. ~.~ p[~m ~~ DWJnENib WD 6'.14L BE 6 GOOD LLORCndAt KE O14 tt A9 FIgE DEFELtBNLO~.4NS~P4YDn4tERIdLFG~dPEROp~~Erl~ YEdR Fp[t1 DAtE 6 FULL CCGIP4YLT WLEBB LONL£R 14AN QIE YEdR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION WdRRtliiT 6 REOJIRED, 6PEL FIEO OP PROWDED N88diE0 GLdS! 54'ALL HdvE tEN t'EAR WARRdY:T , 0. CRYiRALiOR WALL FEGg4O PAiGi diC ndiOH 4L UN51WLtICN DAr4GE6 tO 61TE, GRAE6 LWLFrEtF FENL N9 EK 10 MdiW EX 9tlNG LCNplllp5. Q~ER: .IAVAD 'QND MTRA ASFIJAY °. GOOD HOUSKEEPIN'ii PRKtICE6 WdLL BE OBSERVED 4t pLL YIME9 WRING THE COJRSE 6 LCNSTIRlGTICN, iuE SiORIIY 6 GOCO6 AW MATER146 CN THE SIDE WAtK dND/OR 9IREEiO WLL NOL DE ALLCNFD uvLE06 p 6PELIpL PER^I! I9 gOJED. tFE wvEPwtEtmENY W cupEiE CP CCNBiR1CtIW 9NdLL BE dT THE iOB 41TE ADDRESS: 14403 $GBEY ROAD oaxWG 4L uaaclrn uwPs SARATCGA,GA 18. THE CONSIRKtION W4L CO'A"LY WIR! }iE 1998 W6OfM tilILOWG UAE. WRLWi PL111BWG CODE. WUOR'1 MKHAIIG4L CODE, dND tHE 5% ' NdrICN4 ELECraIC LOGE AFN: 39 f-ID3-ID5l , II. ALL pIHEN51pN! (Tt YHE pRAWNGS dRE iOBE LHEC -EO BT THE CONfRGCIOR KadWSi ARCHIiECT11R4, nECHANICAL ~ ELECiRk4 DRAWS d. d4o REPORT Avr oP dLL oIECREPANnfs ANO fRaoRS ro ofsIGNER LOT AREA', 55,989 50. FT. / L28 ACRES J DEFORE PPOCEEDIIl. WiH tNE LLOR: CLNYRALttX+D 944E DE PALY RE9fgJ51DLE FOR CONFIFt1ING A^ID CORRELATING DLL DEMEN910JB W THE JOB 61TE AND BETWEEN INpI`/rDildL DRAWNG$ 4VD iRdDE9, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW ADDITION MASTER BEDROOM SHEET INDEX TABULATION ARCHITECTURAL ` ElEYR11QN,Cl~FSExT~TIoN) ~N A ly LOi AREA 55989 50 Fi, l 1.28 ACRES J SI PLA l A2 IMPERIVI0U5 LOT NET L01 AREA COVERAGE DIAGRAM 55989 S0. FL 12 a 6,118.68 50. F1. A3 EXISTING =DEMOLITION PLAN 55989 50. FT,- b,ll8b8 S0. FT. = 49,210,32 S0. FT. A4 FLOOR PLAN EXTERIOR ELEvATfON6, ' GROS SECTIONS t INTDRIOR ELEVATI0N5 4DOID1 TD 8000ID 50 FT . - AC+FA ~ ~'P~a:,la1T10u 6,0'd0 50, FT, PLUS 2(0 SO, FT, FOR EACH 1,0mID S0. Fi. CbF~~~'}'C.~L-;S~Jf95G~.p(~~, ~ ~ OF NET SITE AREA OVER Sm,ID00 50. FT. 7G 79~GRp~IIG" ~b~' ~ ~ ,IAYE _ _ _ : b,0ID0 SO. FT, FOR 4ID,OIDID S0. Ft. 185 50. FT. FOR 9,21032 SQ FT. b 185 50. FT. ALLOWED FXI^ STING " EXI611NG GARAGE '152 p Sq. F T, EX1511NG HOUSE 4,593.5 50. FT. " F SUBTOTAL 5,345. 50. FT. "i~ 4CGE550RY STRUGiURE5 EXISTING 525.0 50 G1. SUBTOTAL 5,818.5 50. FT: PROP05ED PROPOSED NEW 307,5 SO. FT. MASTER BEDROOM TOTAL PROPOSED 6,113 50. FT. ~D ~• F ~ C o , artesa. FT ALLOl2'ED YPbx ' £ o ~gF ~Y F~ S9E~85 S E €E€ ~ frfr~E 8a g€~ k ;; fi fr a"F ~c €3 €°~SA~~~aY$:e Q ~ O Q ~ U r - LLI 0] Q g u O of ~ Q Q O Q j ~ ~ a ~- ~~ ~ P E ~, P h U c ~ ~ ~gz ~"r "~ ~~3 III S ~. w MM ~ `~ u 5 .~,~ a $ ~ "~F.I ~ M (~ a N ,. C U ~a ~~ C7 MP~RV I OU5 LOT GOY~R~4G~ i71 A~GR~M (E) ARIVEWAY "B" 160 SQ. FT. ,~' -- // i t rl ~ I / it I) 1' ~ ~ lE) PATIO 3 4221 50. FT. II II I' ~I ~I I ~ ~I ~I I ~ I IY~~ ~D rE~ PArlo 4 3l2 S0. FT, (E) RESIDENCE. 4158b S0. FT. lE) PATIO 2 302 50. Fi. ~'~`'T~ 2U ~ 7~~•S ~ ~~ lE~ Parlo I ~ 2936 SQ Fi. ~' ~ /I ~ I ~~ /E) TENNIS COURT ~ ~ 3920 50. Fi. ~~ _ I `~ `~ ~ ~~ ~~ II `v ~ ~~ lE)WALKWAY BRICKS ~ ~ ~~~ ~ f8380.FT. `~ ~~ N01T NCLUDED RT V ~~ `\ ~/ ~ = -' ` ~ ~'~~ ~ G~LGULATION !N1 ADDITION A ~ ~ l>`U ADDITION B 3~r ~ „ ,~ SQ lE) ~SIDENCE. 4158.5 `1~ FT. lE) DRIVEWAY "A" 4311 SQ Ff. lE) DRIVEWAY "8" 16fd SW. FT. lEI WALKWAY "A" 821 SQ Fi. lE) WALKWAY "S" 183 SQ. FT. (E) PATIO I ~g36 gQ, ~, lE) PATIO 2 3~ gQ, ~, fE) PATIO 3 4222 SQ. FT, fE) PATIO 4 312 SQ ~ TOTAL 18322 3 5Q. rT. ALLOU~D 3"'~18q X ~ ®1916.1 gCa. I'T. (E) WALKWAY TO REMAIt` 821 S0. FT. ~ry).ApDITaoN.~- ,_~_ T05 SQ. FT. fN) ADB6FION 8... ~.SC?. FT.,:, ~~o;o , lE) DRIVEWAY "A" 4321 SQ. FT. ~ ~~~~~, ~. _ ~. REVISIONS BY ~~ B ~~Y~~~~~sg~~ ~~~~3~~b~`a~g~ a€ ~b`4~ to€~~ €~~~~S~a'.~~LSyy @ ~~ _f~.; ~~~o~~~~s~o~~ Q ~ Q O ~~ Q ~ U } m Q ~ O ~ g ~o o~ ~ Q Q O Q Q ~ (n b~ ~~ o U V1 ~_~ °z C ~~~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ $r~~ ~ ~~~ 4•~ ~ ~ W R! $ `~ ~' ~ ~S~ oaf U ~°~ -,x..n:1a~+: ,. ,...'''' ~ ..n -... ...-:"i ~ .-ems... ...;~...J A .....:i,t '. .. _. ... ,. ....... ._ ,. • p ,~ ~ v \\ ~~ i~ °~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ :.. ,, ~, `~i' f% ~~\ .~ ~r ~ ;, ~ ~ ~ / ~ 'c~ ~. ~ \ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ i I ~~~ ~/ ~~ \\ ~ ~~. ~~\ ,~ .. ~ I' ~ (~ - ~ ~`Z; i f -~ ~. ~'Ti =QED -_-~ ~, ,~ rtEO ox cuenmixr iooow emwa~oae ev ,a Q 0 Q ~ U w ;~ } h ~ ~~ ~ M Q ~o o~ Q ~. Q y ~. cn Z 'd° :~.. pia P o, ~~~ U ~0. G~y ~N ~ ~~~, U ~~ oaawry cwacaeo Dora aen~a Boa no. /~eKaefer~~ A' J ,. as weere I~ • • -,-,.,_, _-,-1....__ . , . ~~~~ aN ~ h , Iii - ~ ,~ - -~ -- .~ ; 1, i ~ _ _ _ _--m ~~ _~ _ 'r' ~' _ i , ~,, ~ Imo- ~ ~~d 8 ~ " ~ ~ 7 ~ ~$ -.--- _ X5,5 ~ u9~ ~~8~a~8a~. ' E 8' ~ ~ ~ E~ ~1 ~s~~ e ~ ~. I ; ~ a~ ~F~ 4x j \`~ p ~ , plUIsH .Ff~. ~ ebb a~~m~s ~T -~ ~~ ~~-.-~ ~ :~! LPL. ~ _~o L ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ,N -- - -"----~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-' ~ ~ .. ', 'I ~~{{ `. ~ !i! ' , ~ ~ ~ ~.~~ ~ I ~ ,~ ~, ~ ,~ ! ~~7 - ~~*+"i~~ ~~~'{ ~{~SH~ ~ ~1~~ ;,:. ELECTRICAL 8 MECH4NICAL LE6EpID ~ ~ MA .. _' _ _ .._ __.. I - ~ ee ,~ tel. ~ ~ ~' - .-~ ~ ~ . _ Q ~i ~.. _ ~ _ ..I_ # ~ o ~ Q' ~ ~ U' ~ ~~- 1 j .~ ~ ~ ~ ~a' ~ >- '_T_ ' F F ' ~ - „ p C7 . L ~ ,~~~~. u,~~„„~,ax i. ~ -' ~•~~~ , w~ o ,.~ A5 , ' ~ ,.,,,.~::,N„~. ,.. I ~~ ~ I ~! ~ ~ ' * . v~-1-o - ~ ,- _ VA71ptV ~ r~ cgs ~ ~,LEF7' S~CS~ ~ ' v . ~._ ~~~ aar M~a~ ~ : ~ .._~.. ~. ~ _ ~c -rl,~ ~ ~Vy? e g z ' ~#.,.~2~_. f~MlFle. iy ~~E,. I~o.~ ~ c4T,: )-: ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ui>' i ~ a~E _ dill ~-` ~ . - ___ - - ~ ~To II '. x ~~ - . -- ~ I ~ - ~~~... ' ! 6~ 1 (~~ ~:. -- --f~~T_ oar : , - -- i ,~J~-5r$x~2. ~ ;_ _ _ ,, _ _I _ ~ `~, ___ _.. , __ ~ - - - - - rL ~, , = I I~. 6~ P ', i ; I o ~._ -~ _~ ~ ' .~-rte e_ .. .A ~ ~~I eI~„ ~ _ ' , I ~ ; I ,~, _a I ~ - ~ , o = -- ~u ~ ~ ~. _ _. :, ... ,- I ........ r .'., ~ 1 1 y~ .. -_ _._.....~-- -.ter- ._ _ ~. ~. . 4.,. ~ ~tl ~r R. ~ ~ rJ. , ~ ~ / / ~: JOB ND. ~, 'I S ~ ~ ~ 15~d{:G*ts; __ ~ Imo- f~"^ps;171CS~ i ~~'Y~~I ~- _~.. (~!) I ~1Tv1 ~!W ~ u,M~ _ .xxer ~ ~ ~~ CRC?S5 ~~C~ ,~ ' ,~ ~ ~l~c.a~ ~ '" ~i„oi ,_ _. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1/~~, •~ )>~IT~~N ~ ~,'~lSTll~ro. ~ ~ ~z ~~EU,as©r+t .... .. _: _ . _ , nrQ'rEflt g FRC~~WT ELEVAfiI(~IV' ~1~7~.~~se M~sTG~ -tfi. ~~.,~~_oll ~J4 4 .... 7~ ~ 4'Tt,I pi ~l.,. ~ _ f~l,~p4,, ~ ~~ _. o. ,Nx..a ~. rxxmo ox c~uxmixr woow ~. - S '. -;. _, .: ,.... "' ,....: 1. i • • I X~}2.a ~' S.F \ ~/ i ~ r-.7 ~, -?~~H=~~~ ~'~ ~3~x ~7 ~a~o ~ 3a x ~o _- ,~j2.5 . 'I' +~' -y!' S_~ ~E-- ~~ . ~ ,. ~'~f, a~ii10'+i k.~ ~,5 . ;. - _ ~~ -U s _ ,. ...: __ V _ _ _ r~j-~- REIVYIONe BV \ Q N ~ U a?-- w ~ m ~ ~ ~ O dS ~ Q ~ ~ ~VRy? •~1 .:' V ~ s ~a w' ~~ 4~ ~~~ ~~ U ~~~ iRLMIR00N CIFIiRrtNNi IOROX i -- r U • sc. i°-~~,,m„ REVISIONS eY o~yE,€7'~qY OEY '€a Zc _o oYO E+~ o..%.~°Y~3Dy~~pV VCs ~a~~V .,T ~Va 086 $`c;o-V a V 400 tg..4 b"o§~a.a5 ob°p§~S. ygS85~a §~€~oR ~$Ea~53~ Q ~ Q N ~ U a r . q w ¢ 07 ~ ~ O U ~ ~ ~ qS r~ ~ p O Q ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ • rl r~. » a a T G Q J C V1 ~8 z ~r ., ~ ~~.5 mW" toe ~ a~u 4~I o ;~ ~ (~ ~~N ~~C w °aJ U ~ °- owwm er. acam er: i55UE0' ~~9uuE.. OXG PA6)ECt N~NB.°2 as ,:- • ^~ow~~ M ~~' ,. w .., ;. ~ , .. . „sue: W ITEM 2 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-273;14241 Paul Avenue Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Mohammad Estahbanaty, owner Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, AICP, Associate Planne~. J" Date: February 25, 2004 APN: 503-27-036 Department Head: ~,a i~~ e `,y1 ~ ~ ~ ;' h~i '~; ~„ ~.. ~ . `\ .. ~~,.-t. fir` ;~'~'~.~''~ i, ~. 7- ~' ~ ,~ *, . > .~ I %, r ~ $' ~~`~',f ~~~ ~ ~ a y Q .; i ~ .~ t~ ~ ~ . i '~,~ ~f ~`• ``~`~ 4 r'~. ~ - `t, i .,,-,~ - N "'~ `7 ... 9treel ~riBS ' --. 4 ~~ E • ~ f~oject Site .: , ~ ~~.. - ~' i '~ ~ Parcels w ifhin 500 ft ~./ Hydro W ~ ~ ~ 1 f~rcels V d \\ ~ ! p 500 1000 ~ 1500 2000 f1 ~ 1 a° 14241 Paul Avenue • O(1~001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Public Hearing conducted: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 12/15/03 01/08/04 02/25/04 The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,200 square foot single story residence and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 ft. The proposed horr~e will have gray flat the roofing and a beige stucco finish with dark brown stucco molding. A two-car garage is proposed. The lot size is 7,500 square feet and the property is zoned R-10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the design review application number 03-273 by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Documentation of neighbor notification. 3. Arborist Report, dated January 15, 2004. 4. Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • boooo2 Application No. 03-273; 14241 Paul Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN: RLD (Residential -Medium Density) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,500 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT EXACTIONS: An enchroachment permit shall be required for any work in the public right of way. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which consists 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 home will have gray flat the roofing and a beige stucco finish with dark brown stucco molding. A color board will be presented at the public hearing. ®~~~~ Application No. 03-273; 14~?41 Paul Avenue Proposed Lot Coverage: 35 Building: 1,946 sq. ft. Walkways, Driveways, and Pool: 645 sq. ft. TOTAL: (Impervious Surface) 2,591 sq. ft. Floor Area: ls` Floor: 1,556 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 930 sq. ft. Attached Garage: 390 sq. ft. TOTAL: 2,876 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 36 ft. Rear: ls` story: 54 ft. 2nd story: 54 ft. Side (North): ls` story: 6 ft. 2na story: 11 ft. Side (South): ls` story: 6 ft. 2na story: 11 ft. Height: Residence: 24 ft. Code Requirements Maximum Allowable: 60 4,500 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: • 2,s8o sq..ft. Minimum Requirement: 25 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. 6 ft. 11 ft. 6 ft. 11 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. • ©~~®~4 Application No. 03-273; 14241 Paul Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,200 square foot single story residence and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The proposed home will have gray flat the roofing and a beige stucco finish with dark brown stucco molding. A color board will be presented at the public hearing. The homes on Paul Avenue are an interesting mixture of one and two-story structures in various architectural styles. Most of the recently built homes in the area are built with stucco exteriors. This home will be very similar in style to many of the other new homes built in area. As shown in the attached letters, the applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors. Staff has not received any letters of concern from neighbors as of the writing of this Staff Report. Unlike other Saratoga neighborhoods, the homes in the vicinity of Paul Avenue are situated close together. The applicant has proposed installing screening trees in the backyard along the north and south property lines to mitigate any impacts on privacy to the rear yards of adjacent homes. The screening trees are shown in the landscape plans in Exhibit A, and have been added as a condition of approval. Arborist Report All trees are planned for retention and expected to survive. Tree fencing and a monetary bond are required. There are three ordinance sized trees on the site including a mulberry, plum, and redwood. Another redwood is located on the neighbor's property to the rear in close proximity to the shared rear property line. Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project supports the findings for design review; therefore, staff recommends the planning condition approve the proposed project. The proposed project implements the following policies contained in the Residential Design Handbook: • The home is articulated with varying rooflines and moldings. The home is well- proportioned and not much different form the newer homes that have been built in the vicinity. • The proposed home will be 2 feet below the 26 feet maximum height limit. Hipped rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Materials and colors are an earth tone and will blend with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior finish with dark brown trim and a grey the roof. • ~ODU~:Si Application No. 03-273; 14:?41 Paul Avenue No trees are propo:>ed for removal. The applicant has proposed six additional 15- gallon trees to be planted in the rear yard. • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project; therefore, view and privacy issues have been addressed. COIICIUSIOII The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth v1 the Ciry's Residential Design Handbook. The residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project supports the findings required for design review approval as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Design Review Application #03-273 by adopting the attached Resolution. • • ~o~~®~. • Attachment 1 Do~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 03-273 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COlvIMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mohammad Estahbanaty;14241 Pau]. Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the existing home and construct atwo-story 2,876 square foot home with a maximum height of 24 feet; 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 project, which proposes to construct a new small single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and • WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the following City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: • The home is articulated with varying rooflines and moldings. The home is well- proportioned and not much different form the'newer homes that have been built in the vicinity. • The proposed home will be 2 feet below the 26 feet maximum height limit. Hipped rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Materials and colors are an earth tone and will. blend with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior finish with dark brown trim and a grey file roof. • No trees are proposed for removal. The applicant .has proposed six additional 15- gallon trees to be planted in the rear yard. • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project; therefore, view and privacy issues have been addressed. • ~~~~~8 NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 03-273 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the proposed residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the planning commission as a modification to approved plans. 2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report received January 15, 2004 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 4. The vertical distance from the highest point of the proposed home to the immediately adjacent natural grade not created by fill shall not exceed 24 feet. The height of the proposed residence shall not exceed 24 feet as measured in municipal code section 15-06.340. 5. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 8. The grading and drainage plan shall incorporate all Arborist Report recommendations, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of City Permits. ~000~9 9. A final landscape, u-rigation and utility plan shall be submitted for Staff and City Arborist review and approval prior to issuance of City Permits. The final landscape plans shall show screening trees in the backyard. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. 10. Front yard landscaping and screening trees in the backyard shall be planted prior to Final Building Inspection approval. 11. Applicant shall obt~an an Encroachment Permit for any work in the public right-of- way. CITY ARBORIST 12. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report received January 15, 2004 shall be followed. 13. Tree protective fencing, as stated in the Arborist Report, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of city building permits. 14. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $4,198 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 15. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of any required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE DISTRICT 15. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District. conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 400®~.~0 Section 4. 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, the 25th day of February 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission • ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ®o~®a.~ • Attachment 2 • 000012 • 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty has shown me the plans to build a two story single family home on 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga. Name : C..... /-~d~ ~ ~~~S~l Address : ~ ~ 2~+c~ 1~~--t~'~- ~l V~(J~, ~~-~44rT~C~C /~ Comments : ~~ /-~~ V 12~ ~~ Ecc~~~ '7~1-~ ~~.-J~- ~ S ~ `~ f~ i`~ v~2~ PLC-.S~d lO ~ ~ J'ye~-~ nl'! c~ 1~~~~v ~~nrT ~~' oy,e ~/~~c~~orLt~ao p . r~ Signature : Date : ~2--2-2~03 40~©~3 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty has shown me the plans to build a two story single family home on 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga. Name . Address : ~ ` Comments ig~ ure : ~ T--y ~ Date : ~~ ~ ~ -1~.~ ,\ S • • • ~06~®1~ .. • 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty has shown me the plans to build a two story single family home on 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga. Name :~~~ ~°~ ~-- Address . 1 y ~ 3 t ~~~ l~ Comments • • . ~ r ,,~., .C_._ Signature . ~.~"~''~~ ~~ 1 c~~C. i ~- Date . I ~' ~- ~ J X00®~.~ • • • 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty has shown me the plans to build a two story single family home on 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga. Name J ~~} .~ ~ ~, ~ C ~ Address . Comments : ~ ~~' ~ ~~~~ ;.- (~ ~~ I //~~ !7 f` ~``~ ~ 1 ~' ii y~ ~r ~~ ~ ,~ ,,. i Signature : ~ ~` ~-~ ~ ` Date . ~~ ~ ` ~ • • ®~~~~.~ • ~ • 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty has shown me the plans to build a two story single family home on 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga. Name : ~~~"~~ ~~~~ Address : ' ~-~ ~ C~ Comments : ~,ti' G_ ~/ r' //~~~ ~~1. Cti/ ~~ ~~ e ;~~ • ~,~,~~~,~~ ,,~ ~, (~ Date : ~~ ~~ Signature ~~ ~®~~.'~' • • Date This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty has shown me the plans to build a two story single family home on 14241 Paul Ave. Saratoga. Name : ~ vK w~-C~ ~ ~~ Address : ~ ~ Z ~ O ~ ~ V~ ~'1/~u-. ~e.~'r'~,~-c~ ~~-'-P~ Comments : NQ + ~111~~r ~ e,~r "~t~- ~a,w ~, a ws~. ems c~r~v~-- ~--eh~,~ ~,., no t' ~ ~. C~~ o ~ 14.z~fi t ~ u~ Signature : Date : 1 Z IO • ~~®®y8 • . Attachment 3 • ~0®~~~ ~- ~. ~~ ~ wE ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 14241 PAUL AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: ESTAHBANATY APPLICATION #: 03-273 APN #: 503-27-36 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A January 15, 2004 P.O. Box 25295; San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 ~ Paa: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 • • ®OO~o David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 1 S, 2004 SUMMARY The proposed project exposes four trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. All trees are planned for retention and expected to survive provided the recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. A bond amount of $4,198 is recommended for compliance to the recommendations. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new two-story residence at 14241 Paul Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets Al thru AS (A1 thru A4 are dated 12/10/03 and AS is dated 6/27/03, by CB Bassal Planning & Design) and Sheet 1 (dated 12/9/03 by Kirkeby Engineering). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters, as well as the recommended tree protection fencing locations are shown on an attached copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet 1). FINDINGS The proposed project exposes four trees regulated by City Ordinance to development impacts. They include 2 Coast Redwoods (#2 and 4), 1 Fruitless Mulberry (#1) and 1 Flowering Plum (#3). Each tree is planned for retention. I expect their survival provided the recommendations presented in the next section are followed. Tree #4 is located on the neighboring western property and was included in this report as its root zone area is exposed to being potentially damaged. Please note this tree's trunk appears appropriately located on Sheet 1 but not on Sheet A5. Generally, the canopy of a tree is a good rule of thumb for determining an appropriate tree protection zone. However, in the case of trees #2 and 4 (Coast Redwoods), the majority of the roots are expected to extend from the trunk by at least twice the canopy width. As such, the protection fencing for these trees, as shown on the attached map, must be Estahbanaty Property, 14241 Paul Avenue, Saratoga Page I of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~1~0®~1 - -w ARBOR. RESOURCES ' Professional ~lrbori.cultural Consulti.~zg ~ Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 14241 PAUL AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNLA 01NNER'S NAME: ESTAHBANATY APPLICATION #: 03-273 APN #: 503-27-36 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A January 15, 2004 P.O. Bow 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.6.54.3351. • Paa: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #796763 • • • 000022 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January I5, 2004 SUMMARY The proposed project exposes four trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. All trees are planned for retention and expected to survive provided the recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. A bond amount of $4,198 is recommended for compliance to the recommendations. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new two-story residence at 14241 Paul Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets Al thru AS (A1 thru A4 are dated 12/10/03 and AS is dated 6/27/03, by CB Bassal Planning & Design) and Sheet 1 (dated 12/9/03 by Kirkeby Engineering). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters, as well as the recommended tree protection fencing locations are shown on an attached copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet 1). FINDINGS The proposed project exposes four trees regulated by City Ordinance to development impacts. They include 2 Coast Redwoods (#2 and 4), 1 Fruitless Mulberry (# 1) and 1 Flowering Plum (#3). Each tree is planned for retention. I expect their survival provided the recommendations presented in the next section are followed. Tree #4 is located on the neighboring western property and was included in this report as its root zone area is exposed to being potentially damaged. Please note this tree's trunk appears appropriately located on Sheet 1 but not on Sheet A5. Generally, the canopy of a tree is a good rule of thumb for determining an appropriate tree protection zone. However, in the case of trees #2 and 4 (Coast Redwoods), the majority of the roots are expected to extend from the trunk by at least twice the canopy width. As such, the protection fencing for these trees, as shown on the attached map, must be Estahbanaty Property, 14241 Paul Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department O®®023 David L. Babby, Registered CortsultingArborist January 15, 2004 established beyond their canopies. Additionally, and the proposed concrete walkway must be established on top of existing soil grade without requiring soil excavation or root severance. Please note the location of the tree protection fencing specified on Sheets 1 and AS are not correct and should be modified. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached map (see recommendation #2) and established prior to any demolition, surface scraping, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 2. As shown on the attached map, the protection fencing in the front yard should be established no further than one-foot from the proposed walkway and existing driveway, and four feet from the footprint of the future home. In the backyard, the fence shall be established at least 20 feet from tree #4's trunk. 3. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, clearing/grubbing, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 4. Utilities and drain lines shall be designed outside from areas enclosed by tree protection fencing. Swales proposed within the fenced areas shall be manually dug and not exceed afour-inch depth. 5. The proposed concrete walkway must be constructed on top of existing grade and require no soil excavation or root severance. Additionally, the soil subgrade must not be compacted. The subgrade materials can be compacted but not by more than 70- to 80-percent. 6. From March thru September, supplemental water must be supplied to tree #2 every two weeks. I recommend providing 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter by soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface beneath the mid- to outer-canopy. 7. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath hardscape must be labeled for safe use near trees. Estahbanaty Property, 14241 Paul Avenue, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 2 of 3 00002 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 1 S, 2004 8. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.com/arborists/arbsearch.html. 9. All walkways and patios proposed beneath tree canopies must be installed on top of existing grade without causing soil cuts or compaction of the soil subgrade. The subgrade materials could be compacted but not by more than 70- to 80-percent. 10. Stones, mulch or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the base of trunks. 11. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Irrigation spray shall come no closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. 12. Based on the amount of turf being proposed on Sheet A5, I recommend the irrigation plan is reviewed for tree impacts prior to approval. TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined monetary value of inventoried trees is $16,790. To encourage compliance with these recommendations, Isuggest a 25% bond that equals $4,198. The appraised tree values are presented on the attached Tree Inventory Table. These values were calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`'' Edition, International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of the Site Plan (Sheet 1) • Estahbanaty Property, 14241 Paul Avenue, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~®~®2~ . ARBOR RESOURCES ` Professional Arboricultural Consulting 8~ Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ^ ^ ~ io ~ io ~ a c ~ ~ > y b •~ o °~° ° o w ~ ° '~ «' Q ~ d .~ ~ ... F" `~" ~ ai "" a`ni o w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o O. c ~ ~ U ~ m ICI C.1 ~' ~ o 'won ~ o ;d °° ~ boo ono ~ ~ °? °'~ aQ -°~~ ~ TREE NAME ~, ~ x v x ~ ~ .. C) v~ a Q •• ~- Mulberry _ _ $830 (Morus alba) 15 - 25 30 75% 25% Fair Low 4 Coast Redwood _ _ $8,90( equoia sempervirens) 35 - 55 40 50% 75% Good Moderate 3 Flowering Plum _ _ $760 (Prunus cerasifera) 13.5 - 15 30 75% 50% CJood Low 3 Coast Redwood wm,nin .cemnervirens 1 24 14 50 30 50% 50% Fair High 5 - X $6,30 lob: ]4247 PmdAvenue, Soramga Prepartd jor: City ojSarawga Commaniry Deve[opnunr DeparanenJ Jarurary 13, 2000 Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA ~~®~a~C • • • Prepared By: ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care P.O. Box 25295 San Mateo. CA 94402 earthlink.ncl Phonc: (650) 654-3351 Email: arborresou~ces© ~~ ,_~~ Nl0°27'00"W •`~ 150.00' - __ -- ~`; ~r ~I = ----- i ~ ~ . , r -- - _ ... -- --- L W - 'R E 5 1 D E N C` E~-r=;~--_ _ z~ ;, ~ .. l ___ .. '~ ' ~ PROPOSED RESIDENCE 1 _ ..~_.J. ,Yx F.F.=102;.00 aao=99.5 :__ ._.. L. ~5.::... :~fQ.O ~° o~~~ E PROTECTION FENCING - ~. ~, _; ._ ~. m, 1 0~ 1 I~~' ;~~~ `tL 7~ 1' . r.-o.. o ~ ,..: ~~~ w a ~ ~~ ~ 1 THE _,. _ _ _ o 4. .. • • • i 1,1,01 5~p~E - ~ ' ~4 ° 51 ~ '- ----- - a-~ / ~~ ~ / n _ . ..................a_4y_.._~ Site Address: 14241 Pau] Avenue, Saratoga prenazed for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department Notes: Map identifies four trees. Canopy perimeters aze approximate. Map has been reduced in size and is not to scale. Date: January 15, 2004 ~~; y~ i Cpl - ~ ~ -- L- Nl0° 21'00" W 150.00' ~:,. ~~ . ~~~ ~~~/~ ~p~~°~ ~; .. ~~ ~: .. :: :. ,:.~ ~o ---`_~_~ ,i f - Z 1 ~ 11 ~~ r. ~, 2 h , !i f ,p4,0. _ ;> _ _ _ ~ ~. \~~ > 1!--)~ • Attachment 4 • ~~®~~r~ BURNETT,G K & CAROL S 26820 REID LN S TOGA CA 95070 HUNTER TRUST 20781 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 PERRY,STANLEY F & SALLY M 2~" 10 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GORDON,GEORGE B & THERESE M TR 20780 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 r~'1 E&E,HORN TRUST SCOTT,JON M & DEMETRIA R 14256 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SHAHRIARI,KATAYOUN TR 13196 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SANDS,CHRISTINE A 20821 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CASSERLY,MARTY & EMILIA 20800 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 DU,MING & YAN X 20760 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 BURGOS,IVAN 14265 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 NG,SONNY C 20650 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KETTMAN TRUST 14250 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MAULDIN,CAROL & MICHAEL 15345 BOHLMAN RD SAR.ATOGA CA 95070 KING&STARK,TR 20880 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 UONG,QUANG H & PHUONG L TR 20778 REID LN SARATOGA CA 95070 OSEKOWSKY,JOSEPH H 20790 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 PATEL,YASHVANT J & VARSHA Y 20685 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DEIMLER,LOGAN S & CAROLE E 14320 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 VOESTER,KURT & BARBARA S TR ETAL 14251 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARNA,CHANDER & ANUPAMA 14224 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 EARHART,HOWARD F & CATHERINE R T 20680 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 t~0~®2~ GR.ANADO,RANDY M & I'OOLE,PRISCILLA F & ~ CECILIA R DONALD E 14341 ELVA AVE ].4340 ELVA AVE ~i SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 STANARO,CHESTER J TR HESTER,JAMES L j 14320 ELVA AVE 1.4310 ELVA AVE '~ SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LIN,CARY J & JUNO J 12062 JAMESTOWN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 MCCABE,JAMES M & BERNICE TR 23 GLADEVIEW WAY SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 GHAFOURI,AMIN R & NARJES KAZARNOVSKY,ARIC J & 14291 PAUL AVE CLAIRE J SARATOGA CA 95070 14301 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MARSHALL,BRUCE & ROBERTA TR 14341 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SZALAY,TIBOR 14328 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 • ESTAHBANATY,MOHAMMAD 2395 S BASCOM AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL,GARY L 20731 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 • CHIEN,EDWARD Y & TEHCHI H 14314 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~~0 I HUANG,DAVID f PO BOX 895 R T ERFORD NJ 7070 SHAW,RICHARD H 14260 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ISIDORO,FRANK W & MERNA L 15041 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 "'"fER,BENNETT J & CYNTHIA SALAZAR,URIOL J & L TR CHRISTINE V TR 14288 ELVA AVE 14303 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 KUO,DAHN W & JENNIFER K 14291 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ST NICHOLAS RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GR 14220 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CHEN,JIE 14230 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TOOYSERKANI,TR 14315 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 FRIEDRICH,FRANK J 14220 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PRASAD,RAYASAM & SITA 20881 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GIRAUDO,LELAND V & YVONNE TR 20789 REID LN SARATOGA CA 95070 MARKHOVSKY,FELIX & ISABELLA 14250 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CLARK,ANTHONY L & LINDA R PO BOX 477 SARATOGA CA 95071 KRAFT,BARBARA L TR 14299 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MC CHESNEY,MICHAEL J & SUSAN M 20620 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TANG,WAN-I G & YAW-SHING 20851 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KHAN,ATAUR R & SEEMA K TR 20850 MICHAELS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ®®~®3~ ~ WANGBICKLER,A L & PAMELA J TR 20843 MICHAELS DR I SARATOGA CA 95070 OU®~'~ t C • r , • r.. r ~~ a~s~~ncE Foa: ~ paopos~ kPPodI1mIEGIhSfBIGAtgRm 1710N ~ipN . BY11Epf1~~BE mR mOHAmmAD ~STAHBAi1AT1~ BNALLPBOYmEAiHDi1BOXf pIWAR7Ki~WlOp1 . I ~ ilE BIAIONG PM WAS PB@ANED Alm 001PAm1EB N AOfAXDANCE WBN TE BOL I~OHi 1441 pAU~ Au~nu~ (_ ~~A~~~Y~E~ Alm BApffBI W761W8. ANB BBAMISm(FANiII'JN.q BLBSrANiWLYWPdN10BOlB6VHfAl0 ~ CAIIFORAIA SARATOGA n PPpB ro Asta. NBPECIIOB iUB Ar+r BUENIIB ai Nlm N1~Afl®TIE BOl NV~rII\QgN BNVL68ff AFNLL BETmFf 6rA7BNTECpNEiED ~`~~"'~~` C B , PAq FOUIMiION, FN6H 00.^pIQ ANB A980CKf SRE NJKK SRSUNI W 1Y CpidN TO rf E APP~VF9 P(N5 SPFCNGrm16, llm NVPSfmATKNI - -"'r' ~~~N~~A}B~TY 8816 ~. BA8001A AME 8lR ~0 ~~~A 'N1ElECIPoCALIlFS~WIBIIROCAIMJNL1ffS Nm uamaw~,NawemNaNmlmunm,cArv ~~ ~ ~ ~79Ff~LA41 BEImGTED ~q t~ t Al 911E PLAN / 8Ht£i' tom(! YICMY MAP 11441 FAt1 Ave 744 EN9~ill CALCLLA710N9 6Ntl-T086, dl 86870 . WNSfRLCigNSIIE$NN1BE Bx1AS97 BY A2 P1i0PO9® FLOOR PLANE ARI • eaAaEAxtEAiAUneswslmrclmri LAT 8~ EErC88 i NEik 7400 84 Fr ~~ ve •rawlsnw~mx NA751/1, ~WPN@1f, PoPrA&E AS •ERiB90R ELEVA710N9 / DETAL9 7~BE1SiHA91CQ7rAB86.Q10®IBBSYL~ P N Hf FYAY tdE O6TRLT. R•~70,000 . PIDL®NT& I~1C m -0 ~/y}~~p ~/~ 1 .N~ /~~~ /gyp ~9G / I N M ~ PIN R ' PiA~ ~ ~ W1LVO. Ayr ~ ^ ' _ ~~I~IC P~"II Vw-• AL ALLT7F5AIm0®BISONSRE N}~H CWIDOINERYASE ~ ~ p /~ ~ I ~ AS LANt~CAPE PLAN RIOP00®H68NF. 8Y 0"~'O ALtOW6D~ NDNANAY,9NLLBE P631AAPLYWLLECI®Alm ftAtfD NWNfANHi re /~~~~/~ ~y A8 d ~~ PLAN e~ IIA><N01l8E Al1+ONA~ •~•• ~ ~ All casiniclmn N~as)xmm swws AM OTB310~ 'MBCNCAINJTBIITYAWAY)SHAl1BE PAFDxnlnl7lEPigP8i7Y E1 . PLAN 1 .1 ~. uB CFrPE Pg0.2CrxnrffJRA1m SAFE A4N&A •,xEProrecrsw,_wwEAS~rut~v¢~rAetEr~nNrs~ Fl Fib PR07E~C11~N NOf E9S nr~ n en RRBT riVM^ RWt ~ 84 tT. eo SII~f71NTNOCA167Fff FI011166Lg61NICImNA3 pcx.px rBwraoAw roePx.. BAT. raalaramsru) tiNi119E aloe 880 64 tT. {8) 9Fg78 8iR>1C11A1AL CRAWWG3 86D010 f100R Mk 680 8Q FT. P110f+0~ NOUBE '[, 0 leteta ' 0 NDCH!®00iN70IIliN6 8118NB Fn0 IPfBNI: 1818 8F. II6A b OMIEYIAY,WAIl03 i PA1G8:816 8f. Bb 4 ®NDlGM@DNEtlNMtItOON DRAWING'S INDEX rarK Rat>x1e~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ $ ~ `.' ; ®NmICAIEBN~lBGQD NA7GA ~ • oa6n+a erRUClue~ ro ~ oaaalase8x ( I „.rt- c~pFrtm~ ~ i~a~t~a+r~t~ 81181E aenar IgOBE : t0eo aF. eAR~ae BosF Qmb t~ - - i :66 70RAL OL 10 BE OEI~IJd~t 1P00 8f. /~... ~ 4t , AA -~ jy ~ t "~ o"~'` ~r ~ e ~ ~ ~ U ~ 14241 Paul Ave, 1 1H8 611E ! MT -1E88111AN ~ eOPE ~ ~ air &aratoga,CA9507~ (BffgVLp8lWli~ llonsNrtPtsrmNnae t ~, d5arttm4a waesawuaeaaN. ~~ ~~ ~~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ` ~ >~ 801 I~OBf NiAPoV® ql 61~?Y~800~ 8Y: u-aa A188f~11180L 1861lq NG w ACiD ~~ iNrE 8886 b BABCOY AVE14E i Q NORM ~ ~' ~ ~~ wr a ca °N° mno=mmlae•Ar ~ „ A4241 PAUL AVE •°• ~ ~,~~,~~,~ „~ ~wM~~,~; Al VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA SITE PLAN va^=r-a^ e ~~~~~~~° A ~{. r 1 . maa~u~ ~ ++riu-r,..w,s ma au Nips. w onwn >t 11~NC~caeuNlalAllrooaltirlNlsaule 1 ouaelumulcsrmalwrmeeAVanm aar~aAn~ ~ '~~ l ~ OLW N 0/RIf• A'p 811MLi NO1NN ^Illl ORILT NIII la 4W~181! • Q7RTN711Ce~OLMRt, M1RQ01R110Q1m w nlvnsoleaslal'so..Ala1p•lcsel, nesceelecawel>o i ~ltexsltaacelmc~altrlecNw Ai ergeat~uerde~ M hOw e/lurdrrape6yDr ef0.1 •t 11rwuMtlrq~ rYee ~lllbW, OrrY~M ~.a.rasal..e.