Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2005 Planning Commission Packet.-.- = "- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL C ALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie \Tagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike L'hl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: \Tone STAFF: Planner Oosterhous, Interim Director Livingstone and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGLANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. (APPROVED 7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIO~~s -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. Hotivever, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. ORAL COh-IMUNICATIONS- PLANi\TING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Nlap to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent -item because of condition of approval #S in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATH VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. _... 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 7-0) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY' OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-2, HUNTER ~ UHL OPPOSED) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - 1~TOne COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:50 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if }-ou 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission o f the City of Saratoga was posted on Februar}~ 17, 200 at the of fice o f the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to Tanning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie I\Tagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta ff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNII~TG COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution l~?o. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None r~ u COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Ciry 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the Ciry of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution 1~TO. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements: Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single=family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to mahe reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 GFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to ~lanni~@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie l~Tagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. 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 Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Cit}~ to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the of f ice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at vvww.sarato~a.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. 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 sta f f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTII\TG AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution INTO. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION #" 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposedtwo-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga wasposted on February 17, 200S at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at wwwsarato ag_ ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution 1~?0. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 15,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - I~TOne COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Ciry Clerh 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Izlanning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato age ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regardingOral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Ciry Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Ciry to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission o f the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the o f f ice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag_ ca.us • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your email address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the Ciry of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available forpublic review at that location. The agenda is also available on the Ciry's website at www.saratoQa.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato~a.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to ~lanni~@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ' AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution 1~TO. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission o f the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the of f ice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato a~ ca.us • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TrnF: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. 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 1"he law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f ORAL COMMUI~TICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga wasposted on February 17, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag_ ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNII~TG COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh 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). Certificate of Postingof Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga wasposted on February 17, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoQa.ca.us • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to plannin ,@sarato ag ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Plarining Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. 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 tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Sta ff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design re~~iew approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to mahe reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga wasposted on February 17, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag_ ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGEl~TDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie I\Tagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. 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 tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATH VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Ciry to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato~a.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PL4CE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regardingOral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution No. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None s COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the off ice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag_ ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution I~?o. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #S in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - .None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh 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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the Ciry of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the of f ice of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at wwwsaratoea.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION -SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. 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 23, 2005 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-297 - SHARMA Item 2 14600 Westcott Drive 2. Application #04-133 - BURGOS/POLLARD Item 3 14265 Burns Way 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 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged for the applicant and/or owner to be present 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 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION # SD-99-006 (389-06-002) STURLA -Saratoga Creek Drive Resolution I`TO. SD-99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution INTO. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATH VASUDEVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 2. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None • COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868.1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to mahe reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17, 2005 at the of f ice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato age ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato~a.ca.us 0 • ~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl Absent: Commissioners Schallop and Zutshi Staff: Associate Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 26, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning .Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 26, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 2 and 5. (5-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Zutshi were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Associate Planner Ann Welsh announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 3, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Associate Planner Ann Welsh announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR • There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 2 *** • PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 .APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-001) SHANKAR 22461 Mount Eden Road: Requests for Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a Santa Clara County parcel, which abuts the City boundary and is proposed for annexation to the City. The lot is to be developed as Hillside Residential and contains 1.89 acres and has a 28 percent slope. The proposed house and garage would be 5,842 square feet with a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and a 1.908 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence is 25 feet, 10 inches as measured from the natural grade. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to build a new two-story residence on a 1.89-acre parcel located within County jurisdiction on Mount Eden Road that is proposed for annexation into the City. • Described the- proposed home as consisting of 5,842 square feet .with a 1,908 square foot basement and a 533 square foot second dwelling. The maximum height is 25 feet, 10 inches from natural grade. • Said that the materials include a beige stucco and Spanish clay the roofing. • Stated that the property has been pre-zoned Hillside Residential and includes a 28 percent average slope. • • Explained that neighbor input includes concerns regarding site drainage, placement of the driveway, impacts on privacy and appearance of bulk. • Advised that the Department of Airports and Roads reviewed the issue of the driveway placement on behalf of the County and supports the proposed placement of the driveway. Said that privacy impacts are addressed through the inclusion of a landscape buffer at the mutual property line. The rear of the property would incorporate a berm in order to minimize the impacts of the facade. • Added that additional efforts to minimize bulk include a reduction to a three-car garage. The north and east elevations have a low profile. • Reported that an Equestrian Trail will be dedicated to the City. • Said that the- Design Review findings could be made with the requirement for landscaping for privacy. The natural landscape would be preserved and four trees on site would be transplanted elsewhere on the property. • Said that the impervious coverage would be 13 percent. • Advised that the bulk and height of this home is compatible to similar neighboring properties and that the findings can be made as revised. • Said she would be available for any questions. Commissioner Hunter asked how the water would be drained from the site and where the concerns were regarding site drainage. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that the neighbor to the south is concerned regarding site . drainage. The applicant revised one drain channel along the southern property -line so that drainage is diverted to Mount Eden Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Rodgers asked about the Equestrian trail. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that the trail is in the vicinity of the existing driveway. Commissioner Rodgers asked if staff has a specific recommendation regarding the proposal to reduce the size of the balcony and by how many feet that reduction should be. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that staff recommends it be cut in half. As proposed it is 25 feet and staff is recommending a reduction to 12.5 feet. Aline of sight impact study would be needed to best determine the final size of this balcony. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this study has been done. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied not yet. Commissioner Hunter expressed concerns about including fireplaces in Hillside zoned parcels due to fire danger concerns. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that nothing in Code prohibits fireplaces. Chair Garakani added that spark arresters eliminate fire concerns and added that the applicant has shown the line of sight impacts. Commissioner Nagpal asked where the condition is in the draft resolution that pertains to the maintenance of a sight triangle by keeping trees pruned. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that this requirement is included on the drainage and grading plan. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a maximum height for fireplaces. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that the Zoning Ordinance does not address this. Fireplaces are not regulated by height limitations. Fireplaces are considered outdoor unenclosed accessory structures. Commissioner Rogers asked about the requirement for a berm. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that this requirement is included in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that palm trees are proposed to line the driveway and reminded that the Commission has a preference for native species. Palms are not native. She questioned whether use of palms could be precluded. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. The Commission has required use of native landscaping. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether the materials of the second unit would be consistent with the main residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 4 Associate Planner Ann Welsh reported that the applicant has revised the second unit to have similar roofing and stucco facade. Chair Garakani asked about the garage. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that it would become a carport. Commissioner Uhl said that generally the limits on size and height are not pushed to such limits as they are in this case. This home comes across as very large and he asked what is driving this since maximizing is generally discouraged. Associate Planner Ann Welsh reminded that this applicant obtained County approval for a much larger home than this one. The City subsequently elected to annex this site into the City and the applicant had to scale down the height and floor area of his proposed home. She added that she has tried to reconcile the County and City requirements. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the applicant had any idea that this property would be annexed into the City. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that the .applicant had a County approval for their proposed house. She added that the original location of the home was in a less conspicuous location on this lot but based upon geotechnical studies, the new home had to be relocated elsewhere on site. She reminded that this is a three-year project. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the County had approved the original placement on the property. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. The original application for this new home was situated on the existing footprint. The City's geotechnical consultant asked for information about the original placement and a map showed slides towards the existing footprint and toward Mount Eden Road. Both the City's and the applicant's geotechnical consultants agreed that this new location is better for the new home. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the County approved tonight's design. Associate Planner Arin Welsh reminded that the home approved by the County was larger than this one. The home was reduced when it was redesigned to meet City requirements. Commissioner Nagpal said that it might be appropriate to give allowances when a decision to annex occurs after the design review process has already started with the County. . Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that this was an unfortunate situation for this applicant. When this applicant began his process the City's mindset was against annexation. Now there is a different mindset, which supports the concept of annexation and the City is now aggressively pursuing annexation for adjacent contiguous properties. This owner got caught up in this change of policy. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the line of sight study has been looked at. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 5 Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied no, it has not yet been seen. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern for privacy impacts to the neighbors to the south and pointed out that Policy 3, Techniques 1 and 3, prefers and/or requires use of evergreen vegetation for pnvacy landscaping. Associate Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the line of sight study shows that the second story window would not be visible with the installation of a 16-foot high tree. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Robert Aviles, Project Architect: • Stated that this is a tough site geographically and that this property has a long history in the County. • Reminded that a large home was previously approved by the County for previous owners of this property but was not built. Instead, he designed an addition to the existing home. • Advised that the Shankars purchased the property and went to the County. The County told them they could either modify the existing approval or let it expire. In the interim, the City started annexation proceedings and the City's Hillside Residential Ordinance was adopted. • Said that the original location of this proposed house was on the existing footprint, which was much steeper and effectively screened the garage. The current site of the home is on a less steep slope causing a portion of the garage to be located above grade and therefore counted as floor area. A five-foot wall with berm could help hide the garage but is not possible under the Ordinance. • Said that this project complies with City requirements on this difficult site. It is his job to meet the wishes and needs of his client. • Pointed out that there are quite a few larger homes in this area. Commissioner Hunter said that the 25 foot wide balcony has an impact and questioned whether the requirement to reduce it would have an impact on the project. Mr. Robert Aviles said that this balcony was included at the request of the Shankars as there is not a lot of level-outdoor area on this property. This balcony creates outdoor located space right outside of the family room. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that more appropriate outdoor level space could be located near the pool. She asked the architect how he felt about reducing the length of the balcony. Mr. Robert Aviles said that as long as the reduction still allows room to back vehicles from the garage without hitting the support columns. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it were possible to widen the balcony while reducing the length. Mr. Robert Aviles replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked if markings had been made on the ground where the balcony would be located. Mr. Robert Aviles replied he was not sure. Mr. Shankar was willing to do so but they didn't think it was necessary following the site visit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Rodgers questioned what impacts a wider balcony would have on the outdoor fireplace. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the impacts of the Design Review Guidelines and Hillside Zoning Ordinance on the issue of slope. Mr. Robert Aviles said that the slope is less than 10 percent at the new location of the home. That is part of their dilemma. He advised that in 1980 he helped develop the original Hillside Residential Guidelines for the City of Saratoga. He advised that all massing for this project are compatible with the guidelines and complies with the suggested techniques. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are only two windows from the front elevation. Mr. Robert Aviles said that one is a large family room window. and the other is a clearstory window located above the staircase. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern that the proposed paint color, Navajo White, would be too visible from the hillside. She asked what was the reflectivity of that paint color. Mr. Robert Aviles said that it has a light reflective value of 62. He added that they would be glad to work on the issue of color and suggested that the Commission give a maximum reflectivity limit and they could have a color that is more tinted or muted to stay within that limit. Ms. Cheri Keenan, 22215 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided here for 30 years and has seen a lot of changes over that time and attended lots of Planning Commission meetings. • Said that the theme at these Planning Commission meetings has been the perception of bulk. • Pointed-out that this is a very large house with a true height of 36 feet, 6 inches that is being called only 26 feet. • Added that from her property she will look upwards at this garage with two stories of home located above it. • Advised that-her home is only 26 feet high. • Questioned who would be responsible for keeping the trees trimmed and weeds down near the new driveway. • Informed that this is a very dangerous portion of the road. • Said that there is a track record in the City that conditions of approval are not always followed and/or met and that the City's staff is very busy. Once a project is finaled, nothing:can be done. Mr. Paul Scole, 22301 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said his property is adjacent to this site, on the western end, and is the most affected: • Stated that this project does not blend well into the area and he has concerns. • Said that the story poles installed do not represent a good depiction of what this house would look like on this site. • Said that the proposed driveway location is not a good idea and pointed out that every year there are accidents at that curve in the road that can be verified by accident reports. • Stated that the drainage issue is of concern as he lives on the downhill side of this lot and experiences lots of storm water. Once a year, they experience a flood on his property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 7 • Expressed the importance of landscaping and screening, through the use of fast growing evergreen materials and perhaps a wrought iron fence with ivy growing on it. • Advised that good design is more important than screening the house. • Pointed out that palm trees are not consistent with this neighborhood. • Said that his greatest concern is that this home is designed too big. It is a three-story house overlooking his property. The.western and southern elevations equal a massive building that is 36- and-a-half feet tall. The three story western elevation invades privacy and is visible from the entire neighborhood. One cannot find a similar three-story home in the entire area. • Said that he is also concerned about the proposed floating deck out front as it would overlook his property and that the proposed fireplace on that deck looks like a smokestack on a ship. • Suggested that no attempts have been made to minimize the privacy impacts and the visual impacts on the neighborhood. • Asked the Commission to help this neighborhood with this matter. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Paul Scole what happens when it rains hard. Mr. Paul Scole said that there are two gullies on this property. However, over time, people have thrown debris into the gullies and they overflow and flood his property. Mr. Robert Aviles, Project Architect: • Stated that he understands the concerns of the neighborhood. • Said that they would alleviate the drainage problem. • Reported that the County at one time put in a culvert for drainage on this property but later filled this culvert in with gravel at the request of the previous property owners. • Assured that they will divert drainage flow to drains. • Stated that the second unit on the Scole property is within 10 feet of this property line and it would be screened with landscaping. • Said they are trying to make something that is the best for everyone. • Said that the story poles depict the highest ridge and the footprint. These poles cost $4,000 to install. • Reiterated that this home has been designed per Code requirements and the privacy issues can be dealt with through landscaping. Chair Garakani asked about the moving of four Oak trees. Mr. Robert Aviles: • Expressed concerns about the Arborist report recommendation to relocate these trees. • Said that digging up and relocating a Valley Oak Tree results in a less than 50 percent chance of survival for the moved trees. • Added that the City is imposing a $72,000 bond for these trees and that it will cost anywhere from $3,500 to $6,000 to move each tree. • Suggested that a condition be imposed to replace any removed trees rather than relocating these trees, a task that leaves him apprehensive as far as potential for success. • Added that the previous owners kept the trees along the road maintained and it is in the Shankars' best interests to continue that maintenance for liability reasons. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the complaints regarding the west side elevation design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Robert Aviles said that design is subjective and that he does not agree with the neighbor who says that this is not a well designed home. However, he respects that person's right to his own opinion. Commissioner Hunter. asked about the height of 36 feet. Mr. Robert Aviles reminded that the measurement standard based on average slope is set by the City's Ordinance. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that this home is just two inches below the maximum allowed height and the house is not tucked in at all. Mr. Robert Aviles replied that he has 25 years experience as an architect and that there is no rule against going to the maximum allowed heights. Mr. Udaya Shankar, Project Applicant and Property Owner, 22461 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Reminded -that he started work on this project two years ago and that he had been under the impression he was operating under County conditions when he purchased this property. • Said that later the City decided to annex his property, which he did not want to-have happen. • Said that subsequently he had to change his plans before even submitting them to the City of Saratoga for review. At that time geological- issues were raised. • Said that lots of engineering work was done to determine the driveway placement and the County approved an encroachment permit for this driveway. A site survey and line of site survey were prepared. • Reported that he too is concerned with issues of safety as he has 10 and 12 year old children. • Assured that he would make sure the low-lying branches are keep cut back to ensure visibility from the driveway. • Said that the fireplace and outdoor balcony were needed outdoor space accessed from the house. • Stated that between 14 and 16 trees are proposed to serve as screening. • Disagreed with comments that this is a three-story house and pointed out that each level is staggered. • Informed that he has worked for more than two years and expressed his appreciation for Ann Welsh's efforts. • Stated he hoped that approval could be obtained for-his home. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if there is any room for compromise on the issue of the balcony. Mr. Udaya Shankar said that they have addressed the neighbor-raised issues of drainage and screening. He stated that he would have no problem with moving the outdoor fireplace to a corner. Chair Garakani asked how about moving this fireplace to the other less visible terrace. Mr. Udaya Shankar suggested that a bit of give and take must occur here. He has to dedicate the Equestrian trail and is okay with that requirement and added that they have addressed all issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if his preference this evening would be for a final • decision or if he is amiable to a continuance to allow him time to address issues raised. Mr. Udaya Shankar said he has worked two years already but that. he had no problem working further with staff. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if he is willing to reduce his balcony. Mr. Udaya Shankar replied he would prefer not to do so. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that he might not lose any square footage if the balcony is widened at the same time it is shortened in length. Mr. Udaya Shankar said that his concern is more structural. He reminded that he needs to be able to back out of his garage. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that developing such a complex property raises difficult issues. A lot of work must be gone through prior to signing papers to purchase. • Urged that this project be sent back for further work, as there are lots of issues still to resolve. • Suggested that the home be tucked in more, that the balcony is too obtrusive and-the house is out there in full view from the valley. • Stated the need to make this house more compatible with the property. It needs more work. • Reminded that this home would be here for the next 100 years or more. Commissioner Uhl seconded that opinion, saying that the Design Guidelines are clear and this project is pushing the limits on four out of six guideline limits. Said that while he feels compassion for this property owner, he does not agree that the perception of bulk for this home has been adequately minimized. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. She expressed empathy for these owners and suggested the need to provide very specific guidance and a promise of a fast return to another Planning Commission meeting. Chair Garakani asked if this applicant had requested annexation. Commissioner Hunter said that this is not a concern for the Planning Commission. Annexation was a decision of the Council and that decision to annex this property does not represent a call to lower development standards for this property. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the drawings have not yet been updated to reflect the amended conditions. • Associate Planner Ann Welsh reported that the City has 60 days to decide on a course of action and tomorrow represents the 60`t' day. It is up to Mr. Shankar as to whether he wants a final decision this evening or is willing to accept a continuance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Rodgers: • Said she was hesitant to support this current design. • Stated that this house would give the perception that it is larger than it is on this hillside property. • Agreed to the need to specify conditions including the second .unit materials, the omission of the palm trees and the inclusion of the berm. • Added that the location of the driveway is not of concern to her. • Stated that she would like to see issues raised this evening addressed. Commissioner Uhl stated that this design is pushing the Design Review Guideline limits too much. Chair Garakani suggested that more specific direction be given on the reduction desired on mass and bulk. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that the applicant be asked if he supports a continuance. Commissioner Uhl said that this applicant is pushing the limit on too many things. He needs to pull back on some instead of reaching the maximum allowed under Code. He may be meeting Code limits but he is not achieving the required Design Guideline findings. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that she believes that even with conditions as proposed by staff, this design does not appear to meet the expectations of the Commission, which appears to be asking for a complete redesign. Chair Garakani reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if he is willing to accept a continuance to allow him time to work further on revisions to his proposal.. . Mr. Udaya Shankar replied absolutely. Commissioner Hunter stated her confidence in Ann Welsh's ability to understand what the Planning Commission is asking for. She stated that the Commission likes neither the fireplace nor the size of the balcony. Chair Garakani asked whether the applicant -could be compelled to work further with staff and obtain final approval through staff. Commissioner Hunter replied no, this item must come back to the Commission for final approval. Commissioner Uhl said the Commission is not asking for a complete redesign. This house just needs to be less bulky. He recognized the benefit of the Equestrian trail to the community. Mr. Udaya Shankar: • Said that some of the proposals are not yet depicted on the plans. These changes would help tuck the house more into the hillside. • Stated his confidence in working out issues with staff. • Asked the Commission to consider approval with conditions as he does not want to waste the Commission's time or his own. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 11 • Commissioner Nagpal questioned whether a study session might be in order. Chair Garakani pointed out that after approval, a study session does not mean anything. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that it might take approximately one month to get back on the agenda. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if he supports bring this project back before the Commission. Mr. Udaya Shankar said he has no problem with that. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that it is easy to get on the first meeting in March if the architect can get the revised drawings done on time for that meeting. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the issues must be addressed including the fireplace and the color of the house. Commissioner Nagpal asked about meeting again either on February 23ra or March 9a'. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that there is not time to advertise this item for February 23ra • Commissioner Nagpal expressed her understanding of the difficulties the Shankars have gone through. Mr. Udaya Shankar pointed out that the City's Code dictates how a building's height is measured from average slope and suggested that if this standard is not acceptable to the City should change its Code. Commissioner Nagpal advised that the review process takes into consideration Design Review findings as well as policy guidelines. Associate Planner Ann Welsh reminded that there are constraints on the footprint and where this house can be built on this site. She added that she took into consideration the fact that this applicant had to go through review through both the County and the City when she was reviewing this proposal. Commissioner Nagpal said that amendments to the design need to be incorporated into updated drawings. Mr. Udaya Shankar advised that he never wanted to be annexed into Saratoga and this annexation is costing him time and money. He added that he feels like a guinea pig of the whole process. Commissioner Hunter said that it was a very difficult property he bought. Mr. Udaya Shankar replied that it was not difficult under the County's jurisdiction. Commissioner Nagpal expressed empathy with the Shankars over their difficulties in obtaining their approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 12 Chair Garakani stated that he wants this applicant to have the house he wants as well as to protect the interests of his neighbors. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that this is a very difficult piece of property. Chair Garakani re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Garakani asked about the potential for installing a wrought iron fence at the front property line for safety. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would require a Variance. Commissioner Hunter reminded that in the Hillside Residential zoning district, one could only fence in a pool area. She reminded that this is horse territory. Chair Garakani said he was advocating a fence behind the trail. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether this fence would have to be a separate hearing. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that it could be incorporated into the March 9`h hearing if the applicant wants to apply for a Variance. However, only 4,000 square feet can be enclosed in the Hillside zoning district. Commissioner Rodgers outlined the required changes prior to the next hearing: • • Revise the balcony to reduce its length by half. • Reduce the height of the fireplace to four feet or eliminate it or relocate it from the balcony. • Process a deed restriction for the second unit qualifying it as aloes-income housing unit. • Ensure that the second unit is consistent with the materials and design of the main residence. • Utilize native plant materials in the landscaping. • No high reflectivity in paint color. • Use screening landscaping that is evergreen and eliminate the use of any palm trees. Commissioner Hunter stated her complete confidence in Ann Welsh's ability to help achieve these changes with the applicant and architect. Commissioner Uhl reiterated that this project is pushing the limits in every way. They cannot ask for everything. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Design Review application for a new two-story house on a County parcel, which is proposed for annexation into the City, on property located at 22461 Mount Eden Road, to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: - None • ABSENT: Schallop and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 13 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS *** There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk L J ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: SD-99-006; Saratoga Creek Drive Type of Application: Vesting Tentative Map approval - Exhibit B (Consent Item) Applicant/Owner: STURLA, owner D Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Associate Plannero~ Date: February 23, 2005 APN: 389-06-002 Department Head: HQME-5 DR ,. ---i BROOIGGLEN CT !I ,SARATOG:~GLEN Cl t`h ti.. 1~ T~ EHAVILLAND DR ±\\ ~" ~ -- :CAI _.-.----~ ;COX RV~`---- :- ~- - _ .....-........,_......J ~ ~ -_~ CT , \\ D:EHA~jtiLAND DR '~,:' --- - .i"" "~ I ~ Sturla Property -/. ~ '~./ ~ ~ ~Q ~; ; /, '\ r ~ ~" , \\\\ ,~SAR/yYOGA"AV ~~ Y i ~ \ j . C" \~. i 0 75 150 225 300 " 375 ft ,_ " " ,. .__ ~~ :,, ~,~ Saratoga Creek Drive ®x®01 Application No. SD-99-006; Saratoga Creek Drive -Exhibit B CASE HISTORY: Application for Vesting Tentative Map approved on: 05/10/00 36-month time extension for Final Map Approval granted on: 06/12/02 Date by which Final Map shall be recorded: OS/10/OS ZONING: Professional Administrative Office GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Administrative MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZES: Parcel l: 27,443 sf (net) Parcel 2: 15,420 sf (net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 10% for both parcels GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of a division of a parcel into two parcels is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15315, "Minor Land Divisions," Class 15 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). • • • ©002 Application No. SD-99-006; Saratoga Creek Drive -Exhibit B • PROJECT DISCUSSION Background On May 10, 2000, the applicant received vesting tentative map approval from the Planning Commission to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 27,443 (net) square feet and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 15,420 (net) square feet. A portion of Saratoga Creek is on Parcel 1. The vesting tentative map approval is for the lot split only, as shown in attached Exhibit A. Future development on the parcels would be subject to design review approval and current zoning code requirements. The applicant has stated that future development is intended to be single story medical offices integrated with the existing medicaUprofessional offices in the vicinity. Resolution No. SD-99-006, approving the vesting tentative map for the lot split, is attached for reference. On June 12, 2002, the Planning Commission granted a 36-month time extension (Resolution No 02-033) for final map approval of the lot split. The time extension was granted because lengthy litigation had just been resolved and the office market at that time was in a very poor position due to the economic downturn. With the approved time extension, the applicant must obtain final map approval from the City Council and record the final map by May 10, 2005 or the vesting tentative map approval will expire. Approval ofF_xhibitB Staff is requesting the Plannmg Commission to revisit this apphcanon as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan the riparian/creek easement, and requires that said exhibit shall include the distance between improvements and the riparian/creek easement. A review of the Planning Commission minutes of the May 10, 2000 (attached) indicates that some Commissioners were concerned that the riparian/creek easement was not identified in Exhibit A. Municipal Code Section [MCS] 14-25.065 requires that this riparian/creek easement be called a Creek Protection Easement with its location based on a biotic assessment identifying the protected creek, its banks, and riparian habitat. The biotic assessment prepared for this application is attached and identifies a 25-foot creek setback, which is shown on Exhibit B. The proposed setback of 10 feet from the Creek Protection Easement for improvements is shown on Exhibit B and is also consistent with the setback requirements stated in MCS 15- 18.080. As identified in the biotic assessment, no significant impacts to the creek or the riparian habitat are expected as a result of the proposed subdivision and subsequent development. Pursuant to MCS 14-25.065, the restrictions of this Creek Protection Easement will state that structures, improvements, ornamental landscaping or fencing shall be prohibited within the easement, unless the Community Development Director determines that such will enhance the creek's condition by improving flood and/or erosion control or improving or protecting riparian habitat. ~®4~0~ Application No. SD-99-006; Saratoga Creek Drive -Exhibit B STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Creek Protection Easement shown in Exhibit B fulfills the requirement of condition of approval #S in Resolution No. SD-99-006. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving Exhibit B, with the condition that all conditions stated in Resolution No. SD-99-006 and Resolution No. 02-033 are applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving Exhibit B 2. Resolution No. SD-99-006 3. Resolution No. 02-033 4. Planning Commission Minutes of May 10, 2000 (excerpt) 5. Biotic Assessment 6. Reduced Plans Exhibit A 7. Reduced Plan Exhibit B C • • ~~®®0~ L Attachment 1 • ~~~~0~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. SD-99-006 EXHIBIT B CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA STURLA; Saratoga Creek Drive WHEREAS, on May 10, 2000, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission adopted Resolution SD-99-006 approving with conditions a Vesting Tentative Map of a subdivision of one lot into two parcels on Saratoga Creek Drive; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission Resolution 02-033 granted the applicant a 36- month time extension such that the Final Map shall be recorded by May 10, 2005 or Vesting Tentative Map approval will expire; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission Resolution SD-99-006 condition of approval #S requires Planning Commission approval of Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, Exhibit B fulfills the requirement stated in condition of approval #S of Resolution SD-99-006 and the requirements of Municipal Code Secrion 14-25.065 Creek • Protection Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration, Exhibit B is approved with conditions stated in Resolution No.SD-99-006 and Resolution No. 02-033. Section 2. 