+.1b~ lptaotea~ 1oi It Itlw bomb lleor. • Naeeneoaae~euwswmaMarviee t ane~~m r7: .. ~, !! W 4 A I!t ~CIIC Vtll NIYI M0111M iNMNOMlQAB MOO.sIm AroL NrLL.1e0LATIC11gtlYE®AQI9! ut a u loiaao ~ eYar ooe11 X18 W>4, GI718 III[ A A CAONq~ GM16 MO A104hL A.'117?11.OIOILBI AtIg1A}IC 1lOf W.0'A) k Y0811101.R 11S1Li ~~YN~ R~GOII~tbOLAim 8 W.'!Mi Q Y C!t •uoes~.ocw ~lumaelertu~7ssw11. lorK ter Amn cr vsnlAlna u1a~e. a~atir.-.-wow N ms r°~irr°ewu~w o~in~ii~x~ NKweecor van 1m8~ ~~ v„mllwua NMG~Mm1110V118 ewixrww°°w~`wor~ w~ ~,a rlasuvAllaoroRV7ns a ws1nc11.1QSSwr.eeemeuwao caltirr var haenoctallrelatrneKArAe n lrl'lcartrureloreueAlowuac® r+'~NwtnxoNlaewon IOAB AOL}I' Q 7R0•1@l'7R rortnxr t019eY pi~~AT iftMQNOt7KN MOQ1tIIC el'111ISd11C1lO A- AV MOA1N0; 47NpG1 N W 14 NNNil9 N ~N~ 6M IIP14 91i~400 ®IIKN.VO OMMR"61 C111'gpN~y weDb o- nbr n nc a'1elaeewns Nuu M NNA(1,J9 N 118OgPANI, >b•GC~L71110711ONY~i1! / p~ GLO.I.NIL10 m A! OAl4TpM 11! 010111(.7. 0.118 W W06{ ni ONII~G'fP{!I Inl® A N'M14811T0184~~1g1 Q 118 NJlT1Wl tliT R AI{/RCBW 101Nem NNpJO NOOM;INIOM AV .ORR14K IOl 8'IOIONt 1fA14811lJ06 ~1M.P8110C11GONQTI! war wnn 11e asrl srelel salsa 40MONW18S NNAAls N 001}-NH'0 OlO1L16l~ AM1441GU4C11T C@'80 Q A8 Cagn DMftiO 118m~11~~ Otl10:f rolenaeoao ATRNAL G TI!!1lD81RCfMlT BAlARM1 ln011 mtl! 08baLQIGIQ118110L 0.118 /L11'1Gl7NNCfd1118f NAK AQI1' MD OOnmNl t7p}p~yl w, a r, ~s1s1t. vrnwls ' - '~. ~~ NCS1C e a vaNi f . ^.1N7 R~^ a~r 0171 NOOLI MI1R ~~~ ~q ROOM ~anoc>tis t+ we 401NAifaN11~ ~~~~-~ ROOM ~ s1esl~rNro1>. ~~RF7W A1181 H• 1fYlOm1 NY1Lp11 NOORW, ler mreee >er FAire.Y ROObI FO~CB/d ~~ ~ ~ til~T H~OCbI r r CL01a 1 4,1YlY% 'ro M7G 2 CAR t~ 9La M AAIE 2 Ri'fl p{A10 aoallele ve.rac -mar W111L vwav ec~ • ~ wwu G1RXr~O' m Y' XD OCLOYRAO! 00. ~' e1,'~LQVC~/~Q7/1~-yy~ h~7 WG ~. `` -~~M~AAJI•YT~J.T~ •. ~ ~g ~ 4/0Y • fIRYD auewfnaoae+fusf~ e RArA.E 1tlR ~ ~'~ afe+tudti~ ffaa e.M ~~ _ _ ra a . ; ~ ,_ - ~c~. O O O O O O m eynur n nf~Tw+ _ ~fneTu • ~~l~ i ewmowfs+ FRONT ELEVATpN -WEST '"'°°°d"'"' tll•M. Y•awoonffwa ruaww fefar ~ afe fw~naw •aartrfc aK~awn ~ fx psaria tarK raa f x a+n®naacn nf~ fwwc ,~ anfr d~+assf+aer an~fer~~,a ~ a •~ ~ rf-asucu~ a o i t a+ree afx~v~a~ta nr.+ae+twt aecffaarw~e auxo~ d .rk~ ~ Y•ennrotneia fxsornaaas ~dwiatisdR Weamfnfa~a . ~:.•. arecrlurwa fu~aa+c6o~atsa ~a~+as+ afmp.Wxa NlOIQfUai'fLY.611tlK fx4v•woa 7LN'ellaYR v tftm atx ffMMi Y• ~ncmnox a fWSRAN)di'fLT.pmfl d1LiAL tA9+a of x ffw+m mnoowr+a f ureeauce vatm ~awae+ naefawaartr.fM+n a: x n~rw FOAM TRIM DETAIL ~•_+~~ 3 CHIMNEY DETAIL ~+<'_+' 2 EAVE DETAIL ~+'-+'~' 1 r~afaoe+ exerw afnoe a c ~~~ w~encna+ ~CR/OC LEFT EI, lfiY.6 Wd4 REAR ELEVATION -EAST f~ eeto v~NOd°e'~6ou' ocxa+w.ro am W ffff rf~x • m Mff SYfNQNY80tib1~i!® RAr UlIfOC! arew.wea f urww~cavaoa iwcaeaxr. rwetewai•rtr.emn eeMf®~n of x nv+~s oameiarce REAR ~ ~ FRONT LEFT ®~>iw~~~ af~acafaa~: rn e Q° •~ A~ ~~- e ^ ~ mrx6ea~,as6.e a s 1+,+01tk1E14et670A/.1R1661 M1~tl066Y6M61611 ~ rt~6rursaw6x6a~ 6 ' 6 t666RSlaa6pllAwa~ILL wuel6 uo 6ev nau oa66e~na a ~un6orwww6n6sr•ri6u ~ 6 nV 60GIf61tTD6Mg06•tl/ e A / ~~~~~~~~~ 6MINOtmQellN6.tlp41fY: / /i ' ~ AAAi333 ' 6pkC1N{A661l166[®1M6! wam6arnro6sacao ! 6i19tS /1006 a M~IpALlAt6e16epAfYN61a6 ~m6 ~ tl1e161lQCM~ M4 ML71 [lOC1C TO /LL00 .. MCN61 11R n ~ ~ ' M.1tI61EI Q M6 W Ce n M IItl1t6A ~wr.eee-.~T.aK ~~x rs p NV Q6Ctl0lARDt6Met![R6C 6a p~. G ~RF/Y111 $ i ¢ ~ ' nIN601l1~.lA6mM?M06 0 ' GOIH0N61M AM•6e10. M. e~' ~~~ 6a6ewewaamm.6nla6uae66we 611e!' 61tlOM6.61[01e~gNU010pIndAEA ~6~t~GM716. - 1 ~ 1l61lA0ne101110LlmYl06l[MiC10U tnt o.mn~w.es ~ 6fm ~n ~OB/Le9an6a1o16.e66.0l1 ILn16r NIL16p! M'tsY. n'mrm. ~ ~ p 8 QWL1Dt2lW t~L6m pD Mlle .. P11Mmi O'6OeM'L OtleYi6 Q ' M0161lep 60iL•10lN IIR/{•J!D QGI f' iMl6N2 tERCitG66 a nu6m tza66- ROOF PLAN 118"=1'-0" VAULTED CEILG. VENTILATION 3/4"=1'-0° B nex t twuea~ a61A0e 16D6E ~tru M11 t0 f1tO.~E 066 A1' CA71~it10Aif1- RC+ CA~ACAfRAnI4 leill OS61111'1l~66 Al D00-~ R91HlNML7®) Q ea.ra.aoxaa~. Y<D xl. ~ O 76'$x N'. 066x/. ~ tLRP00Fgi0W @ .11'IC BO7RIElLm O 6646'x 6Y~M" 161610 J. ~~ 6'7604tllGx6=tORip1 dD0M6GA eD. M. Qi aexnrr. >eaexc ~: 1o tl~i'xa4• 66)/x/, [ r O6 /OxY74• ~~ q C9 O WYXFi'" t66M. " n6W ttYOWL ® •~xr.a nsar. i ~ a6roe mtl~tnu6etoor~ •ulsaearl FLOOR AREA COMPUTATION Y/e6{6 6MAI1 OIVV6{iG ttrrxnaatwwla 6+S' M1~0000110{,g7R Gt1L1G161WlM ~~~~ iNItGYtC ~M ~ 611YCL0RY6tl6 . P0111t~pt6n 101e:61 M! 691aIGg60. pI119tl6 ~~ M mrxnsrne6na a xatst a M 1~4i6ocv a 6~ '1e1 ~ OBA X461'1 Wf"1 II W/x1NHIN 2 mrx rr arum. -ClW6An MLL6 f ~IY111 I'~ RW1g7Rtl t 01®@i ~~crioN ~ ~r~ ~ ~ d 4 II ~~ i j •~ I 1 ~I ~ ~~ ~~~~ BUILDING SECTIONS ~ va"=r-0^ F'~BT R.Og2 ~ .i _ ~ EXISTING'IRttS ~ TO REMAIN - TYP. ti I ~ ~ ~ _ - _ a+cnve k-m ~~D ]~ ~ 'ENCE. i'.p~ wGU. TSP. 1 ~~ L I~ cl ...__ r` _. _~go X41 ~O M ND ., ~ ~ _, ._. I,_,~ i 4"~A6WD '' ,.. 14" RDWD ' I j ~ ,\TO REMAIN , : 'TO REMAIN I .j'T ~~~' ~ / • i ' i ~ ,. ._. ... ~_ . ~ ,,. i. r / ~i .. ., TR6~ PRO,r.,FEYv-~~' ~r~ I ,, ~ NEW 15 GAl TREE I ~ ~- ~ . _ I I T~1RF _ - ~ ~ ! ~!j -"' NEW 15 GAITREE saaayHD\. -~ - ~ - ~ j ~` ~'~,~ _' _ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ i y` _ ,~ ~ '~o izCl ;~ .: X. ~ ~ _._ ~ ! o ~ ~~ . _ ' _. .. ~ _ - "- r..A.. ~ s I f ~- --- - _ _ ~~ PLANT LEC,EWp ~.._~: 6-~_{ BY ..~9CE~OTY BOTANWL WUE GdIAON ~~ '; -m;, . 5' ~.. n(~ ~ - I I I 1I I ~... I GA. Ib CI6N6 PJp JREA ^"'~-~~~~~" M ~' .~ .. -..~_ _ {- _ RIKKRO6E ~I j -I~ GAS b ~Gf.OVII LEd NOF1LIi -- GREyILLEA ( - II ~ IS GA,I 4 ,IEEE &L -. ._--. _ ._ ; . ~ _ ~CLIA MEpONICq j {I _ _ U I fiA-~~7 I L4YBJDULA BF£GE6-_- . LAyEIyDER~ _ ~GAJ I3 MTRICA CA --- I -F LIFGI3~lIC4 COI•Hft1 MYRRE I. :~:.e' I Ali P 15 GA~I II {~DOJDRIlPI ' ~ -.-~._- _ __ I ! ~$ _.__.___ ~I _ ~ ~ FAST FLOOR ~ I ', i G I GA I b i$LICIA AI'IELOIDES SLOE nARiAFIIE Q ~+ r {.._. __ I 1 I N I~~ ~~ I aEMEROLAl1115 NYBPoD9 DAYLLLY i f.. JI ~_' D BAMOLMA CHAMACYPApSBU!, .AMENDER COTTON t~ II L I GA i ~6TACY6 07ZAlITINA _ ___ _____._ ~ , _ ....._,._ LAIy09 EAR ' .__-...____._ I ,.. _.....__ ..._~ ...,.... t. ~_s. TREE PR07E ~s • ' .s Fa~•neE e° ~: nEDlu~ eARR TuRaGNplr 617E FENCING TO R ~ _ i PROVIDE WA1ER ~ BE:CIENi LANDYAPE PER ARTI0.E 5-41 DURING CONST ~ c. IT ~ c ;~ CF '1IE '6gRATCGA I'SI:ICIPAL CODE" ( II „5 ~ y~ ` ~ 1 fl NEW TREES lNCLGDE COA57 LIVE OAK, VACLfl OAK, ~ 'E ''-'=~' ~ !,~ ~ ~'.~ I SfG LEAFMAPLE, COAST REDk!O.OD..AND CALIEQRkIA. - ~~ ~~~ '~r' sllcx~ _ . TURR_. ~ I~•~~ ~ I , I ,I ' 1Y' TREE ~ .gI -~ i s % tl~ I, i .- / ~ . TO REMAIN q ~l L _ ~ ' - sdaay NO I`. ; ' k ~I ~ ~ r ~,'.F~NCr- ~ ~" a TO REMAIN _ I j l _ ~ ~~~ I. H I is i . _ , ~ _ _ ~~ '~Q 0.P` NEPC I t:l 13"MULBERRY . _ ...._..,... ~ .__......: _.._ _._ ; `~__ - TO REMAIN z __ 'A RE.~: D5:2 _. X4241 CAUL AVE. i ! I 1 i I ! I i I III' l I I i I ,'~' NORTH'-_ }`j ~ ~~°=r-o" CB Manning A Da~ign ~08,461~98 ev xMm~w e. nn aa, a vats .. ~ O ¢ n a w '° W ~ 2~jU t!! ~ d ~aa0 ra 3 ~Q ~~~~ A5401ED P Ortarl ~ '., .qe xo ~ ®:-^5 ~ SNIlT Iq. h ~~7 br 91tEls 3 f' i` it ~ a{I E ,. ~ ~ e% l I N Y' ALE:. ~ ~~ ~ ~ SA ~~ I ~~ a'. , ~ ~ h , y ,~ .~ a" Ia `° ~ ~.__ N76°21'00"W ~°°~15D.QO' ~'~ ~`~ ~~ ~~ ` ~ " ~ SS -55' SS-35. I Icx, y ,,.-~ ~~ I ~ Pry .r, i ~ ~ ~-...,,._ °- ~, ~ 1 -..~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '1 ~ i ' --~fl E i_L D EtV:£ EjF~__ ;z ~ I \ 7kEEPgorE¢rio,~ PRIOPO d RE510ENCE ~ ~ ~' o ~ p .x ~~ FENc~ y FF•~ Pad•99s ~JfQf '0 ~'` I 6°~`n off. ~ i .:. }-- 1; ~ W }n:~. i I ^~ l ~ /'~2XD$JAAYSCII~TL1NEr; w a ~. • w,n ~" ~ , ~~ L.r ~f~ 10 5~'-- f~ I f j ,1."a ~ ~ ~TRfE °RD1fC1I0N FfNCf „~ .~ ~ I ( ~ I M ~ 1 _ _ ' C~ .. - ~ Ql. I ~ `I ti ~~ 1 J i ~ ~ I 2 9~ _.~.,L ~; ~ 155, II _1 a.... I I { I~ X40' R ._.__I J l I ~ ~ . I tia I I ~1 , . x Ixe ~ ~A p ,~~.' ~ (. ~ AXYTxrX6 EYISTIX6 ' - f,7W n ~~ BDUpDART ? t a -(- - ~ CFM7ERLIAE EABf1tENI l1Af 7 n M m ~ 1' ~'~- r-~4- ! BUILOltl6 SFTEAEk LIMP BUUl01M6 OUTLINE %" ~~ v ._... ' _ ~FEACIIEB ~ 0.ETFIMIRB xRLI SPBr,ELEYAFJfiI , (7 ~ 54¢ ~ ~ SDxlplill., W m BAAtXASi otAfcrtal ~ t~ °~` CBACpEAE SBAfAt[ A4PYALT PAFIA6 S4BfACE ~ ~~ ~ -~~- ~ '-' : . fD6E M OAYEXEXY W ~ °~~ - : LYAR' ~ EDRB-i GUfTER Y x ~ ~ 0 _ JQ6-__ -SS--G- ~5 StOpX DRAIA qxD .xIFMt04Y SA1FITgRf SF ~' W XMM ' Ytl1 = w ' R r~ p R , B BLF . CATCp BkSix) AREA.DR0.1X ' ~ C~SS4Q~ :, SSG,B SAxIPpttY SE4YR EIEAX-OUL~ x--- ~~~ .. 4AEkA LiXf ' ~'! Y 1 s.Alt RN xAXFA YALYf xAffA xFTFA '. f.N ~f~~ R.E axT s8 c . 4E9~ 5 ~ ~ ®~ e ELYCpRBLS'EP ~Fauti aRPAMgttl ° i ~ ~( ~ iAEF :76':.BE A6XDVFD ' W, ~ „ ~" ~ f :~t s;€ - V:.. °y6 aS z S wuair; ~ eA. _ ~! G: W Q = W Q ~C J 4 O a Zp Q N d Eu Z~ a' ~ q ~ a N " Joi No !3 G38 s~~ 1 ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION pplication No. #04-002 -Rezone various parcels from R-1- 40,000 to R-1- 20,000 for General Plan consistency Location: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue, 20170 Bonnie Brae, 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane, 14931 Vickery Ave., 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Ave Initiated by the City of Saratoga/Various Owners Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, Associate Planner, AICP Date: February 25, 2004 Department Head: ~^ APN: 517-22-004, 517-20-016, 517-20-021, 517-19-082, 517-19-083, 517-19- 084, 517-19-085, 517-18-018, 517-12-020, 517-12-022, 517-12-021 • • Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 Shaded Parcels are zoned R-1, 40,000 but have a General Plan Designation of RLD The RLD General Plan designation allows 2.18 DU per acre or a 20,000 square foot lot, which is consistent with R-1, 20,000 zoning. Discussion A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed for the above referenced parcels to maintain consistency bet~,veen the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD Residential Love Density, 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan map, which was adopted by the City in 1987. These parcels are currently zoned R-l, 40,000, which requires a minimun-i lot size of 40,000 square feet. The RLD designation in the General Plan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-1, 20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is mandated by Section 65860 of the California Government Code, which requires Zoning Ordinances to be consistent with the adopted General Plan. In addition, the California Constitution and Section 65800 of the California Government Code gives to cities the power to adopt anal administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Section 65300 of the California Government Code requires cities to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the development of the city and any land. outside the city, which bears relationship to the city's planning. In terms of CEQA, the proposed zoning map amendments are not exempt from CEQA. If the Planning Commission. approves the proposed rezoning, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration will be prepared prior to review by City Council. Parcel Specific Analysis of Impact of Rezoning The following list depicts the parcels subject to rezoning in terms of address, lot size and maximum allowable floor area. Address Lot Size Maximum Floor Area A. P.N. R-1-40,000 R-1, 20,000 20550 Lomita Ave. 23,450 sf. 4752 4752 517-I2-022 20568 Lomita Ave. 20,744 sf. 4518 4518 517-12-021 20500 Lomita Ave. 29,199 sf. 5220 5220 517-12-020 14931 Vickery La. 35,107 sf. 5688 5688 517-18-018 28011 Audrey Smith La. 40,002 sf. 6,020 6000 517-19-085 28021 Audrey Smith La. 44,892 sf. 6,100 6000 517-19-084 28020 Audrey Smith La. 48,362 sf. 6,180 6000 517-19-083 28010 Audrey Smith La. 51,946 sf. 6,240 6000 517-.19-082 20170 Bonnie Brae La. 42,837 sf. 6060 6000 S17-20-021 20161 Hill Ave. 42,803 sf. 6060 6000 517-20-016 20152 Hill Ave. 74,033 sf. 6700 6000 517-22-004 Subdivision Potential The zoning ordinance requires 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for parcels in the R- 1, 20,000 zoning district. As the above table illustrates, seven of the subject parcels could Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 be subdivided under the R-1,20,000 zoning designation. Six of these parcels are currently developed with little area for subdividing with the exception of 20152 Hill Ave. Maximum Floor Area Since the maximum floor area for parcels in the R-1, 20,000 zoning district is 6,000 square feet, and the maximum floor area for parcels in R-l, 40,000 zoning district is 7>200 square feet, seven parcels will lose allowable floor area [Section 15-45.030 (d) and (e)] with the proposed rezoning. Since seven of the parcels exceed 20,000 square feet, the floor area calculations render their allowable floor area over the threshold allowable for the R-1, 20,000 zoning district and those seven parcels have a reduction in allowable floor area. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution for Application # 04-002 in order to comply with the state mandate that the Zoning Ordinance follow the dictates of the General Plan. Enclosures: 1. Adopted General Plan Map (June 1987) 2. Adopted Zoning Map (June 1987 with revisions to October 1996) • Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION # 04-002 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE TO REZONE VARIOUS R-1, 40,000 PARCELS TO R-1, 20,000 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council of the City of Saratoga with respect to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to rezoning the following Assessor's Parcels: 517-22-004 517-19-083 517-12-020 517-20-016 517-19-084 517-12-022 517-20-021 517-18-018 517-12-021 517-19-085 517-19-082 WHEREAS, the above noted Assessor's Parcels are located at the following addresses: • 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue • 20170 Bonnie Brae • 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane • 14931 Vickery Avenue • 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Avenue WHEREAS, the California Constitution and Section 65800 of the California Government Code gives to cities the power to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the California Government Code requires cities to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the development of the City and any land outside the City, which bears relationship to the City's planning. WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that a Zoning Ordinance be consistent. with the adopted General Plan. WHEREAS, the matter vas considered at a duly noticed public hearing on February 11th 2004 at which time all members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends the Zoning Ordinance Map for the City of Saratoga be amended to change from R-l, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 the zoning designation of following assessor's parcels: 517-22-004 517-19-082 517-19-085 517-12-022 517-20-016 517-19-083 517-18-018 517-12-021 517-20-021 517-19-084 517-12-020 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, State of California this 25th day of February 2004, by the following vote. AYES; NOS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: -s • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 5 r.~ Attachment 1 r~ ~i ~, , ,, IVI' ~~ :::,~ General Plan Map June 1987 ice` r'; ', J " ~ ~' f \ ` ` ,~ x . ~,_ \ ~ " ~ \ ' {\~ ~ x~.. : \ , : ~. , _ _.. :. •, ,: _::_. 1, ~_ , `_~., l,__ r '~ '~ • • Attachment 2 • • `..' ..-20 , oo` _._..r~ ~ 1 ~. A ~~i 1- ~~0.., 000 Zoning Map June 1987 with amendments to October 1996 • • • • F~ ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Type of Application: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: i~I~ . SIGN #03-183 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Create Mixed Use Standards ALL COMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES CITYWIDE City of Saratoga Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director February 25, 2004, 2003 N/A Department Head: This item was continued from October 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. It has been re- advertisedfor this meeting. The City's Housing Element contains several housing programs; one of the programs is Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement aMixed-Use Overlay Zone. The action that is proposed would start the formal preparation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to implement the Program 1.2. The areas that are suggested to be studied relate to the development standards. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to study and report on amendments to the City of Saratoga Zoning Code, which will establish a conditionally permitted use in each of the Commercial, and Administrative and Professional Office zoned areas. The mixed use (Commercial/Office and Residential) needs development standards to be applied to ensure that the City's sales tax base is protected, that existing residential development is protected and to provide for the orderly (re) development of the City's Commercial and Office areas. The Planning Commission was directed by the City Council to study and report on Mixed-Use standards that include, but are not limited to, the following: The maximum density is twenty (20) dwellings per net acre. The dwelling unit(s) shall be located either on the second floor or at the rear of the parcel. The dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than fifty (50%) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The maximum floor area allowed may be increased by 10% for projects providing below market rate rental housing Page 1 of 14 Parking for both the commercial and the dwelling unit(s) shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, provided that the Planning Commission may consider shared parking in some cases. Perimeter fencing shall be required to the maximum height allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Each dwelling shall have private, usable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. The maximum height of a mixed-use structure shall be 26-feet. Structures that are solely commercial on a site that has mixed use, the maximum height is as is in the underlying zoning. The design of mixed-use projects will be required to conform to the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook and any other design standards in place for the area of application. Overall site coverage maybe increased up to 10% for projects containing "deed restricted" below market rate housing units. Mixed-use projects shall have sound walls and landscape screening in order to protect the privacy and quality of life of abutting single-family residential lands uses. The residential component of a mixed-use project shall be rental. The individual dwelling units shall range in size from 850 sq. ft. for 1-bedrooms units to 1,250 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units in a mixed-use development. That the "Multi-Family" use be deleted from the various Commercial Zoned Districts when "Mixed-Use" is amended into the same Zoned Districts. That multiple stories, setback requirements, window placement and privacy issues be included in the Mixed-Use standards. Commercial properties created or developed through a previous mixed use or multi- family development are disallowed from further or subsequent mixed use projects Dedicate an in-lieu fee for park construction for smaller mixed use projects Require common, useable open space in larger mixed use projects In order to accomplish the foregoing, several individual amendments to the Zoning Code must be made. The attached Resolution lists all of the required Zoning Code amendments. In the text of the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts "multi-family units" are allowed as a conditional use. This is proposed to be deleted and replaced with "mixed use" projects, which are allowed subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. In the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts (the Village) housing is allowed as a permitted use if on the second floor or not fronting a street. The proposal before you would delete that from the code. The same Zoning Districts allow housing to front the street on the ground floor with a Conditional Use Permit. It is proposed to replace that language with language that makes reference to Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-21 and subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Code Amendments would also delete the existing Article 15-21 MU-PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and replace it with the new Mixed Use Development Standards. Staff has used the to show what is to be eliminated and the Bold Italics to highlight what is to be added the various zoning code sections. 15-18.030 Conditional uses is amended to read: Page 2 of 14 The following conditional uses may be allowed in a P-A district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (a) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use. (b) Community facilities. (c) Institutional facilities. (d) Police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and facilities. (e) Religious and charitable institutions. (f) Nursing homes and day care facilities. (g) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks and transmission lines. (h) Mixed-Use developments pursuant to the development standards found in Article 15- 58 of this code. (i) Bed and breakfast establishments. (j) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. (Amended by Ord. 71.91 ~ 2, 1991; Ord. 71-163 ~ 1 (part), 1996) 15-19.030 C-N district regulations is amended to read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-N district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this chapter. (1) , samesite: (1) Mixed-Use developments pursuant to the development standards found in Article 15- 58 of this code. (2) Medical offices and clinics. 15-19.040 C-V district regulations is amended to read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-V district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Religious and charitable institutions. same-sites Page 3 of 14 (2) Mixed-Use developments pursuant to the development standards found in Article 15- 58 of this code. (3) Medical offices and clinics. (4) Mortuaries. (5) Theaters. (6) Automobile upholstering shops provided all operations are conducted within an enclosed structure. 