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 23rd day of February 2005 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 Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date Q~~®Q~ ~i Attachment 2 n ~~~®®~ AP v No. SD-99-006 PRO AL OF RESOLUTION CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA STURLA: Saratoga Creek Drive WHEx~AS, application has been made to the Ad~~isory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one existing parcel into two Professional-Administrative Office parcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-006 of this City; and WHEx~AS, this Ad~nsory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdi«sion, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific regulations relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated May 4, 2000 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHExEAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code Sections 66474 (a) - (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREP,S, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present e~ridence; THFxEFORE BE IT ~soLVED: that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated May 4, 2000 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinafter referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of the said approval are as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drativings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection tenth this matter, the application of Sturla for Subdivision approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. The extent of the riparian corridor as outlined in the biotic assessment shall be included on the Final Map. ~~®®~~ File No. SD-99-006: STL~LA; Saratoga Creek Drive Prior to Final Map .approval, the Planning Di~~ision shall revie~~ the Map to assure conformance with all conditions. 4. Prior to Final Map approval, areas along the top of creek bank shall be planted «~ith native species to aid in bank stabilization. Applicant shall contact Santa Clara Valley Water District and the California Department of Fish and Game in order to determine v~~hich species would be most appropriate. ~. Prior to Final Map approval, the riparian/creek easement shall be identified on a separate Exhibit "B" and is subject to Planning Commission approval. Said exhibit shall include the distance between improvements and the riparian/creek easement. 6. Prior to issuance of any permits, applicant shall obtain sewer connection permits from West Valley Sanitation District. 7. Santa Clara Valley Water District shall review and approve all development on Parcel #l. 8. Future development on both lots shall adhere to the then current Zoning Requirements. Future development shall be sited and designed to minimi?e the amount of pad grading necessary and the removal of ordinance-protected trees. 9. All recommendations of the City Arborist's Report dated December 27,1999 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: • a. The Arborist Report shall. be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the improvement plan set and all applicable measures noted. b. Five (S) ft, chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." c. A note shall be included on the improvements plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. Prior to submittal of -Final-Map the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $7,046 pursuant to-the report and recommendation by the City Arborist and Planning staff to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the - subject site. e. Prior to approval of subdivision improvements, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the bond shall be released. f. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. - ®®~J~10 C.''~~'~~INDO\•VS~DESI~'IOP~Cnristina\PC Staff Reports\,STiiRIASD.doc File No. SD-99-006: STL~..LA; Saratoga Creek Drive g. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed (with the exception of tree #1) v~~ithout first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. h. A landscape plan including native replacement value trees in the amount of X5,729, shall be included in a future Design Review application. FIRE DISTRICT 10. Provide one public fire hydrant at a location to be determined by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed S00 feet, with a minimum single flow of 1,500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Prior to applying for a building permit, provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants proximal to the site. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company as soon as possible. PUBLIC WORKS 11. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the o~Tner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted • map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 12. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative MaplVesting Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within Winery (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 13. The owner (a licant shall a a Ma Checkin fee as determined PP ) p y p g by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. Q~~®~~. C.`~Vl'II~'DO~'~~51DEShTOAChriscina\PC Staff ReporulSTURIASD.doc File No. SD-99-006: STLnIA; Saratoga Creek Drive 14. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the • Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 15. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements-and/orrights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative MaplVesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 16. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map/Vesting Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. --~ ~~~ 17. Improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily limited to: 18. Grinding and removing of existing pavement at portion of Saratoga Creek Drive South of Cox Avenue. Installation of the new overlay according to the Ciry Standard • Specifications. 19. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement PlanChecking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 20. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 21. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 22. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal-Code, prior to Final Map approval. 23. -Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Ciry Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision.. ~®®~~~ C:\\~'I~IDOWS~DESKTOP~Christina\PC Staff Reooits\STURI11SD.doc File No. SD-99-006: STL~~LA; Saratoga Creek Drive 24. The ovt~ner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the Cite and any other public agencies, including public and private utility pro~~iders, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to Ciry Engineer. 25. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 26. All building and construction related acti«ties shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY 27. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and e~Tpenses, 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 or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 28. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months 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. U ~~®®~~ C:\~~'I~rDOw51DESICTOP~ChristinalPC StaFf ReportslSTtiRI.~SD.doc File No. SD-99-006: STL~~L.A; Saratoga Creek Dnve PASSID AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of May 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: S 'cret' , Pl Commission • • ~~~~~,~ C:\\.\%I'~DO~%51DESI~'I'OAChristina\PC Staff Reports~STL1RI.~SD.cioc • Attachment 3 • ~~~~~~ • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. 02-033 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application fora 36- month time extension for SD 99-006; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the reasons to justify the time extension are: • Lengthy litigations has just been resolved, and • Current office market is in a very poor position and immediate improvement is unlikely. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the request the Planning Commission grants the 36-month time extension. Section 2. The map must be recorded by May 10, 2005 or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry 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. ~~®®~~ --1 __ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, June 12, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BARRY, GARAKANI, HUNTER, KURASCH, ~ ZUTSHI NOES: NoIV~E ABSENT: ROUPE FSC CHAIR JACKUTAN ABSTAIN: NONE Acting Cha P nning Commission ATTEST: ~/ '~ Secretary to the 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. /9 _aZ Ap icant Date • Attachment 4 C, ~~ ~.~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 1VIINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 137? Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting vas called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chaix~~%oman Bernald. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff Present: Director Walgren APPOINTMENT OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BARRY NOMINATED VICE CHAIRIvIAN PAGE FOR CHAIRMA\' AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE FOR VICE CHAIRMAN. THERE WERE NO FURTHER NOMINATIONS. VICE CHAIRMA\' PAGE WAS UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS UNAI~'IMOUSLY ELECTED VICE CHAIRMAN. Chairman Page thanked Commissioner Bernald for her leadership during the past year as Chairwoman. Commissioner Bernald thanked the Commissioners, Director Walgren, and his staff for their support. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -April 26, 2000 COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2000, WITH THE FOLLOWING AME\'DMENTS. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINED). Page 2, paragraph 7, "Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road:.." and "...to the viewers from the San ose valley." Page 3, paragraph 8, "...that the front of the house looked too massive." Page 3, paragraph 12, "...acreage, but it may be too big for the slope." Page 4, paragraph 14, "...putting the same style of ~~vindovc~ lights used on the cottage..." Page 5, after last paragraph, add "Commissioner Kurasch commended and thanked the applicant for restoring such a property in the community." Page 7, paragraph 6, "...Design Re~~ievv Handbook ie~d recommended minimising areas of perceived maxunum height... "and ... "The proposed project v~~as~s-ambitious..." and "She liked the overall architecture but felt it would have an impact tfYctti-Un the neighboring property." ®~®~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 MAY 10, 2000 Page 7, after paragraph 8, add "Chairwoman Bernald suggested that Commissioner Barry and perhaps the other new Commissioners should view Chris Spaulding's products so they- could see how well proportioned they are." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on May 5, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Walgren reported that a correction needed to be made on Agenda Item 2. The detached structure should be referred to as "cottage" rather than "garage." CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR-99-010 ~z V-99-005 (517-14-078) - TAORMINA, 15500 Quickert Road; Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 6,268 square foot two-story residence. Variance approval is required to allow a retaining wall to exceed five feet in height. The property is 3.1 acres (net) and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/12/00) Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that applicants are requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,268 square foot two-story residence. The Planning Commission originally re~~iewed the application at the April 12, 2000, Commission hearing and felt the design was not sensitive to the natural environment and expressed a desire that the design, colors, and materials used should reflect a more rural style. The applicant made architectural changes to the plans including elevation and material. Staff found that the applicant complied with the directions from the April Commission meeting and recommends approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked about changes in the basement. Director Walgren said the change recommended by staff was that the basement be pulled back, away from the edge of the pad. The recommendation is to reduce the area of the basement by eliminating the portion projecting towards the face of the slope.. Commissioner Barry said a comment was made in the minutes was not dealt v~~ith, specifically about the structure being too bulky for the hillside. She asked if staff had any discussion with the applicant about reducing the bulk. ~~~®2® PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 MAY 10, 2000 • maintenance of the neighborhood character. He thought this would be worth discussing. Commissioner Jackman said it was not appropriate to add restrictions for one story. Commissioner Kurasch asked if a unit is legalized as a second dwelling unit, does that obligate or require the homeowners to use the property in that «~ay. Director Walgren said that would not obligate the homeowners. Commissioner Roupe said the applicant would have to go through the regular process to legalize the unit. MOTION TO APPROVE SD-99-004 PASSED 7-0. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE V-99-008. PASSED 7-0. 5. SD-99-006 (389-06-002) - STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive; Application for Subdivision approval to split an existing 1.3-acre parcel into t~vo parcels. The parcel is located within a Professional-Administrative Offices zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the application vas a request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide into nvo parcels an existing 1.3 acre vacant parcel. The property is located in aProfessional-Administrative Office zoning district. A riparian habitat vas required to be prepared to identify any endangered or special species of plants or animals and to identify a riparian easement that would be recorded as part of the Tentative Map. Staff recommends approval of the subdi~~ision application. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Warren Sturla, 211 B Shelley Avenue, Campbell, was present to answer any questions. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:02 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Jackman favored approving the application as presented. Commissioner Kurasch was not comfortable with the riparian easement dedication and v<~ould like a stated minimum with the biotic requirement. Director Walgren suggested requiring the Tentative Map come back to the Planning Commission once the riparian easement vt~as identified and prior to recording of the Map. Commissioner Barry said she would approve the application knowing the final map with riparian easement described would come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Patrick did not believe the Planning Commission had the ability to change the riparian easement. She would not require a re~~iew of the map to look at the riparian easement. ~~~~ti~. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 MAY 10, 2000 • Commissioner Kurasch said having more information in an area that has been described as having some species of concern was consistent with City policy to describe it further. She was concerned about not having a minimum in the policy. Director Walgren said he would bring it back before the map is finaled. Commissioner Roupe was hesitant to overlay general guidelines that might be precedent setting. Director Walgren recommended taking the wildlife biologist's recommendation as to where the easement should go. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE SD-99-006. PASSED 7-0. 6. DR-98-044 (503-13-021) -CHID, 21777 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,488 square foot, single story residence, and construct a 6,720 square foot, single story residence with a maximum height of 23 feet. The project .vas originally heard at the November 10, 1999 Planning Commission hearing and continued to a date uncertain for design revisions. The site is located on a 2.7 (net) acre parcel within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the applicants are requesting Design Re«e~v approval to demolish an existing 2,488 square foot single-story residence and construct a new 6,720 square foot single-story residence with a maximum building .height of 23 feet. The building was reduced by 600 square feet, the height was reduced from 26 -feet to 23 feet, terraces were removed, stone added, and the • color ~~vas changed to integrate the house into the surrounding natural environment. Tvvo trees that were pre~~iously proposed to be removed v<~ill be retained, and the impervious coverage was reduced. Staff recommends approval of the application. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Scott Stotler, 275 Tennent Avenue, #100, Morgan Hill, provided a rendering sho~~~ing the relationship of the width of the house to the size of the lot. He noted that there vas more stone and the colors were earth tone. The lot coverage was reduced and setbacks increased. Commissioner Barry liked the stone and the change in colors: She questioned whether the columns were helpful to the design. Mr. Stotler said the columns were a cut stone .look. The owner chose to construct asingle-story house which he felt blended. better with the area. The pad is 10 feet below the street, and there would be a large front setback. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicant vas opposed to removing the columns and replacing them with square or rectangular boxed stone worked columns. Mr. Stotler said it was the o«~ner's desire to keep the columns. Cor-unissioner Kurasch noted the Calabasas Creek ran through the back of the property and asked if the applicant had any objection to including plants native to the area. ~~~~2~ C1 Attachment 5 ~~~~~z~ :J BIOTIC ASSESSMENT FOR "THE LANDS OF STURLA" SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE, SARATOGA, CALIORNIA. Methods Ecosystems West Consulting Groups Wildlife Biologist and Herpetologist, Dawn Reis, conducted the Biotic Assessment at the proposed project site on September 22, 1999. Two tentative parcel maps were used in the field to aid the Biotic Assessment. These included: "Lands of Stwla" (Creegan and D'Angelo Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers, August 26 1999) and a blue print of Parcel One drawn by Mr. Sturla (August 1, 1999). Trees along the riparian corridor where checked for raptor nests. Current agency status information was obtained from USFWS (1999) for species listed as Threatened or Endangered, as well as Proposed and Candidate species for listing, under the federal Endangered Species Act; and from CDFG (1999) for species listed as Threatened, or Endangered by the state of California under the California Endangered Species Act, or listed as "species of special concern" by CDFG. In addition, the Santa Clara Valley Water District California Red-legged Frog Distribution and Status report (H.T. Harvey and Associates 1997) was reviewed for known occurrence of California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). From the above sources, a list of special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the project area was developed (Table 1). Habitat Characterization and Project Description Parcel One is located adjacent to Saratoga Creek, off of Saratoga Creek Drive, with Cox Avenue being the nearest cross street. Dense urban development occurs on both the east and west sides of the parcel such that wildlife movement is restricted to the creek comdor. At the time of the survey, the reach of Saratoga Creek adjacent to the project site contained shallow riffle, run and glide habitat over cobble substrate. With the exception of a single elderberry bush (Sambucus sp.) and a narrow, eight-foot wide corridor along the top of bank, the remaining vegetation in the Parcel one has been greatly altered by past disturbance. Essentially no intact natural vegetation communities remain on the site outside of the top of bank corridor. A large concrete and asphalt pile occurs on the lot. The soil is rocky with patches of bare ground and sparsely growing non-native grasses and herbs such as ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), star thistle (Centaurea sp.), black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). This lot provides poor foraging habitat foraging riparian birds and poor soil conditions for small mammals such as pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) or ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). The concrete piles where searched for signs of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) use. No ground burrows nor were signs of owls (such as pellets, feathers, or excrement) observed. Common reptiles observed included northern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus coerleus) 1 %~~'~d2~ ~- • C, and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Over all, the ruderal vegetation on Parcel One is of poor wildlife value. Saratoga Creek is highly incised along the reach adjacent to Parcel One. The top of bank on the Sturla property drops steeply, and is therefore well defined, as the low flow channel is approximately 15 feet below. The proposed project plan calls for a building structure that will be located 35 feet from the top of bank on the south end of the Parcel One, as well as a parking lot that is located 10 feet from the top of bank, north of the proposed building. The current vegetation corridor along the top of bank is approximately 8 feet wide, with the exception of a large coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) and one large California sycamore tree (Platanus racemosa) that have both have drip lines that extend further out into-the parcel. However, it should be noted that both of these trees are rooted within 8 feet from top of bank and will not be removed. The dominant understory species between these two mature trees is elderberry. The drip-line of the large oak is well within the proposed 35-foot setback from the top of bank to the office building such that there is no issue with City's 25-foot set back. The sycamore is located adjacent to the proposed parking lot, and the drip-line of this tree extends over proposed lot. The parking lot slope and drainage will be directed towards Saratoga Creek Drive and the Saratoga/Cox Avenue storm-drain. Special-Status Wildlife Species Table 1 identifies special status species with the potential to occur in the region. However, the project site provides suitable habitat for a limited number of these listed species. Based on the lack of suitable habitat available at the project site, listed amphibians, reptiles and songbirds are not likely to occur. As wood rat nests were not observed at the project area, it can be assumed that Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is not present at the project site. Other than potential for migrant birds, no signs of raptor nest were noted in the creek corridor adjacent to the project site and there was no documented occurrences of potential special status wildlife as listed in Table 1 observed or documented in the vicinity of the study area. The following section contains brief discussions of the potential occurrence of the species listed in Table 1. • 2 ~;, Table 1. Special-status wildlife species with a potential to occur in the vicinity of the Sturla Project site off of Saratoga Creek Drive. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Raptors (Hawks, owls, eagles, M falcons) SC Sharp-shinned hawk (nesting) Accipiter striatus - Cooper's hawk (nesting) Accipiter cooperi - SC Short-eared owl (nesting) Asio flammeus - SC Burrowing owl (nesting) Athene cunicularia - SC Northern homer hawk (nesting) Circus cyaneus - SC Song Birds Least bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus E E Yellow warbler (nesting) Dendroica petechia brewsteri - SC Willow flycatcher Empidonaz traillii E Yellow breasted chat Icteria vtrens - SC • Mammals Pallid bat d b ' Antrozous pallidus Plecotus townsendii - SC SC at s big-eare Townsend Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SC SC Long legged myotis Myotis volans SC Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana - Amphibians and Reptiles California red-legged frog -Rana aurora draytonii T SC Western spade-foot toad Scaphiopus hammondii Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boyii SC Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata - SC 3 • C~~~~~ • • Notes: This table lists the endangered, threatened and sensitive wildlife species that use or could potentially use the project azea. The principle source of information for status designation is California Department offish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1999), "Special Animals". These wildlife species represent animal and bird species that meet the criteria for consideration as a threatened or endangered wildlife species, or are of particulaz concern to natural resource management agencies and potentially occur within the study area. Under Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a species not included in any listing identified by the state "shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet the criteria" for listing. Thus animal species of special concern (Remsen 1978, Williams 1986; and Jennings and Hayes 1994) aze included in the list. The US Fish and Wildlife Service encourages the consideration of proposed and candidate species in em-ironmental planning such as environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The wildlife status defmition and governing agencies follow: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal) E =Endangered :Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T =Threatened: Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. C = Taxa which are under review, and for which sufficient biological information exists to support a proposal to list as an endangered or threatened species. M =Avian species and their nest which are protected during their breeding season under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. State of California E =Endangered: A native species or subspecies of animal which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range, due to loss of habitat, change in habitat: over exploitation, predation, competition and/or disease. T =Threatened: A native species or subspecies that, although no presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts. SC = CDFG Species of Special Concern * - Taxa given special consideration because they aze biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or at a critical stage in their life cycle when residing in California or taxa that aze closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forest). Special-Status Wildlife Raptors. Raptors and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Potential nesting trees occur both in the study area and within 300 feet of the study area. No raptor nest or signs for last summers nesting activities such as pellets or white-wash was observed in the creek corridor adjacent to the project area. Ground burrows of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) were not found, nor were signs of owls (such as pellets, feathers, or excrement). The habitat adjacent to this reach of Saratoga Creek (e.g. Parcel One and Two) does not provide foraging habitat for raptors. Special Status Song Birds. Nesting habitat for the yellow warbler (Dendroica pechia), willow flycatcher (Empidonaz traillii), yellow breasted chat (Icteria virens) and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is characterized as dense, low and mid canopy willow thickets. This type of habitat does not occur within the project area. Suitable gleaning (foraging) habitat for these species present within the proposed project area. They may • occur as migrants along Saratoga Creek. ~~~~®~~ ~. • • Special Status Mammal. Potential roosting and foraging habitat occurs for pallid bats and long-legged myotis bats. The pallid bat are known to uses large hollow trees, for roosting (Jameson and Peeters 1988; Zeiner et al. 1990). The long-legged myotis occurs throughout most of the state and is known to occupy a diversity of habitats. Long-legged myotis will roost in trees, buildings, crevices and cliffs. Pallid bats glean moths from leaves and forage on the ground for invertebrates, especially Jerusalem crickets. Potential roosting and foraging habitat occurs for Townsend's big-eared bat and Western mastiff bats does not occur in the riparian trees adjacent to the project site. Townsend's big-eared bat occurs in a variety of plant communities, although in coastal areas of California it is primarily associated with riparian forests. Townsend's big-eared bats forage by gleaning insects from leaf surfaces and roosting sites for this species includes buildings, and other human-made structures within 100 meters of riparian habitats (Williams 1986, Pierson 1988). Western mastiff bats roost in caves, crevices and buildings. This bat is associated with open, arid areas on cliffs (e.g. not found flying in dense forest). As project related activities will not be removing riparian trees, nor is construction likely to occur at night when bats are foraging, no impacts are expected. Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles Parcel One and Two does not contain potential upland nesting western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata) as the soil is too compacted for nest scrapes. Upland aestivation habitat for California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii), and western spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus hammondii) does not occur in Pacel One or Two.. Museum records show that, the closest historical record of California red-legged-frogs occurred in a tributary of Campbell Creek (also known as Saratoga Creek) west of Saratoga in 1939 (H.T. Harvey and Associates 1997). An analysis of California red- legged frog distribution and status in Santa Clara County, conducted by H.T. Harvey and Associates (1997) -for the Santa Clara Valley Water District; indicates that this project site is not located within the current known distribution of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County. However, as there are no backwater channels or pools in this reach of Saratoga Creek, potential reproductive habitat for California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) does not occur. Potential red-legged frog habitats within a few miles of the project site includes several reservoirs at the La Rinconada County Club, Vasona Creek and Vasona Reservoir, San Tomas Aquinas Creek and a small pond located near Daves Avenue School. However, based on the lack of documented occurrences of California red-legged frogs at these locations or within the project site, it is unlikely that the red-legged frogs would be using the Saratoga Creek corridor as non-reproductive habitat. As red-legged frogs are known to travel up to three miles overland for one site to another (Norm Scott pers. com. 1997) the project site was evaluated as potential transitional habitat. However, based on the heavy urban development between the potential locations listed above, it is unlikely (nearly impossible) for red_-legged -frogs to,be moving overland through the project site • c~~~~~2~ • • Recommendations To avoid potential erosion issues to avoid potential impact to riparian corridor and water quality of Saratoga Creek we recommend the following. 1. Flag off the 25-foot and 10-foot creek side setbacks with construction flagging to keep soils off of the top of bank and out of the creek. 2. Areas along the top of bank can be planted with native species to aid in bank- stabilization. Conclusion It is our opinion that the inclusion of the proposed parking lot with in the 25-foot creek setback, given the following recommendations that we included, will not result in significant impacts special status wildlife or botanical species. In addition, it should be noted that this project was also assessed for signs of nesting raptors as well as for potential upland use of special status reptiles and amphibians including: western pond turtles, foothill yellow -legged frogs and California red-legged frogs. This project is not likely to result in impacts to any of these special status species. • Cited References California Department of Fish and Game. 1999. Endangered and threatened animals of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. H.T. Harvey and Associates. 1997. Santa Clara Valley Water District California Red- legged Frog Distribution and Status-1997. Consultant's report prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Jameson, E. W., Jr., and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California mammals. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Pierson, E.D. 1988. The status of Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) in California, preliminary results: P.t. townsendii in coastal California 1987-1988. Wildlife Mgmt. Div., Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Scott, Norm. Personal communication. 1997. Herpetologist and Research Director, Biological Research Division of USGS. San Simeon, CA. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife. http://www.fws.gov/~r9endspp/cfr1711.pdf (28 February 1998). Williams, D. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game Report 86-1. 112 pp. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 407 pp. ~~~~®~~ ~ M ~ . RESIDENTIAL ~ \ ' ~ ~~` / ~ ~ X46 g4/ ~'~ _~' \~ 1' \ D '~ /~' PRP _ G~ 5 - ,~ s o /~ ~~ / its-~ /~~', ice,,' _ -- \0•. Via. og - ~ ~ RarpO,t ~ ~~u, U ,~ ' ~ ^ S ' ~ o M\ o. ~ D `I'7,plr Qp F ~~ N. 22 23 -~- ` ~ 3~ \ \ 1 ~ 1 1 ~(t \~ svK--- -46.07 o\:~ ~ o\ \ 1\\II 11 1 .,,!<\ ~~~ ; ~ .~~ , \ 519:222 - io 1' ~ m N,`\ \ \I 1 .~^~ ° u ~ ~L Q p\ ~- - ~ ~ - ~ - " - v m ~ 1 ( ~ \~ ~ 1111 11 ~ \~\ p Z G~ -. ~P ; ~ \ ~\ -. 1 ~ x ~ ~ v IAA ~ w~•~°• nl v 1 1 1 ~ \ \ 62 - !~\ I\ 41 °r \ \ 1 1 ~ ~ 7 51 w, fl v nv ~ 1;J ~I I\\ 11 1~, £p\~ 11~ 11 45 ,N 1~~/'~~ a~~-`~// °'-,'+r\. __ / Ls n nn n 1 1 1\ •0\1 1 ~96c' S1ri / '~', !~ N o ~ ° ~ .. 1 ~ of , 1 \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, , - ~ s 550. / F° ~." ,~°- D .6 ~~ ' ~ .mot - P CRS 5`r/ y U> y ' ~ Q: ~~ 1 E=72• R=275 r a s /VI 12 C / • 45~ 1=61.09• R~875.00. 0=c PUE (~ pR.3521 ~~~C. ,py0 ,,, - i 9 `~ s / 51r~ ~U p _ ~ ES/EGRESS ~ ,~ Sir a \ 1 1 • ~ ~ ~ ~ I/ i / _ _ .. - w oto. ~•~ t/7 4; R_ pp 00• ~ ~ VLO\ r 1\ ~ OC 1 ~~L•~ ~--- ,Nu1,,~~// N I 5 ~- L= .36' R=900. D=3'2S'4 O 5% 1 ITT ~1 1~~ m ~ - i 1 1 11 1 ~ :~ R=900.00• 2% ~ x p=0'36'11" Oc1S 111111 1 ~~ - .. Oi ~ 111111 1 :~ ~ ~ I `/ 0 5 0`• R=32`3• / i~ £l0 1 11 1 111 1 > ~ ~ .m ~~~ _ ~ i' o~^„^ 11 111111 1 oA o I I D/ ~ II 1=10.10 I ~ 1~ ~ 1 11 1 1 ~ ~ X ,f I I I R=925.00 ~ ~ 1 I 1 11 11 j 1 S` ~o r !1~/,~E 11 1 D=V 37.32' I ~ 1 11 1 1 1 Z s C 0 ° r;Ye~~If I I I /~ , ~ J 1 ~1 11 11 1 1 N ~ ~ o t"'l Z . - I ~ I ~ w 11 11 11 1 =~ m ro VV ~' J 1 ~ O I u 1 1i/ I r---J ~ ~ p o 0 o b I> 1 1111 1111 1 x I o '~ i ...,.., 1 w' p `f' a I I~ 1 11 j 1j1 1~ j g < I 11 __ Ls I A ~°° I~I'_T~il 1 ~ °1~ _ _ _ ^ .'D-Z- .. 1 "I m ' on .-I- - - _y nncDi n I ~ 1 11111j 1 ~ .~ . O O o"'- I I o.D I 9y, 1 n ~J ~-~ 9~ 1 1j 1111 1 - ~ - ~ - - - _. Z. a y I 1°.~SN _ I t'~ 1~ cl p 1 11 111 1 14k• £ ~I I O ~ ~ I9 No i lo~~' e i "~ I m t7 ~ ZV ;~ 1 1 1111 1 c ~ O pp~"m' I lu~o~ m I `~, I vii ~ 1 11 11 I l\I 1 4TM~ 150.00• ~ ~~ I 1 0 ~ 11 1 ~ 1 52r4~ ~~ O `~ I ~a 1 1 I n n \ 11 11 1~ 1 52r~ 42 W^1DEED) ~~ - C7) \ \I I4I ° I ~ mni ~ 1 11 11 ~ 111 1 (s2r 42 4= ~ _ I O 1~{, 1 J ~ Z Z ttl 11 1 I \ 1~'-- .~ 1 11 1111 1j ' .~--~. _------ 1~~ -_- 11 11'" 1 11 71 ~ ~ r I s~m~ 4 ~-- Ij~ __---4-- .1 ~ 1 ~^ 11 ~h1 ''~~^ j W U ~7 ~ O - zo~i I ' _-. ~. -t. \ 1I~ 20' FIAKINR ~ ~ 1 \ 1 £ 1 1 ~' ~, IZ7 - (7 ~ .. I N'T N o _I t3' 7• L---~~ --~'T- -~ t 11 1(1 /O ~ f G•1 ~ I _ 1 ~~~ ; m's'°y 99.38•. 1 _{ Ix W N z.. N25'07.20'E ~ 1 - i -•O~~ `a '^~~a om ~ __ N28'37.35"E 4 0• > W Im W I _ to c m"vo ~ ~~>„ ~ ~ ~~0~ ~y~n PARKING ~i'm ¢tp•-• h ~mn ~ ~~ I _ ._ ._ _ Nysn r" 1 ' V~A ~ Qsy2 1- mz~ p„ `~ ~ En_m O :N I I "°~~ r s2r 4q•42~63~ ~ rzzisa .-1_._.....o ~ a O ~ u"~{ -"1 ~- oon0 (J1 •~ ~ ~ zyo ~ z .-. I Aox i m ~D x w ;~7 $ •..• C7 in ~ °o ~ D ~°n -I ~ E ~ C7 z -1 W ~ -P m W U1 C -P ~ r ~ v ~ z c Im ~ m ~ s ?~ ~ - = o -. n o e m s VI Z ~~ i ~ ' r: C7 I °- I o~ utf u,~ oo~ c s' cTn isosE > ~ DG) n D I ~ I I 1 I p sy sf nTzis m n z nN zy'~arzi y n Ir~ID r I ~ a I I I .1 rm„ ~^. z ~^ z'^ ~ a r ~ A u, ~ ~ I I 1 :.t': f Q -~ a a~ ann a a -zz mc°iuz'^ ~.o Z O~ N I N '{ I I ~ ~ ., *.•'~ y~ roNiN n~ i o° a 9 ° 'aa.ym ~ ~ ~A ~ ~ o ui M ~ I -+ ,~i ExTNG raoptrE o I I ~ ~ I o o i< a m s z o s s I$ ., y u,'<^ s ~~ z O~ v tTl p ~ ° °i Ax o.. o < .. ~ < `r 1O Sp x ~ = m tis mZ ~ N Z Z ~~ I z N x a "~ az Ein i'_~ s 's s ~ jn ~O Iy I rn :. ~ o '~~ 8 i ~ ~ ~g` ~ °z s!^ °mi <~ z ~ ~ ~ .+ m c i''R D O~ (~'1 /N/~~ Z A I~ D ~ z o m i ~ i - ° ; o w, ~~ ~^ n "' m o Z D O r l 1 .n D D i i „~ o - c ,., .~ i .. i z z„ x ; ~^ a ~ G y ~ X O ~. ~ 1 ~ ~ m L' ° r o m o m ti s n ~, n ~- y O - ~ o ,. _ m ° ~~ ~ ~ r ~, L1 ~ ~ ~\ Z ~ m ^• ~ m ° As °x o c i o~ C7 ~~ OO Z 1 .Z7 I ~ A ~'%.~ _J ,y~9 ~ ~ x ~ A j' °o s ~ .n f1 n ~ O ^ -D-1 7c ~ ~ ~ ~ ° m ? ° p o~N ~~ m IA ^~ :,~ _ m ~ Z m i ~ PppfFSSlON,1 ,3„ `c s 'DD ~ ~ :~ N Q.TO Eg 0 pr ~ fy i ~ N U<I I rl c i m omEAnoN u[ oc, o c w ~_ OZ o °~ Ilu 217 l~'z A ~ w A ° m LANDS OF STURLA _ ~'~~/ RDH ~ ~ ~ ~ -_/ J Conwlting CivB ono Struduml Engineer VESTING TENTATIVE CREECAN~D'ANO[LO 8H oZ ~~_ ~Z m m PARCEL MAP - ,~:> _.,r 4.,.,, °~ ~... Do = ~s, 6.,~,,,~E ,.~.~ ~ LDFI o ~ m o.vo.N T^" , o ~:-toal cm weNnN. xoN (A A SARATOCn - Colifomia EA~REIELO MONTEREY • PEEASANTON • yN EPANCISCO • sw JOSE •CILfORNM 1 ^ ~ = 2D• NFV MlE OESCP~PTpN Dv C~ I r~ • r ~ I ,, ~. A~ .~ ~, ;, ~ } ,"" RPM O '` D~, , 1 1, C N / Z '~~ s , ,1 ; , 1 J ~ N '`, ~~ ' / 'c ~ 1 11 1 111 / / 75.00' D=4° _ ~ - P ~ (9pg4 p.R• 5 ~/.~ ,, -" ' GREES/EGRESS ~ ~4-//'1~~" ~~, 5 5j 1 `I 11 ' o , ,, ~~ ~' ~ARATOGA j 2i R ~~ ~ ~ . \,_ a- - ~ O\~ 1 1 '~ \~ J ~ , oo. ~ ~ 1; ~, X5.,1, 1 _.~ ~ x,-111 54 R O 1 -r' ,, x' L=7 ~ a==. v 0.00' D = 3' 2 3' 491 ' ,~,1% ~ M -~'~ 51 l.~ j , 1 1 , 1 1 11 , ~ X~ / 1 11 ,,,1 1 2% , 1 1 11 1, I y7J .\\ R=900.00' „ j - ~' , 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 ~ ~~ J . cn ~ D =O` 36' l l p0+ 0' ~ 5 ~ U'-' o ', li i ~ i 11 11 ~ °~~ ~ R=325 ~~ 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 Oa_~~ ~- 1 11 1 111 1 Q ~ 5' . / C7 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 01 00. ~ ___ -- ~ o rr, rrl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 / :17 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,, rr----- r - ~ ~ / c,J ~ =1 11 5' 1 j10; 1 + 5 1 uJ' 1 1 j 1 %I ~ ~ 1 1 1 11 1 '~I 11 II ~J ' L=10.10 I I( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I ~ ~ i R=925.00' i ~ 62' 1 1111 1 '', 1 1 z ~ i ~ p=D°37'32" ~ 11 11'1 11 ;1111 1 -~I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' +' 1 i -~~~. 1 i 1 1 1 I e 1 1 ~'~ ~ i i I 11 1111 11 11 11 11 ~11~ I I I I _ I 1 1 1 1 1 Z I "~ I I ~ I I , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~', ~ I I / I I 1 1 1 , 11 1 1 i-^ 1 1 1 I ~~ O 1~ 11 11 '1 1 11 1 11 ~ /jI 1 ~ ~-~~ (d+ ~ O ~ y~i 11 11 . 11 p li 111 11 rn '~ n / i I i O~ i (f J~ ~. M'TI 11 1 '1 q 11 11 ~ J Q fT~ I I I .p _ I .P !`J ~ 1 1 1 .e 1 1- 1 ~ %A'r + . ~i 1 , ~~ i D D D D ~ ; i11 I1 i+11 11 ~ ca N I 1 + _ I O~ 1 i n n ~ 1 11 1 e' 1 1 ~ ~' ~ l N 1 + ~ j Z7 N 1 ~ _ I 11 11 11 11 y 11 '1 11 `i IQ I L^~ fTl O I (n I ~ +~ ~~ 1 1 1 1 rt+ 1 ~ 1 ~ D I I~D~ A I ~ I z Z Q~ 1 1 1 1 1~,,,~~ j l o ~ i i ~ ~ ~ to ~ i ~~ i m , ~ D 0~ `\ ~ It 1' 1 I pT I~ 11 cP I I Z~ N (JJ 1 ~ ~ J 1 1 1 1 A I 1 t~l ~ "O I I Q O O~ tD ~ ~ I - f r1 (n \e~~ 1 1 1 1 y 1 11 1 ~ D 1 i. I'*'1 I ~ > 1 1 1 1 ~~ 1 ~= I ~~~ ~ 1 ~ 1 11 ~~ 1 rt~i m I 1• ~ O m ~ ~ (N/) j N fTl 1 1 1 11 A 1 1 '1" fTl I I I ~~ ~ I rr'1 I ~ 1 1 1 ,~ ~'1 1 13 \~~ i I~0 ~ ~ i ~ ! W D n \ 11 111111 111 @, (" 11 111 522' °442' 4 W D I ; Cn ~ I ~ - I ~ ~ ~ - 11 11 11 11 y I (S~ ~ 1 I , 1 1 1 2 1 1 ''J I % i Z 65 1 11 ~N 111^1 1 O it \ , 1f-- ~ -_-- __ ____-- 1 ly 1 ~ ~, 1 I I I __----~-_-- 1 1~1 11 1 II I I I + _ __ _~--~., _ _ _ _ _ \ 1 1 1-1 1 1 it ~ I I I ~ I 11 Im 11 1 1, 1 ~1~ V" 1 ING ~ 1 11 .T-~-- _. I ' ` - 2p~ PARK 398) . 1 1 ~ 1 1//~ I cr J I I --r;: ` 9p44 O.R. 1_-t~ ~ ~==-1, r_n + ---._.._ _ -~ I I~ ______-- --- 1.1 1 _- 7TH I -- --1------- 1 1 11 \ 1 -- ``I I N25'07'20°E 99.38' 11 11 ~ N28°37'35"E 4 0' ,~ ~ ~ C ~ Z Z ~ L, O C7 Z ~- r''1 , Pp,FZKING mm 1 _ ~~ ~~ .~ ?gin ii 11 `-~ ~ ^~c ;~ ~~ -vz~ rn ~ N ~~ it (JJ -i 1T1 ' ca'o t~lll hCi d n ~ ~ ~ O ~ cn u r rn r\rl O ~I II ~ ~ C - -- t~ Ll 1 ~ ~ -~ _ - tD ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ f I _ .. ..._ . V ~ ~ O ~_~- ~ rn _ w D X w ~ ~ ~ `" v n (~ o ca - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ii' z -I a C~ ~ ° C~ -~ ~ ~.~ C ~ - a -~ r o ~ Y Z o ° i LANDS OF STURLA ~~~/ RDH ~ F ••, r~ _! -/ Consulting Civl and Structural Engineers ~_ a~ N~z VESTING TENTATIVE cR[ec.,x.o.wccio ° ~+~ sVrt ~ GBH ° m PARCEL MAP°:°°~ °°._`°`~~~. °"„e ~' O ~ m rMRFlEID 40N,EREY • RLF.,SiwrON Wi rRUaC5C0 . SW JOSE •CN.IrORNU ~ ~ - ~O. 0 ItwME 1 CITY 511&Irnu1 ~S<RiRgN F~ _ ~ ~ SARATOGA - California e e s w ~ - .. , y "o i ~ f i ~~,~. -r 331 ti ~ ~ E ~55b j ~ ~~yEEK OR~ •~t Z ~ ~°~ ~p,50~' ~* G t N •~j it / ~ 1 „«=.e.= ~_nowuso" DRS' ~.~` $ARATDGA CR~~, ~.• as t _,~ ~. I C ~_ ~~ n m r°~ c I~r ~ F ~ _° o ;1 1 ~N I ~ ~~ ° °' w I. e~, „- ~~ 1 3 ~~ ~Ig ~ ~ ;~ x~ 1 { - p =. 'I I I _ ' I , ~' 'I ~ I J ~ w :~ s'z ~---_-_- -- = - -- ~ _ 1 - U `~ - ~ I t,--,-- ~~. _ 1 ~ na a ~ ( ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~a S N ~ ~~ s» C M TRACT NO. SAS{ 1 I + MEOICPL `ALLAOE OF RATOCA 1 1 (161 M. }7) w~ I ' O 0 1 ~ 1 DRNE_ _ VILIAGE _~4a GE DRIVE ~ _ - t _ V1L~ m c t -~.----.~~_ ~~----\ m I o° 0 nr A O_ O i o ° = LANDS OF STURLA ~' `, RDH ~ ~_ _. t+~ ~-~~ Consulting Coil and Slruoturol Engineers +°'^ PLAT OF FIRE ACCESS CR[FGANSD'ANGELO ~ BH ~ ~ N ~ Z zso .cc.m a.- ~ n usr awo.... ~Z m EASEMENTS r:~;~:_;;:e,~e.,.., o ~ m =~ N A SARATDGA California TAIREiELD • MONTEREY • PLEASANTON • SAN FRANC5C0 • SAN JOSE •ULLIFORNU ~ ° = QO. REV. pATE OESC,iVlgN eY • • ~_ ,. i ; ~ / _ _ ~, j'/ ~ j I NZO•g2'S0"E 95.45' / ~j // _ i /; , s ~ -_ v ~ S ~J ~~~~ 2~~,p -- .295 _~ /, ~ i i / Ln L ~l .N ~, Y' ~~~ '" ~~~~ ri O ~ , w \ li i } I / ~ , o ,n ~' ,~ .. 50 26.at \ ~ e! 11 i 1 1 I , • b8 ' ~-~-~ ~~ ''_ ~ ~~t2~ ,~,~" - ~ ~I`, ~ ~.\,~ 'e II 11 < 11 111 ii ~ 40.00__ (~ - 1 _ ,~_~~Wi~~-~: ~4~jb `~'W ~ ~ \~ ~\ ea 11 (_ III II 'i, I ~~\ - _ l~ ~ b6.07 Z ~~ b~ o ; c x ~ ,~ ~II \ II I /'y ~ 'Y `'~ _519 23 W ,I' ~,.,~a6• ~'~ ~ \ m ~ ,`\ 1 \~\I 11 i 111 ~;~r 2 b/ p~ \ , i •~1 a: I \ ~ l \1 ~ 1 -_:: i 5 m - ~ gin- / - '~ `~\ W ~,`•,\1 1\ '~., 11 -1 ~ '~ ~`.~ - Z \ \ 1 // \ ---- N \ 11 \\ ~\ I 1 •.` ~` 1 1 ~1 O I ~ ~ ~ O. `\ 26 `~ II `.\ 11 ~ \ 1 1 ~/ `J q1 \l ~ \ I 1 I Qe II ~ J ~ N f., 11 `;\II Lr,\ I 1 I I I D D ~ \ ~ 0 1~ l\ 1 1 N I, ` ~ ~ ~ - ~ 1 O \ 1 --1 D~ 'JO 1 1 '\\ \ I I I j V - ~ .3' - `aD N 1 I -. .`` 1 ~ 11 N D -_~ ~~ I 1 S` i 1\\ 1 O i ~ 1 1 Lt,~ 1 EX. AC ~ 40.5'- i ~ ~l 11 11' ~\\ II y•'~ - - ~i 44 1, I~ 1 N; I I ,\ Ia5 00 81 ,1 I II o a5 ~ ~~ \ I I X, '~ ~ 1 ' II R_275.00i 1\ 1 1 1L L=61.09' R=87T .00' -D=4' - I - ~ 44 O.R 352 ~. ~ r~~'ooo ~~\~ 1 ~a`~/ Ilr'er~li ', 1 & pUE X90 ~ % ~ ~9s6~Fp ; 1 ~0' 1 - INGRESS/EGRESS- w ~"'~` S '\2 as a5' \\ 111 1 / %~ ~ 1 -\ 1 I ~ 0.8% ~ 1 I ~, `'',, N ;~ ~ `II /N,~ - CREED; ~- ~ ~\ , `~ ~ 'a ~o SARATOGA ~ ~o ~X, _ o - ps,5• ~~O\~P 1 1, 1 ,- 1 1 ,~ - ° ,o ~ ~ ~ Jlo _,- i ~ `~. -, R 300.0 ~ O . ~~ ~" \ 1\, Oo~l - \ - - -=r- - - x ~ ~ x-- L= .36' R=900.0 D=3°23'4 ~'~ ~ ~~~ 1 r ~- ~~ M j ~~ / 1 11 1 .1 ~'1 11 I ~\ I L=9.47 ' I Il 1 I ~, I ~ ' ~ ~ R=900.00' - i~ . ~ 1 1 1 1 1 '~. 1 I NN ~ p=0'36'11° p^'Sf~ / 11 II 1, 11 111, li ~ __ 25.00 ~ '/ i 1 1 1\ I I `N°. ~ O ~ !g 5.08' R ~ I ~ /' ~ u! '~ 0 11 11 11 yl It ! II T-~ I - I 11 1 ~ ~~ r-r___-__ NIf~ -1~ ~11 \ 1 \I I 1 ~- - .10 ! I I. I I 'I 1 - I II I I' ~ ~ - ~ ~ - i _ - ~ - R o ., ~ - . - - - I N I ~ ~ _ O - I ~ , - .: o - - V T~ o o - - t~ EXHIBIT" B ~sl ~~~;~ .~~~ U ~ U "- A o i LANDS OF STURIA ~ RoH c0 f -/ - ~ - ~ - ~~ ~/ Consult q Gvil: and Stfucturol Erq peen P' - - - Z ~~ Z PARCEL 1 ~ 6E6AN~UAYG2L0 aH~ ~ ~ rn i ~ m SITE PLAN ,1 ;ems Zi ass 1 .> •°°: `"`u`ROH z ~~~ PARK NC UYOUf FDH - O ~ - ~~ ~ 1 1-2}-p 6107'iC. MEM -. ROH ~~ _-. i A SDinto9a - -California FAIRFIELD • MOHiLREr • PLFAWrtON -SAH GR.WC SCO•S~N JOSf ~~C.LL R'R~u '~ I ~ lo. D~ 12-31FA CRY $D91117Tf.1- -.. ~. - fly. _ _ _ D ate. MTE" ..... OESCNIPiJOw ~' ~ gy. ITEM 2 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Owner/Applicant: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 04-297/ 14600 Westcott Drive Design Review Alka and Atul Sharma, Property Owners Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner ~~ February 23, 2005 397-21-004 Department Head: ,. , ~ -- - >.. - , ., ` , _ ~ \ . \ i ' ~-< ...~~ , /,~ • ^ `~ \,, sARAracal.DS ca#~s` RD / _ ~ . - `-`---.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~\.- ~\~ !~~ ,~ :~~ CARNELNN~ EN CT. y -• - ~ - ~ ~ ~` ~~ WESTCC7iT DR _,;\ ~CRA70C.4-LOS~GATT~'RD ~.9L'OFUCAV - _ FOREST.HILtS DR,~ \ HORSESHOE j ~`\`~ ~i,,,, r;~„ ~ iDC'.4 LOS l'v+,TUS ~2Q ~ ~ ~ ' ' : ~ v SARAT~a4{OS GATOS RD "~ \ ; . i \ t , ti S'u7P,rOGA-LOS G4 RD ,; ACOFIlCAV ` iOG4-LOS GATOS RD. yiEi~~rAu ~~ ~ ;<~ %~~~ -. ~ 500 ft Buffer Zone ~, \~~ `~ `'~. i ~ F7ofect site .\ \ ~' `\ Street tortes ~ - _ : `~ . ' ViC1~RY AV , `~.' _I ParceB wRhin 500 ft %i %~ } ,~\ ~ ~OF~A AV VI~F~i11y.,pL - /\~ y '.CUdI~~LN \~F10R7ALVO RD^ V ~ ~,• ~~ ~' ~%~~, •~. `a ~~ 500 ~ooo )~1TA AV `VEClffiftGAV BUPA ~~ J CL `' / ^HORSESHOE DR .. NOR~SESF,lOE C ~ ; \ ' \ \ '~` \ I DR \ ~_~ / ~/ ___ ., ;. ~ \ ~ sq TocA-LOSC~~ros".Ra E~'~`°~ w ; . ~}E . ~,+: .: T. 3 F1SOHnLLN ~.____.._._. . `. \ i~~----- 7500 2000 ft ~~ 14600 Westcott Drive -o®o~oi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 09/21/04 12/20/04 02/09/05 02/02/05 02/17/05 The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the design review application. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor notification templates. 3. Materials submitted by the applicant. 4. Affidavit of mailing notices and mailing labels for proj ect notification. 5. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A." • • • ®®0402 Application No. 04 297,'14600 WestcottDrive ~~ U STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10,000 (Residential Medium Density) 4.35 Max Dwelling Units per Acre MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 14,250 square feet (gross) 12,426 square feet (net -access easement subtracted) SLOPE: level GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project including the 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: Materials and colors include a grey stucco exterior and a dark grey, clay the roof. ~J SOU®~3 Application No. 04 297,• 14600 Westcott Drive PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 50% .Maximum Allowable 60% Residence 2,298 sq. ft. Driveway, patios, 4,786 sq. ft. porches, and walkways TOTAL 7,084 sq. ft. 7,456 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Total First Floor 2,298 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,404 sq. ft. TOTAL 3,702 sq. ft. 3,710 sq. ft. (basement) 1,053 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement Setbacks:. *Front Lot Line (South) 1St story 30 ft. 25 ft. 2na story 38 ft. 25 ft. Rear Lot Line (North) 1St story 45 ft. 3 inches 10 ft. 2na story 45 ft. 3 inches 10 ft. Interior Side (East) I 1St story 25 ft. 2 inches 10 ft. 2na story 36 ft. 1 inches 15 ft. . Exterior Side (West) 1St story 25 ft. 11 inches ~ 25 ft. 2na story 30 ft. 30 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 26 ft. Average grade in feet 93.125 ft. At the topmost point of 119.125 ft. the structure * The Municipal Code does not take into consideration the orientation of the front door of the residence in determining the lot line orientation. ~®O®04 Application No. 04-297,• 14600 Westcott Drive PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 3,702 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 2,298 square feet and the second floor is 1,404 square feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. The project site is a corner property located at Saratoga-Los -Gatos Road and Westcott Drive. The building footprint of the proposed single-family residence does not encroach closer to the adjacent residences than the existing residence. In some cases, the proposed residence is setback further from adjacent residences than the existing one story. For example, the existing one-story residence and proposed two-story are setback approximately 45 feet from the adjacent neighbor to the north (14566 Westcott, Smith). The existing one- story residence is setback 20 feet from the neighbor to the east (20291 Saratoga-Los Gatos, Haq). The proposed residence is setback 25 feet (one-story areas) and 36 feet (two-story areas). The increase in floor area is a result of the second-floor addition and first-floor expansion along the streetside of Westcott and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The result is that the proposed building lines do not encroach closer than the existing building lines towards the adjacent neighbors. • The applicant revised the originally proposed front entry so that is it more appropriately scaled and proportional to the residence. The second story is stepped back from the first story building lines at several elevations. Rooflines from the first floor effectively break up the mass and bulk of the second story on several elevations. Hipped rooflines also minimize mass and bulk. Large wall expanses are- punctuated with bay windows. Architectural features include rake molding that follow the slope of the gable with a cornice return where the cornice is carried a short distance onto the gable end of the building. Horizontal banding, and bay windows on the facade are also proposed. Neighbor Correspondence All neighbor issues have been. resolved. Neighbor correspondence is attached for your reference. On December 20, 2004, staff received written concerns from the property owner who shares the east property line, Noor Haq, at 20291.Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Mr. Haq noted concerns regarding sunlight and privacy. On February 10, 2005, staff received an email from Haq. The email states he "has reviewed the building footprint and story poles and does not have an objection to their house design and bedroom windows on the second story." A master bedroom balcony has been- removed from the project to avoid unreasonable interference with the privacy of the concerned property owner. This change is reflected in . Exhibit A. Haq has requested that water from the project site be directed away from his property. This condition has been added to the conditions of approval for extra weight. ~®®®~~ Application No. 04-297,' 14600 Westcott Drive Trees The existing trees will be protected with temporary 5-foot chain link fencing to run along at the south edge of the. existing driveway during construction. The existing driveway is to remain. If the existing driveway is to be replaced. Arborist review shall be required and fees shall be collected from the applicant for this review. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. To avoid unreasonable interference with the privacy of the concerned adjacent neighbor to the east the applicant has removed asecond-story balcony located off the master bedroom. The footprint of the proposed residence has setbacks that are either equal too or greater than the existing residence.. Specifically, the second story setback is approximately 45 feet and 36 feet to the adjacent neighbors. Views from-the proposed second story avoid the main living areas of the adjacent residences. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The existing landscape will be relatively unchanged as a new residence will replace an existing residence. oak trees located alon Sarato a- (c) Preserve Natave and Heritage Trees. Existmg g g Los Gatos Road are separated from the construction site by an existing driveway which is to remain. The existing trees will be protected with temporary 5-foot chain link fencing to run along at -the south edge of the existing driveway during construction. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Large wall expanses are punctuated with bay windows. Semi-hexagonal one and two-story bays soften the front elevation of the proposed two-story. The second-story of the South and East elevations are softened by rooflines from the first-story. Similarly, the second-story of these elevations are setback from the first-floor building line. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Architectural details such as rake molding and horizontal banding create architectural interest, and reduce mass and bulk. Hipped rooflines also minimize mass and bulk. (fJ Currentgrading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. ~J ~®~~~ Application No. 04-297,• 14600 Westcott Drive (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views and minimizing bulk as detailed in the findings above and staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approved the design review application. • ~®~~®~ ~~008 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-297 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sharma; 14600 Westcott Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct atwo-story single-family residence and basement. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square 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 additions to a single family residence, 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 following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. To avoid unreasonable interference with the privacy of the concerned adjacent neighbor to the east the applicant has removed asecond-story balcony located off the master bedroom. The footprint of the proposed residence has setbacks that are. either equal too or greater than the existing residence. Specifically, the second-story setback is approximately 45 feet and 36 feet to the adjacent neighbors. Views from the proposed second story avoid the main living areas of the adjacent residences. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The existing landscape will be relatively unchanged as a new residence will replace an existing residence. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. Existing oak trees located along Saratoga- Los Gatos Road are separated from the construction site by an existing driveway which is to remain. -The existing trees will be protected with temporary 5-foot chain link fencing to run along at the south edge of the existing driveway during construction. • ®®~®®~ (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Large wall expanses are punctuated with bay windows. Semi-hexagonal one and two-story bays soften the front elevation of the proposed.two-story. The second-story of the South and East elevations are softened by rooflines from the first-story. Similarly, the second-story of these elevations are setback from the first-floor building line. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Architectural details such as .rake molding and horizontal banding create architectural interest, and reduce mass and bulk. Hipped rooflines also minimize mass and bulk. (fJ Current grading and erosion. control methods.- The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy -and views -and minimizing-bulk as detailed in the findings above and staff report. 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 number 04-297 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 2. The development shall be located and .constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must 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 and may require review by the Planning Commission. 3. 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." 4. 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. 5. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading • permit if deemed necessary. ~r®~~~.o 6. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved 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. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall NOT be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. No second-story balcony is permitted off the master bedroom. This condition is incorporated into Exhibit A. CITY ARBORIST 9. The existing trees will be protected with temporary 5-foot chain link fencing to run along at the south edge of -the existing driveway during construction. The existing driveway is to remain. If the existing driveway is to be replaced. Arborist review shall berequired-and fees shall be collected from the applicant for this review. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 10. As recommended by Murray Engineers, the applicant shall retain the services of a Waterproofing Consultant who specializes in the waterproofing of underground structures. The Consultant shall evaluate impacts of existing elevated groundwater on the proposed basement, and provide appropriate waterproofing design and construction recommendations for mitigation of site conditions. The recommendations shall be summarized by the Waterproofing Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits. 11. Due to the existing elevated groundwater conditions, the proposed basement excavation and pier installations will likely be subject caving and instability during construction. The applicants' consultants or Project Contractor shall develop a plan to mitigate the adverse effects of the elevated groundwater conditions during construction. This plan -shall be summarized in a letter with any appropriate illustrations. The proposed Construction Dewatering Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 12. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, driveway, and the pool) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations and standards of good geotechnical practice. In addition, the consultant shall address the following: ~®~®~ The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review geotechnical aspects of the Structural Calculations and verify that proposed basement design addresses the potential for buoyant uplift. The potential application of pier placement beneath the basement slab (to help address uplift should be considered). The referenced geotechnical report indicates that the type of capillary break beneath the garage slab should be determined by one of the .other project .consultants. We note that the prevailing local standard of geotechnical practice is to utilize some form of impermeable barrier above a section of crushed rock. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review the final proposed capillary break design. The consultant should review geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction dewatering plan. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 13. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, -test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface-and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 14. 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. Construction must commence within 36 months 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 days from the date of adoption ~~~®~+ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 23rd day of February 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 • ~~~®~3 Attachment 2 ~OOOfl4 12/20/2004 15:14 4085670810 GLOBAL INFOTECH PAGE- 82 • ' Neighbor Nod~Icatioa ~'ea>3plate for _ Development Applicatloaa • Daft: ~ 0 ~t PROJE - AD RESS: 1 ~~ no ~ ~r .xS, ,,a-abo~~t ~ • 9 ~~ ~~,, ii Applicarn Namt: _ ~IKs~ s~. i~ S ka ~~ . Application Number: p•Q - ~2Q-~• 7J5e Saratoga Planning Commission req:tiret applieatrts to work wlrh rhdr neighbors to address issues and coxrerns regardi»g deveslopneext appltaQrEons prfaw to rlre evening of the public hearing on the proposed project T11ta Pfoitntxg trptnrrriasfon doer not look favorably upon neighbors who~ail to votes there caacsryrt aYtd idsust when soticlted by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~and the Plmartns Commission prefer that neighbors rake this apporruniry ro express airy rontxrns or issrt~,s shay may leave directly ro the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is rsprsserrrarlve of oll reside7tt residing on your property. Irreipecrive of the apinian exprstsad balow, yo:< may reserve the right to a»rerrd your opinion at a later date and ao~mmr+riirate it to rite City aJSaratoga. !._JMy signature below crrtiCes the following:l have relvitswad the.project Plana; j y~g114~Sh~3&4ne,~ and I do NflT have any concern: or issues wbic6 need to be address by the apptlcant prior to the Clt>ra public hearing on tha propoaeri project. Lr1.My signature below cutii;cs the following: T have reviewed the projext plaaa; j understand the scone of work; and I have issues or coatxroa, wb3cb atttr diaeuaatoa with the applicant, bove mot bees addresses!. My concerns are the following (please attach additional3heets if neceaaary): Na: ghbor Name: /~! d0l~ ~~a --, Neighbor Address: ~CZ~ S~~ob+~ ~~~ s R.D S~4/~ ~A • 9s~?o Neighbor Fhorto ~: 4R0Q' • 7~~ -S Signature: ~~ City ajSaroroga Prurrtad: • ,voo~e Planning Deportment ~-®~~~s 12/20/2094 15:14 4085676810 l0~'!Q4 Mr. Anil Shern~a 14600 Weal Cott 17r. 5aratbga, Ca 95070 GLOBAL INFOTEC: SUPERSEDED Sttbj: Neighbor notification template for ckvaloptnmt application Project Address: 14600 Wcstcot< Dr., Saratoga. Ca. 9Sp70 Applicant Name: Abut aad Atxtl Shern~a. Applic~ian ~ 04 247 Dear Mr. And Mrs. 3~nrrna, Thank you for ailvwing me to roview your pt+aposed new house limited pages of the plan. I have few coitcenos x+ega~diag the new plans. 1. I wi11 be happy to sign the application, ifyou build a single story house. Z. Otherws'se at tha moment, I have following comments. However, I will be happy to hire m eaviroaamn=al consultant to determine ~' further issues beyond my comp~rohcnsion. A: Thecae ase four (3 largo and one ) windows on 9acond Hoar of the p~posed structue~e. All these windows leaves the tenants is the house with no privacy in our single story house, especially in our master bedroom shower and two bedrooms fhci~ the back of your house. 8: the tw*o-story structtu+a of proposed house w711 deny the tenants from the aualig~t that ctureatlp is bentg mjoyal is three bedrooms sad one master bathroom. C: Tbv balcony of your tnagtet bedroom will have a complete overview of our backyard, thus prohibiting atty privacy for the tenants. It is difficult for me to oottse up with any cvrn~metrts at a first glance, however, should thrre be asy ether reasons beyond any knowledgd, with in the flew sheets you provided, I will be happy to convey #o you or tlae city. 3ic:cerely Noon Haq owner 20291 Saratoga Loa t3atv®Road $erato$a, Ca 95070 Mailing Address 21454 Mt. fidcn Ct., Saratag~, ts. 95070 408-74!•5465 ~~~~~ PAGE 93 U • • €~~®®~~ project at 14600 Westcott Drive Christy Oosterhous • From: ~ noor haq [nhaq@wafergrind.com) Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 11:25 PM To: Christy Oosterhous Subject: Re: project at 14600 Westcott Drive Christy, • ~1 L_J Page 1 of 1 My wife and I had taken a spin and saw the story poles. We are happy with the construction line as marked red in their driveway and have no objection to their house design and bedroom windows on second story . Noor Haq ps. There are a few streams running underground. Please ensure that they build proper water proof concrete dams if discovered during their pool construction. The water should be directed away from our house. ----- Original Message ----- From: Christy._Oosterhous, To: noor_haq. Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 10:01 AM Subject: RE: project at 14600 Westcott Drive Noor- I wanted to thank you and your wife for taking the time to meet last week. I just want to let you know that story poles have been constructed at the project site. I would encourage you to take a look at your convenience. Regards, Christy 2/14/2005 ~~~®~.~ project at 14600 Westcott Drive Christy Oosterhous From: noor haq [nhaq@wafergrind.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 6:22 PM To: Christy Oosterhous Subject: Re: project at 14600 Westcott Drive OK Noor ----- Original Message ----- From: Christy.,0osterhous To: noor haq Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: RE: project at 14600 Westcott Drive Page 1 of 2 Noor- How about 3pm on Thursday? I will come to your house on Mt. Eden as you requested. The applicant will meet us there too. If that is a problem let me know. See you then, Christy -----Original Message----- From: noor haq [mailto:nhaq@wafergrind.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:27 PM To: Christy Oosterhous Subject: Re: project at 14600 Westcott Drive Hello Christy, Thank you for considering me. Yes I will be happy to meet you any day between 1:OOPM -5:OOPM. 1. I have no objection hhe builds a single story home, 2. All windows from second story rooms directly overlook our bedrooms, thus eliminating privacy and blocking light. Regards Noor. ----- Original Message ----- From: Christy_._Oosterhous To: noor hag Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:49 AM Subject: RE: project at 14600 Westcott Drive Hello Noor- Is it convenient for you to meet this week regarding the development application at 14600 Westcott Drive? The applicant has removed the masterbed room balcony from the plans at your request. In addition, along the shared property line the applicant has proposed an evergreen carolina_cherry tree .which has a rapid growth rate to a height of 20-40 feet. Let me know if you still have concerns with the proposed project and if you are still interested in meeting this week. Regards, - . ~~~®~~ • • • 2/2/2005 • • project at 14600 Westcott Drive Christy Oosterhous From: noor haq [nhaq@wafergrind.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:03 PM To: Christy Oosterhous Subject: Re: project at 14600 Westcott Drive Hello Christy, Page 1 of 1 I will be glad to meet with you in the first week of Feb. when we move back to our home in Saratoga after repairs are finished due to water damage.. We are temporarily living in a Hotel in Sunnyvale. I am also a patient of Lou Gehrig and disable to move around except in a power chair and with the help of caretaker. You may have to drive to my home to meet me. Regards Noor Haq 21450 Mt. Eden Ct., Saratoga, Ca. 95070 408-655-3665 Cell ----- Original Message ----- From: Chri.s_.ty_Oosterhous. To: nhaq.@wafergrind.._com. Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:54 PM Subject: project at 14600 Westcott Drive Dear Mr. Haq- This email is a follow up to my email sent Jan 7 and my phone message left Jan 13. I am the project planner for the proposed development application at 14600 Wescott Drive. I understand you have some concerns regarding the proposal and I would like to meet with you to discuss and address your concerns. Are you available next week? Let me know what is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Christy Oosterhous Associate Planner 408 868-1286 " ~®®~~~ 2/2/2005 Neighbor Notification Template for _ Development Applications Date: ~t ~- ~ d ~- `~ Y~ ~~~..~A ~ ~ S~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: (~t 65 b 1~-~a~~ ,~-- ' J _ ~ Applicant Name: ~ ~~"~ & ~'~-t ~ ~ ~ ~~ Application Number: ~ ~' ~- ~4~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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. ^My signature below. certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the stove 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): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: I ~~~G G ~'1~~,~e~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ $~ ~lO~ ~~ ~ S~ / Signature: ~~. ~~-~ City of Saratoga U • Printed: • Planning Depart~2'~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ a 0 ~' PROJE T DRESS: 11(' ~,OO 1~'~~-a`~' ~'~ C',4 . a(.~~, Applicant Name: ~~~ ,~' ~~Q'~~ _ ~- ^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): Application Number: cd 4 - ~~l ~- The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 ai a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~Mysignature below certif es-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. ~.y~ /, Neighbor Name: 0/Ins XQ.r~~ ~~~~r'u.o-c~- C~ Neighbor Address: ~~.33s S~afLalOG~- ~.C ~ ~. ~ ,. ~ , f~'S-G' Jl~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ ~S~ - ~ ~ c~ Signature: Printed: J ' /~ City of Saratoga ~~~~®21 Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for _ Development Applications Date: !0 ~5 b4' u/~`f~~ ~'' ~ . ~i'S a~~° PROJECT ADDRESS: I ~~ Oo ' Applicant Name: ~«- '~ ~~'`'~ ~~4~rn~ Application Number: ~ y"~~~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 ~teighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff an oncerns ortis~ues they may hav~edihectly netghbors take-this opportunity to express any 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. ^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): me: ~ ~~p ~~ ~~C~ Nc~~hbor , z Neighbor Address: • S ~ / S~7Q Neighbor Phone #: ~ d U ~J72 -~s~7 i~~ Signature: r Printed: 2~~,~~o ~ ~u< City of Saratoga Planning Departm~en`~~®22 _ Neighbor Notification Template for _ Development Applications Date: ~ ~ D 4 PROJECT AD RESS: ~ ~' 6 d b ~'~'~~~ ~'_ -sue' Applicant Name: Tr~~a ~ ~ S ~Q ~ Application Number: ~ y" ~~'~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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. LJM si ature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject plans; I Y tm 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): Neighbor Name: .~Uhr- ~ ~~l~n~ / ~'~S Neighbor Address: ~~ ~5 fco ~ 7~-r~i~r~i a ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ / ~~~ '~~~~ Signature: Printed: • l~ari~n ~ (Ma--~e5i~cl~~ Regis ~~ kN (~-~ Planning Departme'ii~~~2~ r Attachment 3 ~~~~~24 February 14`h, 2005 Ms. Christy Oosterhous Associate Planner City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070. ~~~~V; I/ ~7 ~~ ~i FEB 1.4 2005 L~ CITY OF SAfU1T0(;,a RE: 14600 Westcott Drive--Letter from Mr. Noor Haq Dear Christy: In reference to the letter from Mr. Noor Haq I would like to state the following: We have critically evaluated the objections given by Mr. Haq for the construction of our new house at 14600 Westcott Drive. Our comments are listed below: 1. The denial of sunlight from the proposed structure, for example, is not valid as the home of Mr. Haq is on the east /south-eastlsouth of our house and if you check the path of sun as it travels from east to west, you will notice that the proposed structure will not be on the way. There will never be any shadow from the new structure on any part of Mr. Haq's property. Hence, there is no question of denial of sunlight for Mr. Haq's tenants. 2. The balcony of the master bedroom has no view of the backyard of Mr. Haq. From the attached pictures you will notice that the bamboo trees as well as other trees which are around 13 to 14 feet high and cover rear half of the property line between our house and Mr. Haq's property totally block any view. I am also attaching a drawing showing line of vision, which shows that from an eye level of 15 feet in the balcony no part of Mr. Haq's backyard is visible. 3. The Master Bed Room shower of Mr. Haq is in the back of the house and there is no view of the window from our master bedroom balcony or any other window for the same reason as mentioned in (2) above. Having mentioned the above points, we do understand the concerns of Mr. Haq and have incorporated the following changes in the design of the structure: 1. We have moved the new structure away from Mr. Haq's residence. While the current distance from the property line is 15 feet (as required by the code), we have moved the main part of the house 36 feet from the property line, which will provide over 40 feet between Mr. Haq's house and our property. 2. To build good neighbor relationship, we have removed the master bedroom balcony from our plan. 3. We have proposed in our landscape plan evergreen hedge (Prunus Caroliniana**), which will grow up 8 feet to 10 feet and will be spaced at an interval of 6 feet. • This will totally block any view from our second floor windows into Mr. Haq's home. This is clearly-shown in the drawing of Line of Vision, which is attached). '~~®®2~ We have also discussed with .our architect and seen city guidelines on windows in the bedrooms and bathrooms and we feel that current design meets all requirements based on aesthetics, sunlight, and being airy, etc. We value our privacy very much and we respect the privacy of Mr. Haq. Therefore, based on the above actions we are confident that we are taking care of all the issues mentioned by Mr. Haq in his letter. We request you to support our application for approval by the Planning Commission. Thanking You Sincerely Yours Atul Sharma 14600 Westcott Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 408 480 2570. ** • As per the Home Landscaping Book for California Region by Roger Holmes and Lance Walhein, Prunus Carolinians is a very useful evergreen hedge or screen plant with glossy green leaves and small spikes of scented white flowers in spring. These shrubs reach about 8 to 10 feet tall and 6 to 8 feet wide. 'r~ ti'~~®~~ r~ a ~~ .r. r t ~ ~~~~ .'.~ ,,_.„2'il .r ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ .. t ~~- ~~ t r ) ~' "~~" ref'<" `3 ~'~^" :fi ~ ~ ~ :w` "~~ ~ . C, ~: ~~_ `, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .r . ,~. ~` .,. ~~ ~ Y` ~ _ ~ ~ .~, v., r ~ ti. 6 ~s ~~` .. ~ ~' Y: ~ ~. r~ .. - ~ a '' itr'~ '~'~~4~ ' ~ tR f'' rT ~, ~'' ~~~~ ~`. ` ~~ : ~v ~ ~. '_ ,. _~_:~ .-.: ~ '_. ~?fV "fie,. ..i .. ~~"' _.. _ r3 - " tij ~'t ~' •`,S .. Ray r Y, C•;. {..,7 .. ~. .. ._ ...\C ~~.' s~ ~ Ey~Q z ,.?. ~ ~~ - ~ ~ _ ' 4 t ry:. - ,~ ` ~., -~' 1 i , S ~ 3 e ~~, T ~~ ~ .. t ~ o k ' L - { _ ;'~1 k~ ~, ~ ;' Y:' ''. ~ ~ :~ IA: 'S ~ . n ~ ~. ~~®A~~ is i~ I~ 0 ti 0 o~ .= U 3 ~, ~, ca ~ o L C ~ ,,L^^ •~ vI •O ~ ; O ~ L Q i~+ ~_ N J 0 0 m i I ~~ ~ =~ .~ a w~ ~ ~$ n~ ~- W to I i t0 M i i ~ ~ ~~ ~~~fl~29 a _- _ O ti O t[1 07 ~ Q ._ U 3 ~~ ~~~ Q ~ L O ~' ~ ._ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~L O ••^~~ 0 vI ~ ~~ J 0 0 co ~ % 1 ~ ~ ,~ 1 ~ , ' ~ ~ ~/ 1~ l~ ~ d S `~i' ~ •. It i 1 :I w a N ~-' • + [ 7 S ii! fii~tr ~; ; is ;~# ,E F ~ii.* ~' !, • rl _ $t ~9 f F y 1~~ f*~~' ~~i fff .~2~ 'irt {;; F ,ti t t, s [ ~{ ` ~ - -. ,* -~ I_, : ,~ ~:~ .~ , ~~. t 1~F{ ,~~ C[ mo=t - '~~, ,, _ : .~t zti d, - k` '~i~ ~~ t t r r11 j iA17 ~3.* -.e,; LAY. F `~f ,. ~~' 1 ~~ ~_ ~~y ~,_ I~ v i .I Attachment 4 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ,. ~~" ~ I, `~ ~(~ ~ ~`~ ~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga ~^ ~^^ j ^ i Planning Commission on the ~/ day of 1 /~i' 200 that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a I~TOtice 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~ SEAGRAVES, MARGARET HAQ, NOOR U & SAII2A Y MASHKOURI, RAZI TRUSTEE 21450 MT EDEN CT .14600 WESTCOTT DR 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5302 SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 SARATOGA CA 95070-4535 SMITH, PETER B & MARY K TRUSTEE 14566 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 SMITH, DOLORES P TRUSTEE 14560 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 MARDESICH, MARIANNE 14571 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 DENISON=PEABODY, CLAUDIA A 1096 HARLAN DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-3024 PERRY, WILLIAM C & VIRGINIA CTRUSTEE ETAL 14529 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070=0000 MODI, RAJENDRA TRUSTEE 203-45 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 JOYE, JAMES D & CAROLYN A 14672 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 ROSITANO, ROBERT A JR & STACY L 14618 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 HUSTON, MICHAEL E & CASSANDRA N 14466 OAK PLACE SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 KALB, JEFFREY C & MARLENE V TRUSTEE 14617 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5907 PACE; SAMUEL TRUSTEE ETAL 242 MERIDIAN AV SAN JOSE CA 95126-2903 MATHIAS, JOHN E TRUSTEE ETAL 14527 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 LEE, TERI L 14531 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 GOLDMAN, MICHAEL D & BEVERLY P TRUSTEE ETA 20360 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5973 ZOUFONOUN, AMIR & LISA 14650 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 BRECK, WILLIAM F & IRENE C TRUSTEE 20375 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5910 FARSIO, NARJESS & GHOLAM. H PO BOX 2323 SARATOGA CA 95070-0323 VAN DEN BERG, MARC & KATHLEEN M 14631 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5907 ARNOLD, THOMAS A & JENNIFER S TRUSTEE 14697 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA-95070-5907 BLATTNER, ORRIN J & MARIAN J TRUSTEE PO BOX 3411 SARATOGA CA 95070-1411 SCHUMACHER, FRED & MARY L 14561 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVEL LLC 18450 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5610 HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVEL LLC- 18450 SOBEY RD SAR.ATOGA CA 95070-5610 CUTLER, MITCH & TRACEY 14480 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5910 ROSE, TERRENCE J & TRUDY A ...14595 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5907 LEE, LESTER H & HELEN E TRUSTEE - 14653 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5907 BARNETT,SCOTT 14601 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 ®~®a~~ BECKER, JEFFREY L TRUSTEE. 14615 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 • SISCO, RAYMOND D & TERRI 20330 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5924 PRASAD, KESHAV & MALINI R 20270 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5924 AUVIL, PAUL R & SARAH J 14751 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 KARR, DANIEL A & KELLY J 14769 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 OWN OWNER 14586 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 WEY, CALVIN S & SEFEN TRUSTEE 14681 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6086 HOOVER, BARBARA B TRUSTEE 14607 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 WILSON, MALCOLM C & SHEILA M 20318 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5924 SIMPSON, WINTERED B TR TRUSTEE 14757 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 SHEN, JU & JANET 19808 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3214 JOHNSON, NOEL L & ELISE L 14586 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 TITUS, MARY M & JOHN L 14570. ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 9070-6004 FUKUDA, HORACIO & LILIAN 14585 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 ABRUZZINI, HELEN TRUSTEE ETAL 20280 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5924 FARFEL, GILBERT S & URSULA B TRUSTEE 14741 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 MORRISON, THOMAS A & WILMA B TRUSTEE 14763 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 VIJAYKAR, ATUL & MONA TRUSTEE 14661 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6086 SIADAT, MEHDI S & LORRAINE D 14771 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6036 ~~~~~ 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 23rd day of February 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at-13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. APPLICATION # 04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA - 14600 WESTCOTT DRIVE: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single- family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story • residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000.- 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 may be 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 infoimation.packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 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. Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us • 6~~®~a~~ N ~E Z F N ~ V W ~ N C N F ~ ~ N W age' m Aozo9 2rcv o Qm~m~ ~U ULL~ £ Z~o~$ c o ~p 'm ~ W O W 1L ~ =:~ C~ ~ u u C~ J h O O N Of ~a V air =~a W Ala ®~ . ~y ~ ~~~~ o ~~ 3 °~ W ~~ Z !O ~Iy . '~3 o o c~ r S • F -•• ~._ __ 1_ . _ _ _ ~ ,. ._~ _ - _ _ - __ O O ~ O os ~~~ ~ k~ • w~~ ~ ~ ~ ~V ~ ~ r ~ ~ c~ Q ~ w (p p ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ C ~ ( ~~O W 0 .t ~ W o Z ~Z W ~ ~ ~ N N 2 a ~~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ O N¢ N ~ ~ W LL ~ O O ~ ¢ C ~ D~ ~ 0 ~ ¢ U a ( W( Z 4 ~1 ! 4 V~ L N~~ V t m I N O U ~ as° a d° a a aa U W ~ N W~W~W °Z~~~ ~a WLL~ E ~~~^B D~pni !Z 7a. i I ~ l of j I 'i i i ~ , ~~j 1 l IQ @~ ~ i } ~ ~I ~m ~id ~ ~ ~. i=l ;~y I ~ Q o Q A 4~l~• ~o w ~; i ~W r z~Z ~ , 5a~ OF ~ wa~ u NSW z F ~yO U~LL ~ yy p~~ ~p~p~~o~o~p~ Y$to ~A~ ~~A fpAQ ON W tb iT! _~ r ro ~ niG ~n ~ ~ ~ ~~i N~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ¢^fa ~ ~oiN ~ of v ~• a z ~Q . ~~ J pr~ ,7~ S. ~Q a ~zSm W ~~M y J rj f W W mX = ~ M ~ Jf G ~ odr oc °Cd cWi < Y I LL 0 Z~~d~~~S~sro ~ ~ 3~~~ ~ o~ d N Y ¢ < ~ ~i ~ ~ _~¢~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ oW Q a z°~ss $~ 9 ~ ~~ c ~Z ~ ~ _ a~~ x aN<7zC~~S ~a~g~ ~~i ~ ~a~ y'O~a ~O~ W3 N aw N ~ Z ~ a m~z za O N x ~- W ZWO Q a ~ W~~ ^^ ~ O ``Z= W ~-0 z Wo= ~a3 W a ~ ^ y H~y~ W ' oC 3 ° W 0 ' Z H o; ~'~ 3 ~~~ 1 T ~ ''~^^ vl~ 0 Q ~n W~ .~ m ~ J J Z 2 3 -- __ 00.926 M ~9bo9~ S ~~~ ~ 0 ~ s~ j ~ f - i~~ o --;-~ ~-- , ' --, ; ---- - -- ; Z s-,z~ ao i -.~ ~ I i - w -- i ~ - I -- - i ~ ,~~ i o ~> dadr ~ev:asan Q ~ ~_- W - ~ o it ~,~~, ~ r~ ~_ `-` ~ ; w _ 1 L i j --1,--- 'h- ~Y y,I~7` I ~ 00 L~ ~ O ~I I ~ r-' ._,. _. ~~ ~- a,; _ ;~ -~ J ~ , • ...... ~ -~ OO~C ~9 ~~ o~ 1 ~~11 ~i I . I I ~~ I~' J I Ii'i ~~ a~ ~^ D^ .•. . z•.•. .•.•.•......~:~:~:~:~:~:~: •: •:~:~: .•z.•.•.•.•.~.~.~. .~• .J• ~ 1~--s-r-r-s~Tf.~l~yyfLd. T~iiS•~.~T•• .'rT• ~- :•00'9~4:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:~:~9ba9b: •;: NJ z" 0 la z 5 ~~ ~§ gl~ a OI 0 ~~ `~ o Z N ~ U Z O= g W U z W ~~ z a • • • t • ` • Boa ~ ~~~ o os N m m ~ ~ a ~mco a ~U egg ~ y~ ~ ~ W ~ o c~_~ G d LL ~ ~°~ Z WQ ~ ~ i Q Z Q W o o m z ~ m _ ~ U z ~~~ ~R N V W r W N ~~~ W 0 oZ~ a ~~~ E ~m~ Z~~N$ ~~ppQyyy. ZQ a W W i ~ i i l i ; i ~ l ~I~ I ~ I N j ~ a m' ~ I d!=~ i ~ o - a ~' al ~ i~ al~l=~ ~ O I O O i ~U Viz? ~~ o~~ F N ~ X W .0-,5L1 = .UI L-~L4 Z O W~N LL ZZ7 a~'I ~ L1SO1V`JSOI-V~JOlb2iVSL6ZOZ 3Sf10H (3) ~ I ~ it ~ V r-Q~ i I 3 I w 00'SZ L M ~5bo5b S ~ ~~ I -- - ---, ~ i -~---~-- i i - ~ -- i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' i I i j i ~ I I --- ~ ~ ! i ~ I ~o ~ ~ ^ i ~I I ~ i I i -- - -- -- - -- I I ( I I ~ ~ li ~~ ~ I I ~ j i i - J o _ _ __-_i ___ 1-- - __- I I - i ~- ~ ~ I - I ! Z I Q -,L a I ~ ~~ -- I W j Q. B Y I > I o I p ~ ~ ~ Y3tltl 3lHV13'J3;. ,~ _`4'~' - f'C, ~ ~~v ~ ~~ ,, ,~ ~, ~, I ms's k "~, ~r'^ , --- v,~~'k~` ~ ~ ~~~ ~}~ ~ ~ ,~~~^~~s~~ ~ Ll1 ~`` 's ~. ~,?" ~ ~ ,~ ~ fy, _ x Q Q- ' 3 I m 3 I w i ~TVm aola~uc3 O'Id 191 Ol K I X0',0 0 '. i I rY ~ U ~i ~ -~ ~ Z x '' ~s~ ~ Z ~ ~ > ~~, w ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t i z N ~y ~ , ~ ~ O e ~ --- •' •~' I ,~ ; ~{ ~` '{~~s~~~'~r W x,> • ~f~ i~- ~ , ~ `~ may:, ~ ~ ,~,f ~}lk~'rX n~h~ ~~ 1 ~~'~'+ss~5?' ~ ~ 2i021315C3 2J 4NL Ol ~ .0-,8 0x v _ T --- - ,~ ~ T ~~ ~ ~ ~y j~ r 1 I I I ~ 1` -~Y ~ x j / ~ m W o , I ., ,.. .. ~/ I % H ~ :~: •~' / ~ I / i i ~ .•y .••~.•• •'••••,' a .~ ....... ~ .•...•.•.•...•.,...~ .... , .. • •.~'.•.•.•.•.•.• i •.~•.•.•.•.•.•.• ~' i I ~ I :•00'~~l•:•:•:•:•:•:• • ~5bo5b'• ~~~.•: o -- -- ~ i ~S ~, `_ I . . C I r ` es ~ I ~ .g Q .E-,54 ,UI 8-.64 .0-.0£ .v.-,va LL ~~/~ ~ o o~ ~~Q liiLlJ oo~ sL~~l • • N O a I I i I ~ I \ ~~ I i ~ I I l II ~ I i ~ I t' r ~ . I ' ~ I ~ ~I iI I ® Is jl ~ J I~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ I a F I II ~ r I .11~ N O W OI 9Q 'O Ii a I 0/ I C / ~~ i ~~ V $ ~ ~ ° g o o G o Min ~ m ~ ~ aa U ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~~ a ~ a a W W D ~ z ~ J °~ Iz~1 N ~ 3 v W ~ N C CA ~ a a w yg m W za a W~~~ ~a~~mr N~W~~ Z ~oN= Rf~I1~W , i i i i ~ ~ I a , j i ' Q` i j i ~ ~ ~ ~m > d~i I IC w ~~ ~, ~I~ W i ; o o~ ~ QI~ O O LL ~ F Q J W z z w ag W ~ ma ~ °° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.. ~ ~~ ~~/~ ~ + ~W~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ O ~ tt§ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,gym ~~~~~~~ 3 ~ Y ~~ ~ 2 W ~ ~ J~ ~r ~~~ ~i-E Q~~ ~ C ~~ ~~ ~g~~w a~ ~~ ~ ~ _~~y~ ~ a4~ ~Q°d~ o~ ~f a ~~ ~~ m ~~ ~Y 3 ~ ~ ~~~w Cs X _ _~ N ~ O - ~Q Ta m O O~ ~ H ~ aW n ~9 ~LL~gQ LF q- y U~~ Q 0 ~~ R~ ~at~~ ~ Q I~ ~ ~'n ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ w w w~ u~ w z~ Z ~ 15LL~ ~~~ ~ „ ~~ ~~ ~ °~~ ~~ab ~^~ d ~@~ s~ "~ ~? ~~ ~73{i ~ ~ py~q~~~ ,n~ ~ ~~ ~~ `~ d ~~ ~~~ m ~~ -l ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~k z ~~ ~~ ~«~ m~S ~ aka -~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~a~r6 ~ ~ ~ o~ ~~~ ~ ~f~ ~~ J ~~~ ~~ ;W{ L t7~~ } iii i W Z ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ ~ rc~ o ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~3~ ~ ~~~ e ~ °~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~, '`~' ~ ~~~ ~`gg^. ~~ ~ FYm~ ~~ ~ ~ _~ ~u1 ~ ~ LL ~y~y7i t, ® m ~ ~18 ~ of m aaaa as Iii y .., W ~ N ` 'J~ ~~ ~ ad ~• ~~ ~ 4 ~~ ~ ~`C 9 ~ Qa ~ ~~' ~ C~Q ~9LL '- ~' ~v ~ i~ ~~3 L __ _ _ _ _ ~" ~~ Z ~ ~ ~~ ~~~a ~ ~'~ W~ ~~ '~~'~~ ~$ ~aa,.QZ- ff~E~2q -.- ~~~ ~a -a~ a& ~ ~~ ~~R ~ yy~ 3 u ~K d~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ X11 li LL ~ FO ~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ '" ~ Q _Y~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ Al ~ W ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~_ ~a ~ ~E ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ a 3 ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~a ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~WIL~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - n m Y m m ~ m m 9 - n „~ ~ a m U O W ~ ~ ~ s a ,., R .°. n ° F r .4,' ~ m m LLl Z J ~a Z a ~Z_ a~ 0 ~-0 LL W W N ~ • ~r .UI 01-,41 ~ o g '' C ~ O c n p c N ~ n ~ ~ a a ~ ~~ ~~ d' J II! ~ ~ _ ~ a a F W I ~ W ~ z ~ ~ ~ Z < W ~ N W ~Q~g~m W QZ ¢ x~x Q V LL LL y=~°Dt~ W OOp~L c~. ~z4z7 mpN __ G N W Q W ~ W I I I i i I I i l ~ I I { ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~~ j ! i I i ~ l ' I ~ I ~ i IQI QI m dill .. I i I ~ i I iii i ~ ~ lil l ~~ w ~~ ' ~ 1LLLLyJJ ~I ~~ I H W ~ ~_ W~ a p z 2 ~' O a LL Y t~~ m ~ o w e ~O ~ ~ Y~~ _~ a ~_ ~~ ~Y~y~L ~ s~ ~ ~ ~~~~ w 9s"~ ~~~~ ~~~ 1Y~ ~ ~J ~ m0 ~ ~ ~ ~` ~Nr R~ Y ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ O O~ ~ ~ ual ~ r~~ ~ o ~~I~ 3 ~~ ~S ~ ~~~Y a y44r~~~~~rc~ ~ oa ~m~ ~~®~ ~~m ~ Ym-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ =Q R $ ~ ~ pp pp O m ~!4 ~a rd 6~ ~ '^ ~~a p~~ ~~ jro ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ z 3~ - ~ N ~7 ~ ? Q~ Y Y ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 33 ~ ~~~r~ - 1~$ ~~ J ~ ~ d ~ rY~ ~ ~~ a ~ k~ ~ 3 lu ~ 3 3 ~~ W ~ ~~ ~ u 8 z`~ ~~ ~ _, ~° y.~`~ ~y"~ ~ ~~~a ~ '~ ~ ~g a - ~w Oa' ~~; m ~J m a S'" ~ ~ ~ `~`~~ ~ry ~q ~ry q 6 3 s~ F ~ rc Q 3 Z Y ZQ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i! w ~~~ ym~~~ ~~ °~~ ~ ~m ~~ ~X~~(p~ ~$~ ~~ ~~ °' ~ ~ ~'~r9 ~ ~~ ~g~ ~ ~~ a ~~ ~m m ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ ~~~~ W w X X X ~ ~ r ~ ~~o ~ ~ r rv Q 3 ~~ ~~~ ~ aV O ~ a ~ D a Z ~ w w w~ w w wz Z ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 66 ~ ~$ -~ ~` om~ ~6 r e ~ ~~~s7 ~a ~~ ~ ~+~~ y~~ ~ ~w ~ ~~a~ ~ s~ ~~Q~ '° ~ uLL~ ~~ J ~ ~ a du ~ •- ~ .~~~~~ m~g - Q,~a b~ ' ~~ p~7{ ~~~ ~ ~Y ~~~ ~ ~'7' ~y.} J~ ~~ 8_ ~ ~ d ~~~-~ ~Yr W I! 4 ~ LL ~~~ J~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~a ~i ~ ~~ ~~~ F~a« ~~ ?~ ~O ~LL' ~~ `~~py~~ ~a~ ~ ~ Y ~~~ ~ {yj~ r~ ~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~ (tN~ ~~p O~J~y~~~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 jLF3 ~ ~ ~ g 3rLL ~ ~F~3 ~ 33a ~~ F am ~ $m ~~L~~.T W w ? W ~ 4y~~ ~ ~~ ~r~~ w~~ ~~ a~ F~ ~~ ~41 ~~7 ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ a~ ka'°~a~ ~QaZ ~QSp~~ ~ ~'~ a~ ~~ ~d ~ ~y~i~ ~~~ 0 ~~{i ------ 1 ii Z ^~Z ~H [~ ~ O~(y~ [1 ~~ ~^ b~ ~~ S dT{ - I'i ~ Cj ~ O ~ ~J ,~ `j /~l~[~[ 1}1~ S 6`+. d~ye~ ~.~. ~ ~3 ~~~~~~ J ill W IL J ~~ ~m~ ~-~y tll - OB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~ ~= ~ ~- ~ W O "' ^ ~~ w Z ~ J - n m v m ,- r a m 9 = n m ,am U p M Z ,L/I 4-,9Z i 04x84 04x04 - -~ .UI Z-,17 s a o~ O O J LL Q LL W N a 0 ac a r n . • ~ ~• . g o O N n n rJj ~ ~ ~~~ ~W z p~ o ~a~ o ~ O n V V u 00 ~~~~o 3~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~WWW~~~ m W Q W w Z N w~ ry ~ O ~ ~ 4~ zW~ ~I ~" o `-+ v ~ w ~ Z ~ ~ u ~ ~m a r a ~ i~~ $ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~d ~~~< ~ ~ aa~ ~~ ~ ~~ $ ~ ~~ ~o~~ ~a ~~ ~{~y~ ~~ Epy~(j ~~ ~ =S }~ ~~~~ ~~~ W~ ~ ~~ V~ ~~ ~a ~d ~~ ~~ ~~~ o ~ ~ ~~~ ~t ~ ~ ~ e~ ,UI 6-,EO W --E Z T~$ W ~ N C ~,~W~g~~mp W 2¢~ C0C LL ~ 0 ~~a ~~m~ Z~o~B !!o ~p~~ppp'~ i N W O W ! I l ~ I i ! I ~ N > ~ ~ .p ,p 0 i ~ N ~ ~ ~ i Q I~ Q mi> Qli ' I ~ `o I I a ~` ol W~ ~~ ;;yy ~~W ~ d o u ~w~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ Q~~ ~~~~~~m ~~d ~ ~~a ~ ~ga~ ~~~~ ~~ a ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ J I~dS V ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~® j V~ ~~J ~~~ ~~~~m ~~~ Qa s~~~~ ~~a ~a~ ~~~_ ,a~ a a ^~ s ~1 ~ c m m ~ ~ o~ . F ~~ ~~ ~~~~ o~~~~ y ~ b ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ '" n ~ ~Y ~_ m ~~ m P Z ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ s ~~ ~ n ti D V O N a ya w a °C w ~o W ~ as ~_ .