15-19.050 C-H district regulations is amended to read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4 -. , (4) Mixed-Use developments pursuant to the development standards found in Article 15- 58 of this code IS-SB MIXED- USF DL~VELOPMFNT STANDARDS IS ADDF17 TO RFAD: IS-58.10 Purposes ofA.rticle The purpose of the mixed-use development standards is to further accommodate the City's fair share of the regional housing need and to implement the policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan in a consistent manner through out the various commercial and office zoned districts of the City. It is further the goal of these standards to protect existing and future commercial development by establishing standards to ensure compatibility ofadjoining commercial and residential uses. IS-58.20 Development Standards All mixed-use developments shall comply with the following standards. (a) The maximum density shall not exceed twenty (20) dwellings per acre of net site area. Page 4 of 14 (b) Any dwelling unit(s) shall be located on the second floor or, at the rear one-half of the parcel in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with street level commercial uses at the front of the parcel. (c) Dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than SO percent of the total allowable floor area of all buildings on the site. The total allowable floor area may be increased by 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent of the housing to be affordable to low and very low-income families. (d) Parking for all types of uses (eg., commercial, residential, office, public) shall be as specified in Article 15-35 of this Code, provided that the Planning Commission may arking required where it determines that the reduction will not reduce the total p increase the amount of street parking in the vicinity and that during business hours the site will have at least one parking space for each dwelling unit on the site in addition to the amount ofparking required for the non-residential uses on the site. (e) All perimeter fencing shall be at the maximum height allowed in Article IS-29 of this Code. (~ Each dwelling unit shall have private, usable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. (g) With the exception of the CH District, the maximum height of a mixed-use structure shall be 26-feet. Structures that are solely commercial on a site that has mixed use, the maximum height is as is it is stated in the underlyingzoning. (h) The design of projects including residential uses shall minimize potential conflicts among different uses and shall conform to the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook and any other adopted design standards applicable to (i) the site. The permissible site coverage may be increased up to 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent or more of the housing to be affordable to low and very low-income families. (j) Sound walls and landscape screening shall be required and designed in a manner that protects the privacy and quality oflife of any abutting single-family residential lands uses. The height of the sound walls and the width of the landscape buffer will be determined on a case-by-case basis consistent with the provisions of 15- 19.020(d)(4) of this Code. (k) Any residential component of a mixed-use project shall be rental. Individual dwelling units shall range in size from 850 sq. ft. for 1-bedroom units to 1,250 sq. ft. (1) for 3-bedroom units. The height, elevations, and placement on the site of the proposed structures; the locations of windows and balconies; and the location and design of various uses, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; (11) community vlewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (m) Any mixed-use project on the site of a previously approved mixed-use or multi- family development shall include at least the same amount of square footage devoted to commercial use as the previously approved project. (n) Mixed-Use projects including residential uses shall dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of dedication for recreational uses in accordance with the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of Section 14-25.080 of this Code. Page 5 of 14 (o) Except as specifically provided otherwise in this section, mixed-use projects shall ' comply with all other requirements of this Code applicable within the zoning district in which the project is located. (p) Lighting. Lighting fc~r the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not negativelyimpact the~residential units. (q) Noise. All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from non-residential project noise, in compliance with the County's noise regulations. (r) After Hours Commercial Use. A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component that will operate outside of the hours from 8.•00 a.m. to 6.•00 p.m. shall require Planning Commission approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negativelyimpact the~residential uses within thepraject. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Zoning Code Amendments to the City Council by adopting the attached Resolution ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 03-_ 2. Housing Element Program 1.2 Page 6 of 14 (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-N district shall be twenty feet. (i) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining, nurseries, garden shops and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Screening, landscaping and fencing. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. (k) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multifamily dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 15-19.040 C-V district regulations is Amended to Read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-V district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Religious and charitable institutions. (2) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-58. (3) Medical offices and clinics. (4) Mortuaries. (5) Theaters. (6) Automobile upholstering shops, provided all operations are conducted within an enclosed structure. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten thousand square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-V district shall be as follows: Frontage _~-~~~mm~' Width ~___.___ ~_ _._ _ }Depth • Page 9 of 14 60 feet X60 feet 1100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C-V district shall be sixty percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-l, HR, R-M or P-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yard. The minimum side yards of any lot in a C:-V district shall be ten feet and the minimum rear yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, subject to the following exceptions: (1) One foot shall be added to the minimum side yard for each one-foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirty feet of the side lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (2) One foot shall be added to the minimum rear yard for each one-foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. . (3) On a corner lot, the minimum exterior side yard shall be twenty feet. (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-V district shall be twenty feet. (i) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) An area not less than ten feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owrier or occupant of the site. (2) A use not conducted within a completely enclosed structure shall be screened by a solid wall orfence,vine-covered fence or compact evergreen hedge (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height. This requirement shall not apply to off-street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, garden shops, and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multi-family dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 15-19.050 C-H district regulations is Amended to Read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street Page 10 of 14 frontage by a retail or service establishment. (2) DELETED (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-58. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area in each C-H district shall be as follows: District ',Net Site Area NCH-1 :..,5,000 sq. ft. CH-2 ;7,500 sq. ft. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. Th C-H distric_t_shall be as follo_w___s:_ _ District ~ Frontage !,Width ~._._. CH-1 X50 ft. ''S0 ft. iCH _2 __..~..,_.~ 50 ft___.._.~_~_ ___. 50 ft. __ e minimum site frontage, width and depth in each ;Depth T __ _._ _ ...,100 ft. __._~~ '100 ft. _ _ _---£ (e) Coverage; pedestrian open space. (1) In the CH-1 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be eighty percent, except that up to one hundred percent of the site may be covered by structures if, for any structure coverage in excess of eighty percent, an equivalent area on the site is devoted to pedestrian open space. (2) In the CH-2 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be sixty percent. In addition, an area equivalent to not less than twenty percent of the net site area shall be devoted to pedestrian open space. All or any portion of the required front yard may be used for pedestrian open space. (3) The term "pedestrian open space," as used in subsections (e)(1) and (2) of this Section, means common areas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather, such as plazas and arcades, which are designed to be visible and accessible to pedestrians on streets, sidewalks and parking facilities adjacent to the site. (f) Front yard. No front yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. The minimum front yard of any lot in the CH-2 district shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side yards. No side yards shall be required in either the CH-1 or CH-2 district. (h) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. No rear yard shall be required for any lot in the CH-2 district having a rear lot line that abuts a public right-of- way, public parking district, Saratoga Creek, or the CH-1 district. Where the rear lot line Page 11 of 14 of any lot in the CH-2 district abuts an A, R-1, HR, or R-M district, the minimum rear yard shall be thirty feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within .sixty feet of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in each C-H district shall be as follows: district ;Height i 3CH-1 35 feet. No portion of a structure facing ____ jBig Basin Way shall exceed two stories, jand no portion of a structure facing !Saratoga Creek shall exceed three NCH-2 _ X26 feet. No structure shall exceed two stories. (j) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, garden shops and outdoor dining. (1) Modification of standards for historic structures. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the development standards contained in this Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a structure, which has been designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Article 13-15 of this Code, and the Planning Commission finds and determines that: (1) The modification will facilitate preservation of the historic structure; and (2) The application and the proposed modification have been reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Commission; and (3) The modification will not: be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity; and (4) The modification will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or the availability of on-street parking, and will not create a hazard to the public safety. (Amended by Ord. 71-:108 41,1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) Article 15-21 MU-PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT is Amended by Deletion. Article 15-58 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Added to the Saratoga Code to Read: 15-58 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS ADDED TO READ: 15-58.11 Purposes of Article The purpose of the mixed-use development standards is to fixrther accommodate the City's fair share of the regional housing need and to implement the policies of the Housing Element of the • • Page 12 of 14 February 10,2004 To: The City Of Saratoga ~DENDUM TO E-MAIL SENT TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA ON 1/12/2004 RE: PROPOSED WINERY TO BE LOCATED AT 19265 MONTE VISTA DRIVE, SARATOGA 95070 At Issue: the retail aspects of this plan vs. the code • To clarify; there will be NO retail facing aspect of this winery on the premises. • I.E: There will be no public tasting room. • Visits to the facility will be by appointment only, and limited to no more than 6 persons at a time. • I will renew a business license on file with the city of Saratoga, to allow me to operate the various aspects of managing my business from my home office like any other home based business. • ALL sales will be conducted either on the Internet, (ww"~.sarhone.com) or through outside parties located OFF the subject property. • The BATF certification is required, along with approval from the ABC, in order to insure that the qualit<~ of the wine, information on the labels, and tracking of fermentation, records of grapes purchased, etc, are done in accordance with prescribed state and federal standards. • There are many types of Winery operations in California: In Napa County, for example, one must have ten acres of vines in order to operate as a bonded winery. However, one can build and operate a retail tasting, room with NO vines or grapes grown on the premises. • An example of the latter are the co-op tastng rooms found in Sonoma and in Napa, where many small family wineries cluster their products for retail sales, including tastings that are charged for. • Further clarification, if required, will be obtained from the industry consultant I am working with, Mr. Richard Gahagen, who is based in Fresno. Respectfully Submitted: J. Thomas Roebuc • From: Tom Roebuck <tomr@garlic.com> Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:37:32 PM US/Pacific To: dsurdin@saratoga.ca.us Subject: Fwd: Chateau Sarhone 1Ninery Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Roebuck <tomr@garlic.com> Date: Wed Jan 7, 2004 11:12:33 AM US/Pacific To: dsurdin@saratoga.ca.us Subject: Chateau Sarhone Winery Hi Danielle; It was nice to see your friendly face again, thanks for meeting with me this morning. To recap: I am working with Mr. Richard Gahagan, (tel: 559-251-1759) a regulatory consultant and former BATF executive, towards the end goal of bonding my small family winery, located on my property, a one acre residence at 19265 Monte Vista Drive within the Saratoga city limits. Mr. Gahagan has been most helpful with regards to the necessary steps I must take in order to move forward in my efforts, and the first step he says, is to get the necessary levels of approval from the city of Saratoga. To obtain the necessary infrastructure, my plan is to build a very small ,one room, low profile building, along the side of my Monte Vista facing vineyard, --please see below images. (The proposed structure would appear exactly like the small pool equipment structure shown in the attached photo, and be physically located to the right of it, as you face the pool shed) within my property boundary. For cooling purposes, and to minimize any view impact from any angle of perception. this structure will be about 30% underground and ,and like the pool equipment structure, and the existing main residence- be constructed out of cement block and stucco and tile, and probably occupy about boo S.F. It would be used solely for the fermentation of wine grapes and storage of same,and re;elated equipment including about 40 or so 60 gallon oak barrels. I do NOT plan on a retail tasting room or contemplate any kind of public facing aspect of the business, as is the case with a commercial winery. Any and all visits to this "California Microwinery" as i call it, will be by appointment only and severely limited to very small groups of people. Richard advises me that I want to apply for what is called a "minimum bond", which is to say I will be producing a small amount of wine per year, and spending less than $20,000 per year for the outsourcing of locally grown wine grapes, which will be combined with the yield form the 300 vines I have on my own property, which are Syrah and Petite Syrah varietals. My related Wine background: I have spent the past ten years learning how to make wine, both in France and in California, and the past four years working with my own small vineyards, as well as developing a good relationship with small local growers, family oriented vineyards like mine. I have worked at several local wineries as a cellar rat and in the vineyards and tasting rooms on a volunteer basis over the past 20 or more years, and have cultivated a passion for wine and viticulture, all of which has led me to this point. As a result of careful attention to detail I have managed to win silver and bronze medals in recent wine judging events, and feel that 1 now have a high quality wine that can be sold in small quantities to local restaurants and speciality wine shops, as well as to private local individuals, and personal friends. Since my production will remain very small, my quality will remain high, and more importantly, the overall impact to the neighborhood and the environment will be absolutely minimal. I should point out that my own three sections under vine are all managed organically, with no pesticides used, and the same is true of my wines, handcrafted using only minimal sulfites!! All leftover stems and skins and organic residue is put back into the vineyards for fertilization as well, as is evident in the attached digital image. NOTES: The "pool equipment room" has become my "microwinery" and is where I currently make my wine and store my wine barrels. THE 2ND IMAGE SHOWS A VIEW OF THE MAIN VINEYARD LOOKING FROM THE POOL EQUIPMENT ROOM TOWARDS MONTE VISTA DRIVE. (about250++ft.) • I firmly believe that my plan will in no way be detremental to the neighborhood where I live, and further, that it will be a plus for the city of Saratoga. There are community service and event participation aspects of my plan as well which all tie in nicely and will benefit the city as well as the neighborhood, which are in the planning stages. My neighbors are very excited about the idea! I have several neighbors who also have vineyards, I consult with them and have also worked as a consutant winemaker-- Incidentally, at a recent Saratoga Rotary club meeting, { I plan on getting my application in this month}- , Paul Conrado sponsored my initial visit last month): as I related this morning, I was told by Paul that he recalled hearing somewhere-that someone over on Sobey Road had recently completed the bonding process on their winery. (?) It would be very helpful if I could find out more about this as we discussed. In closing Danielle, let me say that I sincerely appreciate your continued support and guidance in helping me move forward with my plan. I look forward to working closely with you and the City of Saratoga. Please let me know how we can proceed, and what additional information the city may require on my part. Sincerely; J. Thomas Roebuck (o) 408 399-4064 cel I : 408-202-1146 images are below-- • ~, li 2 i li j M { f F ' .. 5 :{ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~. ~' ~. 1 V ~ j@ a .. ~~,1 _ - w ~ ~ 1' r ~li ~ k A IY„' ' ,.1r1R ~- r. I. ~ ~ ~ ~ 'l § ;- - 1 1 I a ~r ~ , r ~~ ~~ ~ , , t ..,~ '~ ~, 1~ ~ tl ~w w r '` ., a ~ 4 ~ l 4 ~ ~ H ' ~ ~ ~~% ~~ ~ ' . • M1 r 1,' .r,~.~ .. Fb_~ E L~F ~ SPA 4` , ~ ~~~~~'~~~~ . ,~A ~ 1 •{ ~ b ~. -~ ,I~ ~~~ • • ~_ -- `` ~ } ~ ~ ~ ii ~ tom--, ,r -~ , e r ,,s ~ ._ ;'."'d ~.: 1. i~, ~%. s ~ ~ ,~, `, ~ ~, •! ~~ f ,L { J' .. 'i.* . . °'; ,#` _ ~~ F, _~ ~' , ~~ . ~. ~ _~..r.r --~-_ - ~ ~ r` r ~ ~ y ~ r r ~ • ~~. 1'J~l' +y fig } ~J i ~ ~'~ { ~ ~~~ ~'~' ~- ~` r_ y ~~,.~ , ..~. ;fit ~„z ~ ~. f. . T ~ ~-~> Yy ~"~-- ~z r 3 ~ X91 ~,w,~ ,r`°' • ~ City of Saratoga MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 2004 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner:. SUBJECT: Status report on development application located at 14651 Big Basin Way Staff would like to take this opportunity to inform the commission that the application for a proposed "Inn" has been completely revised. The revised proposal includes office and residential uses. The revised proposal includes substantially less building intensity. As you may recall, last fall the planning commission conducted a study session with the applicant and neighbors for a proposed "Inn" to be located at 14651 Big Basin Way. The revised plan includes two second-story office buildings and two second-story residential rental units. Office space totals 3,400 square feet and residential units tota12,500 square feet. On Friday, February 20, 2004 the applicant will conduct an informational meeting for the neighbors at city hall. Staff will be present at this meeting to hear any and all neighbor concerns. The revised project maybe scheduled for a study session with the commission in late spring prior to its public hearing (date TBA). The project requires design review and use permit approval. This item is strictly for your information. Feel free to contact me at your convenience if you have any questions (408) 868-1286 or coosterhous~sarato~a.ca.us. • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT JANUARY 24, 2004 Mayor Waltonsmith called the Council retreat order at 9:00 a.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Norman Kline, Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Cherbone, Director of Public Works John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner Joan Pisani, Recreation Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst Richard Taylor, City Attorney Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 24, 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 24, 2004 was properly posted on January 20, 2004. 1. BUDGET • Vision AdHoc Committee created to educate community on budget problems • Revised current fiscal crisis-operational and fund balance projections • Compared Saratoga's dependency on the VLF revenue with other cities • Open discussion on alternative solutions based on magnitude of duration of fiscal crisis COUNCIL DIRECTION • Review options for raising revenue • Develop Expenditure reduction plans based on worse case scenario • Educate the community, focus on communication • Discuss consequence of loosing VLF with outside agencies (ie: Friends, SASCC) • Do not sell North Campus but maybe on the table a year from now 2. LAFCO SERVICE REVIEW • LAFCO hearing on Fire Service Review -February 11, 2004 • Final report due out in 2"a quarter 2004 COUNCIL DIRECTION • Work toward long term Boundary Drop - 2006-2016 • City Council. resolution in support of long term Boundary Drop • Council does not desire to be lead agency in annexation or consolidation effort 3. ADHOC-COMMISSIONS-COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION MODEL • In the past needed Council liaisons to connect to the Commissions • Today many opportunities for Commissioners to communicate with Council o Staff' liaison o Direct conversation with Council o Yearly meeting with between City Council and each Commission o Utilize "Commission Communications" on City Council agenda • Not enough staff to work with all these groups COUNCIL DIRECTION • As of July 1, 2004 the following should be accomplished in regards to City Commissions: 1) Establish Commission Policies 2) Eliminate City Council liaisons 3) Hold yearly Commission "Goal Setting Retreat"; Commission work plans to be approved by the City Council 4) Action only minutes 5) Email action minutes to City Council • Continue training staff liaisons ' • Continue consolidated annual Commission budget • New Projects require Council approval • Integrate Commission into Budget at CIP 4. SWENSON PROJECT • Sixty -unit residential condominium development and flood plan improvement • Target purchasers for the condominium units are to be municipal employees and teachers • Applicant proposes to sponsor a grant program to qualified applicants to assist in purchasing 30 of the units • If a unit is re-sold to a target-group buyer the grant is rolled over to the new buyer 2 , • Current General Plan density designation for site is Medium Density Residential with a maximum density of 4.35 dwellings per acre. The . zoning for the property is R-1, 10,000 o Project proposes 36 unites per acre • General Plan amendment and zone change is required • City staff currently in the process of reviewing the responses to the Request for Proposals to prepare an EIR • All costs associated with the EIR are passed through to the developer • Due to Measure G passed in March 1996 -the proposed changes