~ ~~ ~~~~~~ II k~ A Y a ~~ ~4Wr~r~~~~y~ N a 3 w~~W ~ ~~ ~ ~t7 .~p 9 ~ yp~ 5 ~~~ LL ~ } m ~ W ~ ~ {~ ~ ~~ d~~ a ,~ r n ,~ m m ~~ ~~ Or 0 J LL Z 0 V W N D W N a 0 a , UI • • • ,UI 8-,5 ~ ,UI L-,9 ~ ,UI 1-,91 ,UI ml-,L ,UI 01-,L I , . ~ n ~ 0 ~ p 0 N~~ ~ ~a tA~~ a ~~. ~ ~~g J ~~ ~ 111 0 u J ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~~ ~ a o N 0 Z Z W _ ~ U 9 w 6' 1; wl V i i I IrY I ~I i i -- ~ _ a~~ ap ~~s p m / ~~W~ J ~~~ L O ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~0~, ~~ p } ma r ~~ ~~ =9 ~~ S F: ~~ ~~~ml ~~~ ~n v- w I: 3 ----- ZI ~I a J: W N' 1 ~' W i Z~~~~ W ' N C b W~g~m W z¢~ Q~LL~~ ~a dD~~ ~~W~~ cZ O~ONL i ~ ~ W I I II I I I N il I I I `r I ~ , ~ l ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~j lmia~ ~ >i a ~Q=; ~ o I . ~ y ~ Q QQui~IW 0'U q gl~b~ N Z a~ ~W ~ W ~ Q Q r W N ~ Z w w I i I air ~-~- I .r ~i I I I I ' I ~ I I I I 0 ~~ -_. ~ ; '~ j I. LL~'J Is 3 ~ i ~ ~, I Z O I Q I I I ~I II I ~ ~ i W if I ~ W i $~ i 4 n L ~~ ' W i w ~ • • ~ i I i ~ ~ o o o R ~ ~ Nnn ~ FO p ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ J ~ Z Q ~ W U W = LL fA ~~ ~m i `~~ ~m ~~ 8 ~~ W ~c~ o ~ ~~~ Y ~~a =~c A ~~ ~. ~- aW Q ~ 3Q d~ Q O ~ 0 O W z Z W _ m ° u _ i 'JJ JJ JJJJ '_i-JJ i ~JJ_ i JJ ~JJ J~JIj ~-.I I ~J ~ i i ~ i ~ JJJJ JJJJ _ ~ ~J u'~JJJ J JJ 'JJJJ J~ ~~ Q ±JJJJ ACS JJJ i ~ ~ ~ r ~ '- m ~J~J_1JJ ~m~ JJJJJ ~' JJJJ ~ ~~~ Z ~~~ it a ~~ '~ J ® I' ~i = ® W i O ~I ~ N ~i T} li ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ W ~ N O I~N~a~'~ W 2R~~ ~~ 8LL~ ~ a ~VmO ~ ~~ ui Z ~ O N L loZQZQcp~~pppm G N W d W ~ I d~ ~ i v ~ ,QI 0 ~ I ~i ~ ~ m~ ~I ~~~~Q~=i Q • ~ W ~ Q W ~ i~ i~ I y w ~ Q Q Di~ 0 Uj N O = O r. a~ Z Q l W D ~ Q ,~ W 'i F ~ ~ W W ~ 0 W ~ ~ Z ~I al WI Z~ • • • Q ~ ~ ° ~ ~ o oo ~~~ c0 ~ ~~ fA o '~ ~~ Qu V U N ~ ~ ~ O U ~ ui ~Z ~ 3 O w o~ '~ ~ a 4 3 Q 1 Q Z _O V W W U ^ px~ C g~~ ~~~ a~~ ~k ~a$ Z W ~ N N ~~$ a W gym ~ z¢~~ aWLL~~ ~~ y ~ W n ZON~Ni ~«~~~ I ~ ~ ~ > ~ o~ ~ ~i I~~ ~~ ~ ~Q Q I ;• ' ' m > ~~a~~ I i ~ i w D w~ ~ ~ ~l ~~~~ ~i ~I =I ~~ R Mm W Z O W W T EO Q • • • W Q ~ ~ ~ 0 z z w ~ ~ w ~ N w 0 F- z V w ~ N ~ ~ I ~ o~~ I~ ~~ ~ ~ i i ~o~~ s `1 , ~ o ~ O - ~° w` ~i ~ O p ~p~~°°El~.. ~ybO 3~ i~ ~ Q Q F ~~ °I5 J H w w ''1spJ3tl ~ ~ ~ rc a_ ~ p N ~ 0 w Q Z ~ m ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ : E (~ O O H a O ~ fy~ J;~ ~ N Q ~ pQ~fA \ Opi Op~j ~ ~~~'wa , amp a.Z ~Z j~- -- ~Wa>ro ~w Oa i3 „., 1i ~ (n U ~-- Q (] ~ d Z ZQZ(nZ I ~_ 4 ~ O~~pw ~Z O f-~-DQ Ow w twnZ~O~ Z z~ Q Q ~ wO~w3 z Z ~ ~~w z ?~wzM ~ ~w~ ~~w -- -- -- ---- _- ----- ----•--~-D..Q~3wa~ > zjawwzw>Zw Zw~o=W~G w w UZO~wa~U w Fpm ~ U~~wao~u_a} pF=-WU¢WOa ¢ ww~oWitYOg¢ ZQaio~~°~naia Z ~0~~~~~aopFa ag~JFO-aQ~W ¢ mdO~awswv~cn W UH=F-Z20K 2 F- - aZ W~ W~OYm W I I d=LO_ x ui oa~0~~~°~ 'I a~3wo~ W~wLLaow~m~ If NN ~~wwOZxw O 1 I ~ I I 8 ~m j ~ ~1 I w ; /; ~~~ ; I I ~~ \`-Y~ ~ `I I i ~ i 4\ as soly~ soy-v~oivavs ~szoz ~~\UUU - m a I i Vy` i L~~ ~ ~m !1~ w 1 00'SZ t• M ~5bo5~ S ~ i i' I j ~ ~ '• 8 ~°T-0 ~ S lid ~~' ~ ~ `~% ~$ I ~S i •~ ~; j ~, ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~I / m _ I~4° I B ~ y ._y ~ I ,- - I~ Id ~ \ /11 I ~ ----- --R --- ~ , , r m m •\ ~, ~~ m ~ r ~ -- --- - II -- ;~ ~ g ~ / E ma i \I e `. ~\ m m `-~ -- o - I o I 5 n i~ ~ g g ,~~=~ ~, j ~ ^ ~~ I I !~\ wu i ~~ wE °a ~ i ~ ~ _ i I m ~ i wr ~ I i~ ~ i W ~ i ~ mz i ~~ I I ~ ~ ~ 1 i t ~ o a\ ~~ z ~ i i :l0 ~ ~ I ~ a 5 . m m~ ~ « I ~ : ,'~ \ pp~ 8 \ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ '~17 I i i x_ ~ ~ o a ~ i ~ :r. ~ s ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ & a ~ I I ~ g ~ f I ,, \\\~iiij\V8 M1' ~ ~ ~ ~ I I - I ~%~ `` `~a it ~~ / ~~^ F ~ g S ~ / ~~ ~ ~ N __ a '~ i' ~ ;i 9F p it 1 i r ~~ ~,,, ~ 1 O I B 'eti _ L v ~~ ~ [ _ .... _. ~, s ~ , ~' _.. _ - _ ~ . _ a ~~~ 1 _. s s .g ,F ' ~i I ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ,8. $d3 ~ __g G j --- ------- - s a $ I I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~I g I ~ r ~ ,,, ~ ~ ,,w ,,~ ,$ i °- • ~ • ~ S° n N $ ~ o ~ ~ m~ ~ v17~' a ~t~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a °~ 2 ~ w c ~ ~ ~a~ ~ : ~ ~ Z ~} i ~.1/ i i I I~ ,'( 1 I i I _I ~ dpi ~I f ~jr---- i i al _! v ,I I ~ i , I ! I ~ I dpi -~-~- ,~~ "\ .~ ~.`` I LL W ~~ W -=-i! II li ~~--~i Q ~ ~ I i I i vi ~i ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ $_9-. ~o. ~ ~ ~'"6: 3 ~ 3 E-- . ® ~a ~.. o - o ~ ~: ~~ p ~ °~~ ' ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~' 3~E 00'SZ 6 M ,5tio5~ S ~~ N ~' ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ i I i i ~ ~i ~ I ~ j i ~. i ~~ I Q IV 1 ep ' I l ~ l j, ' W W ~ Y a o ~'f ..3 - - . ~ - 8 ~.._ ~ ' -~ ~, I ;. , ~ ~ ~ lllii~llll ^ ~ d. i ~, ~o )~ ~ / ¢¢ ~ ~i ll}Null ~ ~ ~ ' ~"a ~ I illlllllll t flllllilltl ~ '`1 ~ P ~ ll l l l l 11 l l l l l l l i l l 1-1-F1 l - ~ I i i i 11 l 11l U l l l 1, 1-i-U 1 1kTtT ~ a¢ ~ ~ H ~ l l i l l l l l l l l l 1 TTTtt1 TTlll TTIYI l l1 llT1 ~ ~ N llllllllllll ~llllll'~illlilllll hlllilllin X ~ , Y $I illillll 1-Ytl'~l illll Ol 1lUllll plllllllljt~ ~ I__ I Q ~ ~~ \ ~ lllllll't~llil !llilil ~l~llllllll l~~~rlil ~ c ~- c ~- c ¢- ~ I 4 L1'Cillillllll lull lit lilllll ll ~,5~?, ' ~ ~ llllllllllll llillillliS(lilllll llr~~~ll ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i ai¢~ I! ~1 ~~I,. llllllllill llllllUFiillill.ll 11(fFi p ^o I ~ I~~ ti~ V ~ i ~llllllll llllllllllllillill 111 ~ F' ~, ! •' i .p 7r ~+-v c~ ,,-v s ~ --- a j } ti ,,. }, 3 ' I '' ! A .. ,: ~ - I _. _ W i -.. ,. c~ ~ ~ .Q y i [t ~ ~ D I ~ ~ Z ~ I ~ I N w ~ ~ I j i ~ r ~ ~ I; 31X3 L ~ - --.._. I i ~ £ 5. ~ _ I, ~ .~ M I i@ ~ it _ h i ~ \ ~ E ~ I I iJ ~ ~.,aj I i ...M~ ~` ~ s ~ ~ g / I '~ I . ' ~ ~ l ~ I I s M I ~ i° O ~ -~ %~ j_ I r ~ i ~ \ ~' ~ ~. ~ 00'SZ6 1~ ~ r`' ~ .8 -- /, it I / ' i -o _ ~ _ ~~. f ~.~ a s_ 7_ 7 r 11 Q ~1~/a c®~) (Z~ ~L..LV~~~L~'~1V1 _ __~~ SJ~~ '~~£~~1dJ'-sp~~~~€S _sio_. h s d A---- 3 s~-gt' S"~ ~ ~.~ ~ s Tom? g ~..~~~ ~.z~y ~n~ ~7gf q(~~ - - ~: i. -_~ .i N._6`b 1..~n.7,_~e ...J. 5_E\1 \V..\~2\4 1_~~_ -0~+~S~~b- ~ ~. • w ~ • r ~ • - [- f a • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 04-133/ 14265 Burns Way Design Review Angela Pollard and Ivan Burgos, Property Owners Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner ` February 23, 2005 503-23-006 Department Head: i a~ ~\ .. ~: " .. .. i ~ /J-' ~ G/WYDN NEWGT- \ /' _ \~ . t.._ ~ / / _ MICHg95 DR ~ .-" .. . - / - _ ~ hva~ao ~"sala~ ,r>.suNN4v~R ~ - - - A~ ~ 1 -- / ~ - BURNS~Ni I . /~ i - _.~ WW+^~\... \'.i`~'9R ~ ~,~` ~~ _ ARBEIFGHEW' -~:" _ - SUNNWPtE ftD '-_ ~ ~ ~ -' TOfa>rSUN NF A~ j / ~- -bROgM.00D LN ~ / ___ -_ / ___ x ~ _ YWtC`V ~SF'RINCfRAV } ~- ""' /%/ ~~ _ . ~ ,. ~~ ~ i :.~ ,. ~~ ~ ~ `~. -~TOC>4 /^ ~~ ~~ - i SMATDCaM1SUNNriN.E RD _ , ~ . , ~~ _ 1 -- P `TOG4AV ~_, ; ~ '. - _ i V,F~ A''~ ~ SPRlT6(~4SUNNWf~RO ~ - - ~( / ^• •• cAxCDN tiIEWOR - y ~, ~ ~ i ~ _." ,~ I7 `` _ ~ -. •'PQLOI~O~O NN ~ ' ~SARAj(~(f~il~6 GAT~RO - I, ~ f1f~CN(Y2bR OQrN Sr ~.,4a~NOCnw/" ~ 16~f~~.2E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ / ~i4~.'+'Pit!'-!'~1:!~~_YdE ~ ~ ` `. i ~ \ ~ ~ '"swuTO>i+ekcs ~DyR --~ ~ f}aject Site </~ i ~~~"" ~ ~e1D'~avNwv ~ ~-` ~`:W E •~ ,• ,. i Street Mmes M*N "_T~~ ~'<" ' ~ "' ,, - Parcels within 500 feet ~~ -' < - -- ~s4Rn >' .... ~ \ `, ,t oAlt: -~ °.. '~ S ,,. ,\ , _ ,-~" " ~; 0 250 sori " ~sD ` ` ~ o00 ~ ` ~ iz5o n ~, ` ~~ t ~/ • i I -- .., \~ A1GST.. ~ ~ --. .. _ 14265 Burns Way ®®t~(DOi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 05/06/04 Pending Geotechnical Clearance 02/09/05 02/08/05 02/17/05 The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 2,608 square feet and the second floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 15,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing, but defer action on the design review application until geotechnical clearance is granted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Neighbor correspondence. 2. Materials the applicant requested staff include in the packet on their behalf. 3. Study session minutes. 4. Arborist Reports, various. 5. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." ~®~~~ Application No. 04133;14265Burns Way • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-15,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density: Density of Dwelling Units per Acre 2.9 MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 29,025 gross square feet, 28,216 net square feet (deduction for road easement) SLOPE: 18% average site slope GRADING REQUIRED: 500 cubic yards cut; 500 cubic yards fill ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project including the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the 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: Materials and colors include a wood shingle and hardiplank siding, grey/black composition shingle and stone accents along the base of the house and pavers for the driveway. • ~®®~~ Application No. 04133;14265Burns Way PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Main Residence Second Unit Driveway,patios, walks, and pools TOTAL Floor Area: First Floor Second Floor Main Residence total Second Unit .TOTAL (basement) - MAIN RESIDENCE: Setbacks: Front Rear First-Floor Second-Floor Left Side (South) First-Floor Second-Floor Right Side (North) First-Floor Second-Floor SECOND UNIT: Front Rear Left Side (South) Proposal Code Requirements 31% Maximum Allowable 55% 3,087 sq. ft. 1,018 sq. ft. 4,966 sq. ft. 9,071 sq. ft. 15,519 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 2,608 sq. ft. 1,335 sq. ft. 3,943 sq. ft. ' Subtotal 4,518 sq. ft. 1,018 sq. ft. Plus 10% for Second Unit= 4,961 sq. ft. 4,969:8 sq. ft. 1,506 sq. ft. 85+ ft. Min. Requirement 25 ft. 100+ ft. 100+ ft. 8 ft. 1 inch 19 ft. 6.5 inches 11 ft. 10 inches 13 ft. 6.5 inches 200+ ft. 30 ft. 80+ ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. 8 ft. 1 inch 13 ft. 1 inch 8 ft. 1 inch 13 ft. 1 inch . 25 ft. 25 ft. 8 ft. 1 inch ~~~®0~ Application No. 04133;14265Bvrns Way Right Side (North) Height: Main Residence Second Dwelling Unit • 8 ft. l inch 8 ft. 1 inch Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 26 ft. 17 ft. 4 inches 26 ft. '~~®®J Application No. 04133;14265Bvrns Way • PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project.includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3;943 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 2,608 square feet and. the second floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 15,000. The project has not obtained geotechnical clearance. In the last fifteen years, two prior design review applications on this property have not obtained design review approval primarily due to neighbor opposition. Prior to incurring the expenses related to geotechnical clearance the applicant is requesting a formal action from the planning commission regarding the proposed design. It is unknown at this time how substantial or minor the revisions required for geotechnical clearance will be; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission defer action on the project until geotechnical clearance has been issued. The lot size is almost twice the size of the zoning district it is located in. The property is located on Burns Way, which is a dead end street. The project site is located at the end of the dead end street. Several properties adjacent to the site both to the rear and south do not access their property off Burns Way but off Springer Avenue and Brookwood Lane. A unique attribute of the site includes a ravine, which is dry in summer months. but contains a stream in the winter. There is no Santa Clara Valley Water District easement located on the property. The intermittent creek does not meet the definition of protected creek as defined by the municipal code. A craftsman architectural style with wood shingles and horizontal hardiplank siding is proposed. for the main residence and second dwelling unit. Identifying features of the proposed structures and the craftsman architectural style include porches with square columns supporting-the roof, decorative beams or braces under the gables, and low pitched gable. roofs: The main residence and second dwelling unit are connected via a covered bridge across the ravine. A deck. system rings the rear elevation of the main residence and second dwelling unit. The project includes application for aone-time 10% increase in allowable floor area, which the zoning ordinance permits, with a recorded deed that restricts rental .rates of the secondary dwelling unit to below market rates. This portion of the zoning ordinance implements the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan which includes accommodating the City's fair share of the Bay Area regional housing need for all income groups. ~~~~~ Application No. 04-133;14265Bvrns Way . BACKGROUND: In 1991, the owner proposed asecond-story residence. Staff and the Planning Commission could not support the application at that time. The application was referred back to the applicant for restudy. The owner withdrew the application. In 1998, the owner proposed asecond-story residence. Staff recommended approval; however, the Planning Commission could not support the application. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council. The item was placed on the City Council agenda; however, the applicant/appellant asked for a continuance. At a subsequent meeting, the Council referred the item back to the applicant/appellant "to consider a substantive redesign, not necessarily abandoning two stories, but with the changes discussed and additional possible changes, with the applicant to continue to meet with the neighbor to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, and with a possible future planning commission study session. " The applicant/appellant later withdrew the application. In keeping with the direction of the previous City Council, staff scheduled the project for a study session. On September 22, 2004 a study session was held with the applicant, neighbors, planning commission, and staff. The planning commissioners provided preliminary feedback to the applicant, neighbors, and staff. Staff prepared draft minutes • which were shared with the applicant and neighbor. Those minutes were not adopted by the planning commission. The draft study session minutes are attachment 3 of this report. TIMELINE: -May 6, 2004: Design Review Application 04-133 was submitted fo the planning department. -June 3, 2004: Staff completed an initial review of the project and learned of the history of design review applications which did not obtain approval at the subject property. -June 21, 2004: Staff began organizing a Study Session with the Planning Commission pursuant to the direction of the City Council minutes from 1998. -June 23, 2004: Staff informed the applicant that September 22, 2004 was the next available date, which all of the commissioners and the Voesters could attend. The applicant made the appropriate, but difficult decision to wait for the September 22, 2004 study session date. -September 22, 2004: The study session was conducted with the planning commissioners and neighbors. . -September 30, 2004: Staff advised the applicant that the proposed residence does not meet the minimum height requirements. ~~®0~ Application No. 04133;14265Burns-Way -November 23, 2004: The applicant submitted revised plans. These plans; however, did not • meet the minimum height requirement. The applicant inquired about a height exception; however, staff advised against it. -December 16, 2004: Staff advised the applicant story poles will be required prior to the public hearing.. The applicant subsequently consulted the Interim Community Development Director regarding the matter. -January 14, 2005: The applicant submitted revised. plans, which met the minimum height requirements. -February 4, 2005: The latest geotechnical review memorandum was received by the planning department indicating there may be some design changes necessary to obtain geotechnical clearance. As a result of this information, on this same day, staff advised the applicant the hearing should be continued until geotechnical clearance is obtained. The applicant requested that the hearing proceed. MODIFICATIONS: The applicant submitted the following notable modifications to the design since the study session was held: rail hei t of the main residence was lowered b 3 feet. • 1) Ove gh y 2) The distance to the north property line (shared with Voesters) from the first-story building line was increased by 3 ft 10 inches. -This was achieved by moving the residence and reducing the size of the residence. 3) The distance to the north property line (Voesters) from the second-story building line was increased 1 ft 10 inches by moving the house 1 ft 10 inches as mentioned above in item 2'. 4) The roofline of the second-story building line, along the north property line (Voesters) was lowered in height and reconfigured. Specifically, the gable roof was pulled back 2 feet 3 inches and a lower sloped shed roof was added over this portion of floor area. 5) The chimney flue on the deck off the master bedroom was widened to obstruct views to the adjacent north property. 6) The footprint of the second dwelling unit was- shifted toward the Voesters .property line and the structure increased in area by 33 square feet. • ~~®~®s Application No. 04133; I4265Burns Way • NEIGHBOR CORRESPONDENCE:. The adjacent neighbors to the North, the Voesters, have expressed a desire to preserve the character of Burns Way as a street with one-story residences. The Voesters have expressed concern with the impacts the project will have on the sunlight in their backyard and garden areas. They have also expressed an interest in preserving their existing open view of trees and mountains from their master bedroom windows. Other neighbors have also expressed interest in the project ranging from support to opposition. All neighbor correspondence received since the application was submitted is attached for your reference. TREES: To summarize the arborist report, three trees are in conflict with the main residence or will be severely damaged by construction. These trees include (5, 8, 26). The arborist has also deemed the loss of an additional three trees acceptable due to their condition and risk to public safety (3, 23, 27). The applicant has agreed to project revisions not yet incorporated into Exhibit A to preserve five additional trees (10, 12, 13, 14 and 20). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Defer action on the design review application until geotechnical clearance is granted. The • project has not obtained geotechnical clearance. In the last fifteen years, two prior design review applications on this property have not obtained design review approval primarily due to neighbor opposition. Prior. to incurring the expenses related to geotechnical clearance the applicant is requesting a formal action from the planning commission regarding the proposed design. It is unknown at this time how substantial or minor the revisions required for geotechnical clearance will be; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission defer action on the project until geotechnical clearance has been issued. • ®~®~~ i Att • • ~~©®~® ~~ Mike and Peggy Johnston 20611 Brookwood Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 10 February 2005 • Christy Oosterhous, AICP Clty of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Cear Ms. Oosterhous, We will be unable to attend the public hearing on February 23rd for the proposed project on 14265 Burns Way, APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006). Our neighbors have- been forthcoming with us about their intensions and have shared with us their design plans. We are pleased that they are trying to improve the property. Their design appears aesthetic and it seems that they-are a making a genuine effort to consider the needs and desires of their neighbors. We have no objections and hope that they will be permitted to improve their property, as they desire. We have .only one concern, which is that we do not wish to be obliged to allow vehicles related to the project access through our property. Thank you for your attention, Sincerely, ~, ~--_: ~~d;j cc: Ivan Burgos/Angela Pollard ~ ~! -~; I~ J~ !' 