to the density of this site must go to the voters • Saratoga Union School Districts -parent support because of proposed increase of affordable housing for teachers • If project is approved City would have a new land use designation -could pose future problems COUNCIL DIRECTION • School Ad Hoc Committee: o Work with schools to educate the parents and school officials on the Swenson Project o Find other options for affordable housing for teachers • City Council to communicate concerns to constituents 5. LAND USE ELEMENT • General Plan is a guiding policy document that lays out the future of the city's development in general terms through a series of policy statements • State Law -General Plan must include 7 elements: o Land use o Circulation o Housing o Conservation o Open-space o Noise o Safety • Saratoga's Land Use Element was last revised in 1983 • Current Land Use Element difficult for staff and Planning Commission to use COUNCIL DIRECTION • Move forward with "In House" update of Land Use Element o Form a publicly appointed group to assist in process • Aggressive annexation • Increase Urban Service Boundary • Incorporate polices regarding Hillside Preservation • In regards to Hillside Preservation -Vice Mayor King volunteered to talk to Board of Supervisors 3 6. VILLAGE VISIOI\f-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • Village Ad-Floc Committee formed to improve the vitality of the Village Commercial District by focusing on historical significances, invigorating commercial district and to create a high quality of life for Saragoans • Discussion on forming a Redevelopment Agency -does not require a city-wide election • City would have to hire consultant to determine feasibility and develop formal plan, community education/outreach • 20% of the total funds gathered must be spent on affordable housing in Saratoga, but does not have to be only concentrated in a Saratoga commercial area. (i.e., it can include a residential area in Saratoga) HISTORIC PRESERVATION • Creation of a Historic District -local business community should take the lead in order to avoid City process • Historic District status would enable property owners to receive Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits • Would not interfere with proposed RDA • Existing Preservation incentive -Mills Act COUNCIL DIRECTION • Move forward with formation of a RDA o Free up to $200k in CIP to hire consultant • Village Ad-Hoc renamed to Redevelopment Agency Ad-Hoc • School Ad-Hoc Committee to talk to school officials about proposed RDA • If merchants would like to move forward with "Historic District" designation they should hire a consultant. 7. CREEK POLLUTION/SEWER ISSUES • Several ongoing programs targeting monitoring of creeks and identification of sources of bacterial contamination: o Creek testing o Septic tank abatement program o Chemical marker system • City has met all testing obligations required by the terms of the Settlement Agreement • No other city in the county test for fecal coliform levels in their creeks • Takes up approximately 25% of City Engineers time • Regularly meet with Mr. Don Whetstone and SC Water District • Discussion of Saratoga Spring holding tank and possible illegal septic tanks above 4`h Street 4 COUNCIL DIRECTION • Continue proactive creek testing ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m. and thanked everyone for attending the retreat. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to study and report on amendments to the City of Saratoga Zoning Code, which will establish a conditionally permitted use in each of the Commercial, and Administrative and Professional Office zoned areas City Council of the Ciry of Saratoga to study the Mixed-Use; 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 City's Housing Element contains several housing programs; one of the programs is Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement aMixed-Use Overlay Zone, and WHEREAS, the burden of proof required supporting said amendments has been presented, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed amendment is in accord with Program 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element, which states, "That the City will adopt a Zoning Code amendment to implement a residential mixed-use overlay zone that applies to all commercial zones within the City of Saratoga" ^ That the proposed Zoning Code amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the City of Saratoga in that the Development Standards have been crafted to avoid such injuries. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: 15-18.030 Conditional Uses Be Amended to read: The following conditional uses maybe allowed in a P-A district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (a) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use. (b) Community facilities. (c) Institutional facilities. (d) Police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and f acilities. (e) Religious and charitable institutions. (f) Nursing homes and day care facilities. (g) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks and transmission lines. (h) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Mixed Use Design Standards found in Article 15-58 Page 7 of 14 (i) Bed and breakfast establishments. (j) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. (Amended by Ord. 71.91 ~ 2,1991; Ord. 71- 163 ~ 1(part),1996) 15-19.030 C-N district regulations is Amended to Read: (a) Permitted uses. In additio=n to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitte=d uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Christmas tree and pumplan sales lots. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-N district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this chapter. (1) Mixed-Use Development c=onforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-58 (2) Medical offices and clinics. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C-N district shall be ten thousand square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-N district shall be as follows: Frontage 'Width Depth --- --- --;---~ -j {60 feet `60 feet X100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C-N district shall be sixty percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C-N district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-l, HR, R-M or I'-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yards. No side or rear yard shall be required for any lot in a C-N district, subject to the following exceptions: (1) On a reversed corner lot abutting a lot in an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum exterior side yard shall be not less than one-half of the required front yard of the abutting lot. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (g)(1) of this Section, on a lot abutting an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard abutting such other district shall be thirty feet. (3) On a lot directly across a street or alley from an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard adjacent to such street or alley shall be ten feet. Where a side or rear yard is required under any of the foregoing provisions, one foot shall be added to the required yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a structure within thirty feet of the lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. Page 8 of 14 o .. General Plan in a consistent manner through out the various commercial and office zoned districts of the City. It is further the goal of these standards to protect existing and future commercial development by establishing standards to ensure compatibility of adjoining commercial and residential uses. 15-58.21 Development Standards All mixed-use developments shall comply with the following standards. (a) The maximum density shall not exceed twenty (20) dwellings per acre of net site (b) area. Any dwelling unit(s) shall be located on the second floor or, where the design does not unreasonably interfere with street level commercial uses at the front of the parcel, at the rear of the parcel. (c) Dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than fifty (50%) percent of the total allowable floor area of all buildings on the site. The total allowable floor area may be increased by 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent of the housing to be affordable to low and very low-income families. (d) Parking for all types of uses (e.g., commercial, residential, office, public) shall be as specified in Article 15-35 of this Code, provided that the Planning Commission may reduce the total parking required where it determines that the reduction will not increase the amount of street parking in the vicinity and that during business hours the site will have at least one parking space for each dwelling unit on the site in addition to the amount of parking required for the non-residential uses on the site. (e) All perimeter fencing shall be at the maximum height allowed in Article 15-29 of this Code. (f) Each dwelling unit shall have private, usable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. (g) With the exception of the C-H Zone, the maximum height of a mixed-use structure shall be 26-feet. Structures that are solely commercial on a site that has mixed use, the maximum height is as is it is stated in the underlying zoning. (h) The design of projects including residential uses shall minimize potential conflicts among different uses and shall conform to the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook and any other adopted design standards applicable to the site. (i) The permissible site coverage maybe increased up to 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent or more of the housing to be affordable to low and very low-income families. (j) Sound walls and landscape screening shall be required and designed in a manner that protects the privacy and quality of life of any abutting single-family residential lands uses. The height of the sound walls and the width of the landscape buffer will be determined on acase-by-case basis. (k) Any residential component of a mixed-use project shall be rental. Individual dwelling units shall range in size from 850 sq. ft. for 1-bedroom units to 1,250 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units. Page 13 of 14 _ , ~C (1) The height, elevations, and placement on the site of the proposed structures; the locations of windows and balconies; and the location and design of various uses, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (m) Any mixed-use project on the site of a previously approved mixed-use or multi-family development shall include at least the same amount of square footage devoted to commercial use as the previously approved project. (n) Mixed-Use projects including residential uses shall dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of dedication for recreational uses in accordance with the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of Section 14-25.080 of this Code. (o) Except as specifically provided otherwise in this section, mixed-use projects shall comply with all other requirements of this Code applicable within the zoning district in which the project is located. (p) Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not negatively impact the residential units. (q) All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from non- residential project noise, in compliance with the County's noise regulations. (r) A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component that will operate outside of the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall require Planning Commission approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negatively impact the residential uses within the project. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, , _ 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission Page 14 of 14