1 4 2005 ~~ • CIl_Y OF J,~h~~ ~ OG %• ~~~~~~1 Page 1 of 1 Christy Oosterhous From: Kristin Borel _ _T _ ~_ ~^_- • Sent: Friday; January 21, 2005 4:28 PM To: Jill Hunter (E-mail); Linda Rodgers; Michael Schallop (E-mail); Michael Uhl (E-mail); Mike Garakani (E-mail); Ruchi Zutshi (E-mail); Susie Nagpal (E-mail); Susie Nagpal (E-mail) Cc: Christy Oosterhous Subject: FW: Borgas/Pollard New Home Project -----Original Message----- From: Planning Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:25 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Borgas/Pollard New Home Project -----Original Message----- From: PDOPPELT [mailto:pdoppelt@syslutions.com] -Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 1:19 PM To: Planning Subject: Borgas/Pollard New Home Project I live at 20659 Marion Road. Your staff recommended story poles to show the proposed size of the Borgas/Pollard proposed new construction. I would like to see these story poles put up, so 1 can get a better idea of the effect of • this new home on the surrounding properties. Phillip Doppelt 20659 Marion Road pdoppelt@sbcglobal.net • ~~~®~.2 2/9/2005 Christy Oosterhous From: Kristin Borel ~ent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:28 PM To: Jill Hunter (E-mail); Linda Rodgers; Michael Schallop (E-mail); Michael Uhl (E-mail); Mike Garakani (E-mail); Ruchi Zutshi (E-mail); Susie Nagpal (E-mail); Susie Nagpal (E-mail) Cc: Christy Oosterhous Subject: FW: Burgos/Pollard proposal -----Original Message----- From: Planning Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:25 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Burgos/Pollard proposal -----Original Message----- From: jrenaldsC~att.net [mailto:jrenalds@att.net) Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:45 PM To: Planning Cc: abachtoldQapple.com Subject: Burgos/Pollard proposal Dear Planning Commission - ~e agree with the recommendation regarding the use of story-poles for the Burgos/Pollard roject on Burns Way. There is a great deal of neighborhood concern about the proposed project. We strongly support staff recommendation; having story poles would greatly help to understand the proposed structure and the impact on the neighborhood. Jim Renalds and Anne Bachtold • 1 ~~~®~.3 Christy Oosterhous From: Kristin Borel Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:45 AM To: Christy Oosterhous Subject: FW: Burgos/Pollard project-Burns Wy. -----Original Message----- From: Planning Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:04 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Burgos/Pollard project-Burns Wy. -----Original Message----- From: Donald & Maya Bernardo [mailto:dberna1147@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 10:59 AM To: Planning Subject : Burgos/Pollard project-Burns Wy. We support the planning. staffs recommendation for-the use of sight- poles for this protect. Don and Maya Bernardo 20544 Marion Rd. • 1 ~~~®~~ Christy Oosterhous From: Kristin Borel ~ent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:27 PM To: Jill Hunter (E-mail); Linda Rodgers; Michael Schallop (E-mail); Michael Uhl (E-mail); Mike Garakani (E-mail); Ruchi Zutshi (E-mail); Susie Nagpal (E-mail); Susie Nagpal (E-mail) Cc: Christy Oosterhous Subject: FW: Burns Way Project -----Original Message----- From: Kristin Borel Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:25 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Burns Way Project -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Voester [mailto:kvoesterl@juno.com] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:13 PM To: Planning Subject: Burns Way Project Dear Planning Commissioners, Staff has recommended that story poles be used in the Burgos/Pollard ~roject on Burns Way. There is neighborhood concern about this project. e strongly support staff recommendation; having story poles would greatly help to visualize the proposed structure and its effect on surrounding properties. Kurt and Barbara Voester • ~i'®®~~~ a~~ aoo~ ~, ~~- ~ ~~ - ~: ~~ t wee d~eP:~.e~ .~ o~utE~u.a, a~ ~" ,¢~ z~- a,~-- iy~,,~~G~a~ ems- ~-'~. ~ .~'",~'`' .~ ztu, -~~ ~~"~o~i'l.C~ . SAN 2 6 2005 U CITY OF SAS TOGA ~U5~7. G ~ ~ ~'~' ~~~ gsU~o ~~~~ Saratoga Planning Dept. `~ • September 20, 2004 SEP ~I 2 0 20 "~ 04 CITY OF SARATUGA •~ ~i r*nT+i nr_ ~ icr Dear Sir/Madam: I would like to comment on a recent letter submitted to the Planning Commission by Angela Pollard. Ms. Pollard has applied for a permit to build a new two story home on her Burns Way propery (the Burgos-Pollard property.) In her letter to the planning commission dated 9/12 Ms. Pollard's writes: [Page 4, Section One, Loss of Privacy] "The concern by Ms. Bechtold [sic] that our house, located well over 250 feet away and through some very dense trees, could invade her privacy is only ludicrous-and does not deserve in depth comment. However, I am surprised that Ms. Bechtold [sic] who recently completed a second story addition in her remodel and has a large window of her study facing down on her adjacent five neighbors, is not concerned on the impact of her house on her neighbor's privacy." My comments are as follows: • For the record, m ro er ,located at 20640 Marion Rd does not have a second Y p p tY story, nor has a second story been added to my property during my "recent" remodel. The remodel Ms. Pollard refers to was- the addition of 415 square feet added to the existing 2000 square foot home; resulting in a one story 2425 square foot home. This remodel was completed in October of 2003. The "large window of her study facing down on adjacent five neighbors" is a 3' x3' attic window. At most, it is visible by two of my adjacent- neighbors. As we have a roof with a high pitch, it is possible that Ms. Pollard has mistakenly assumed that we have a second story. The attic is original to the house, which we purchased in 1989. Regarding my concern about privacy; while it is true that Ms. Pollard's property is not adjacent to or visible from my property, it is two homes away and in the same "block parcel". As I stated in a previous letter to the planning commission (May 2004), my main concern remains the same: " The homes in our "block parcel" are all single story homes with smaller yet private yards. From my back yard I can see the roof lines of 5 of the six homes (not including my own) that are in the "block parcel". If any of those homes was to add a second story my privacy, views, and potentially my sunlight would be afffected. At present I have complete privacy in my yard. I am concerned that ~~~~~ r allowing a two story property to be built will set a precedent for future development of the existing neighboring properties. While two story homes may be appropriate in other areas of Saratoga, the homes in the Marion- Burns road area are too close to allow the building of two story homes white maintaining one's privacy and the expansive open feeling that is a part of the neighborhood's character." Please note that the 5 homes I refer to above does not include the Burgos- Pollard property, as I do not see their current roofline. However, I am unable to discern from the plans on file whether the proposed. house is viewable from my home RespE ---------- -- --- Anne 2:0640 Saratayd, ~h i • • • • U •~ Kurt and Barbaza Voester 14251 Burns Way Saratoga, CA 95070 August 25, 2004 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 •• ~~~~~~ AUG 3 Q 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA RE: Application #: 04-133 APN #: 503-23-006 Burgos/Pollazd 14265 Burns Way Dear Commissioners, History: This is the third time since 1991 that an application has been made by three different owners of the above referenced property to build large two story homes that are barely less than the allowable azea. In 1991 the application was for a residence with an area of 4,836 sq. ft. while the allowable azea was 4,674 sq. ft. (Not a typo.) At that time the recommendation of the planning commission (PC) (09/25) after hearing neighborhood opposition to the plan was that the applicant should return with a plan for a one story residence. Applicant withdrew his application (PC minutes 12/11/91). In 1998 a second application was made by new owners for a residence with an azea of 4,043 sq. ft. while the allowable area was 4,044 sq. ft. Again there was neighborhood opposition. Heard by the PC the application was denied (05/13). PC decision was appealed to the City Council which on 07/1 S sent the case back to the PC with a recommendation that the plans be revised. Application withdrawn by applicant 09/23/98. Existing house became rental until sold to Burgos/Pollazd on 05/24/2002. The third application (referenced above) is for a residence and a guest house with an azea of 4,960 sq. ft. ~vilile the allowable area is 4,9 i0 sq. fl. Tiiis area is exclusive of the basement which has an area of 1,506 sq. ft. Therefore, the total azea of the living space is 6,466 sq. ft. while the allowable area is 6,476 sq. ft. Neighborhood Compatibility: There are three houses on Burns Way in addition to the applicant's property. My wife, Barbara, and I have lived in the-house to the immediate north of the applicants for over 36 years. Three of these houses were built in the late forties and one, in the middle fifties. These homes are modest in size and we believe that a large two story residence on Burns Way is incompatible with the other houses on this street. If we extend the neighborhood to include Marion Road we find that there aze three two story houses. One, on the register of Saratoga historic houses, has an area of 780 sq. ft. and sits on a large lot. Another has an area of only 2,600 sq. ft. and has a substantial setback from the street. The third, which is at the end of Marion has a large setback and trees that help it to-blend into its surroundings. There is a total of ®®~~9 •• •• 27 houses in the neighborhood and 24 are single story. This is a single story neighborhood. Let's preserve it. There aren't many single story neighborhoods left in Saratoga. Ordinance 207 adopted August 7, 2002 for the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood addresses this- situation by stating, "Any single story addition or replacement construction shall be limited in height to the height of the contiguous single story dwellings". If this standard works in Saratoga Woods let's also apply it here. The applicants plans are incompatible with the extended BurnslMarion neighborhood. We encourage them to develop a one story plan. Fire Hazard: The entire neighborhood is at risk of major fire because-the water pressure and-the flow from the hydrants is far below the National Safety Codes. The bulk of the proposed residence adds significant risk. The proximity to neighboring structures adds risk. The guest unit is inaccessible to the fire department and is surrounded by trees that could start a conflagration. A real safety concern! Solar Access: If the proposed residence were built we would expect that for at least four months of the year we would have reduced sunshine on our house, patio and back yard. The computer generated renderings; while helpful in a very general sense, cannot be relied upon because our -house has quite a different configuration than that shown. Hence, there could be other inaccuracies. Loss of View: From both of our bedrooms and -from our patio and backyard we enjoy a view of trees both close and distant. Much of this view would be lost with a house next door with a 25 • foot roof line and built only eight feet from the property line. Instead, we will be looking at a large wall. Loss of Privacy: Ordinance 207 § 1(B) states, "The adoption of a Single Story Overlay District will implement various policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook by protecting the privacy of all existing dwellings, by minimizing the height, bulk and mass of any addition, remodel or reconstruction ..." On the second story of the proposed house north facing windows as well as those in the stairwell and the view from the second story deck would compromise our privacy. Soil Stability: The basement of the proposed house is only eight feet from the property line and our house is five feet from the line. In the Arborist's Report on page 2 under FINDINGS Tree #5 we find, "When considering atypical soil cut of five feet beyond the wall"(for a basement). This places excavation only eight feet from our house. We are concerned about our foundation cracking and/or our house settling. Safety Issue :Burns Way is a twenty foot wide right of way without sidewalks. If cars park on both sides of the street a fire engine can't pass. The greater the number of bedrooms a house has,. the greater is the likelihood for more cars. This project is for eight bedrooms. Where will all the cars be parked? Now and in the future? ~~I®©2® • • • • • Summary: During the thirty-six years that we have lived in the Burns/Marion neighborhood we have seen ten new houses constructed while almost every remaining house has undergone major remodeling. These constructions were done with care and sensitivity and preserved the charm which attracted most of our neighbors in the first place. We believe that the proposed project would be precedent setting and would contribute to undesirable change. We ask you, therefore, to deny this application and to urge the applicant to return with a single story proposal. Kurt Voester /~~~f~~.z~ l ~.~ . ~~ Barbara Voester ~~®®2~. R J L~ ~ L5 Chris Oosterhous To ty OCT 2 6.2004 • From Kurt Voester ciTV OF SARATOGA Date October 25, 2004 ~,~,~T., nc,~.,~ Subject Burgos recommendations dated 9/30/2004 1) reduce garage width by 2 ft move residence three foot toward south property line. Ivan's response: We are not going to do it. We have two SUVs. It is too inconvenient. However, we will move the house 1' 10" to the south. Kurt's comment: Current southern setback is 9' 10". They intend to move the house south 1' 10" to the minimum setback of 8'0". New northern setback would be 9' 10". ***************************************************************************** 2) reduce downstairs bedroom. #1 and porch by two feet each (this is the building line along the north property line). Ivan's response: Done. Kurt's comment: Now northern setback will be 11' 10". 3) consider hipped roo. flines instead of gable (examples in "a field guide to america houses" by virginia and lee mcalester copy at city hall for reviewing pgs 453-463.) • Iv~::'s response: George says that we can't do hips without redesigning the entire house. Nn~ti~E~er, George is "playing around".with a small part of the roof above the second floor WIC. 4) retain tree #26 including a substaintial portion of its canopy. the arborist is reviewing necessary revisions to retain tree #26 and its canopy we will need to see his report for specific revisions. it will be ready next week. This item was not discussed. 5) remove 2 ft from the building line along the north property line of the upper floor. Ivan's response: We are not going to do that. 6) revise the design of the 'pop out" WIC element to reduce bulk. Ivan's response: We are not going to reduce the size of the closet. 7) redesign rear deck to address privacy concerns. Ivan's response: There is a chimney flue blocking part of the view into your backyard. • ~~~~i 1 Kurt's comment: At the PC Study Session George said that designing a visual barrier would not present a problem. ***************************************************************************** 8) reduce overall height. Height does not meet the MCS 15-06.340 (see code language below). Topmost point of structure=506 (see cross section). Lowest point of lot at building corners=474 (see topo). Highest point of lot at building corners=480 (see topo). Average = 477. 506(topmost)-477(average)=29 ft. overall height Max height must be less than or equal to 26 ft. Ivan's response: George has reduced the height by 1'8" to 504'4". He cannot reduce the roof height any more. If he were to do that he would have to put on a flat roof and that would be architecturally unacceptable. The only other solution is to move the house forward 11'4". And you probably wouldn't like that. Talk with Christy to see whether 1'4" excess height can be approved with your support as "architectural *" .Otherwise we will move the house forward to reduce the average height. *He couldn't find the right word. Perhaps he was looking for style or integrity. Kurt's comment: It is hard to accept that George CAN'T find an additional 1'4" in a two story • house with a basement. Furthermore, Barb and I feel a sense of threat: either you support my roof height which is above code or I will move my house forward across you bedroom windows and one of your bathroom windows. Kurt's Summary Increase in northerly setback. The total of recommendations #1 and #2 is 5' which would make the setback on the northern boundary 13'. Recommendation #1 was rejected but a move of 1' 10" was substituted. Recommendation #2 was accepted so the total move is 3' 10". I now propose that the garage width be reduced by one foot, the house be moved south by one foot with the resulting northerly setback to be 12' 10". While less than the recommended 13', this result would be acceptable to Barb and me. (Note: The garage plans currently shows a work bench. Removing the work bench will narrow the garage without decreasing the area- used by the vehicles. This changes the argument from space for SUVs to having a work bench.) Reduction of bulk. Recommendations to decrease bulk, #3, #5, #6 and #8, were all rejected. I think that these recommendations need to be revisited since many of the PC members mentioned reducing the bulk. Certainly it can be done if there is a willingness on the part of the applicants. There is a slight bulk reduction by reducing BD #1 by the 2' suggested in recommendation #2. Back yard privacy. Recommendation #7. It appears that this will not be a problem. ~~~~ •• September 10, 2004 City Of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Planning Commission Ref: 14265 Burns Way (503-23-006) •• I have seen the plans for the proposed home and object to it for the following reasons: 1. The proposed house is 2 stories in a neighborhood of single story homes 2. The size in square feet is out of proportion to all of the houses around it 3. The potential traffic on Burns Way and Marion of this house. Both Burns Way and Marion Road are dead end streets. The traffic would need to traverse both streets. The house as proposed would dramatically change the character of the neighborhood. Sin , Phillip Doppe t 20659 Marion road Saratoga, CA l~C~~~U~ SEP 1 5 `~ 2004- CITY OF SAItATOGA •*~n~nTV nr.~rr.~ ~- • • s r' • • • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~Pl2,l L ' PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 `I" Z (0 5 $ i)l:'ti°,5 ~(/~-~{' Applicant Name: T V A N 6 it ~ G OS~` ~ N 6 E L /k P O LCA~ ~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 scone 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): P~~a-S~ seE A-rrr~ ~~ Neighbor Name: ~~I ~ 6f4R,13Pr~+1 VJ~S 1 EP.. Neighbor Address: NDR~µ~I.; P~vPE~`r~ Nii(T boon, TO kAPU CA nt?'s PRJf ~iC,T`~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~7- Zy Zi Signature: Printed: J ~ (~ ly I ~ l / K~1,~_T ~i~ ~ ~; ~~ MAY 14 2004 U C-TY OF SARATOGA "~MIiNI'1'V T1F\IFI n^' City of Saratoga Planning Department ®®®25 . ~ • • • The following concerns have been discussed with the applicant who says that they have been addressed. He cannot, however, assure me, to my satisfaction, that my concerns have been alleviated. I have been shown the plans on my dining room table and on the hood of his car but ~ need to make measurements, notes and sketches. Requests for further use of the plans to determine how the new buildings would affect my property have been denied. i I At present I have these concerns: 1. Loss of privacy 2. -Loss, of sunshine (light) 3. Loss of view 4. Soil stability when digging a basement only a few feet from my house foundation. ,~ ~~~~d ~ U MAY 14 2004 C1TY OF SA~TOGA . ~eAlIN1TV nFVF~ ~'^' r :i~i~~2~ •• •• • • ~J Kristen Borel Planning Department City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA ~y i~ ~~ Subject: The Burgos-Pollard plans for Burns Road Dear Ms. Borel, I am writing in regards to the Burgos-Pollard plans (Burns Way property) that have been submitted for review to the Planning department. My husband and I are long time residents (15 years this summer) of the Marion Road /Burns Way neighborhood. Our property, 20640 Marion Rd, is part of the same "block parcel " as the Burgos- Pollard property; we are two residences away and one over (see attached diagram.) While we support the rights of property owners to improve their homes and related property, we respectively object to the plans that have been submitted for your review. We object on two grounds. First, we believe a two story home is out of place in our area of the neighborhood. The homes in our "block parcel" are all single story homes with smaller yet private yards. -From my back-yard I can see the roof lines of 5 of the six homes (not including my own) that are in the "block parcel". If any of those homes was to add a second story my privacy, views, and potentially my sunlight would be afffected. At present I have complete privacy in my yard. This is one of the reasons why we purchased our home and continue to live here. I understand that this is definitely an issue for the Voesters, who have the property directly adjacent to the Burgos-Pollard residence and would be the most immediately impacted. Longer term, I am concerned that allowing a two story property to be built will set a precedent for future development of the existing neighboring properties. While two story homes may be appropriate in other areas of Saratoga, the homes in the Marion- Burns road area are too close to allow the building of two -story homes while maintaining one's privacy and the expansive open feeling that is a part of the neighborhood's character. Second, I believe a home the size of the residence proposed by the Burgos- Pollard plan does not fit with our neighborhood. Most of the homes in the area are in the the 2000-3000 square foot range. The need for a sufficiently sized house to accommodate one's family is important; however a house that is 2+ times the average neighborhood residence (not counting the proposed guesthouse) does not seem compatible with the existing types of structures on our street. ,'' ~~~ d U MAY 1 9 :2004 MAY ~~~®2~_ C1TY OE SARA ~ ~~^ -~~MIM1~' 11F,VF~ ~`... - •• •• On a side note, there are two related issues affecting the Marion Road-area which should be taken into consideration when reviewing proposed new development. First, Marion and Burns are dead end streets that together contain at least 25 residences--with a sole exit onto Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. This is a tree and vegetation rich area that is part of a designated fire zone. It is my understanding that the fire department has decreed that no additional residences may be built on the street due to the fire hazard associated with the vegetation and single exit situation. One must ask the question whether larger homes and secondary guest house residences are relevant to these fire hazard concerns. The second .issue has to do with water pressure and- flow. Our neighborhood is notorious for its low (and deteriorating) water pressure. The pressure at my house is below 30 PSI. Does water availability factor into the decision to allow larger homes and the resulting greater density of housing into our neighborhood? In closing, I want to communicate that the Marion/ Burns road neighborhood is a wonderful place. It has as a mix of small and larger properties, a large orchard, a working farm and historical homes that date back to the turn of the twentieth century. It is a child and neighbor friendly community. If you visit our neighborhood you come away with- the feeling that you've visited a special place with its own unique charm and character. This charm. is too valuable too lose, especially in light of the loss of Saratoga's open space and the "suburbification" of our older neighborhoods. Care must be taken when- remodeling or rebuilding so that our neighborhood character remains intact. While I support their efforts to remodel their existing residence, I feel that the proposed Burgos-Pollard plans are not in keeping with that character. Is it possible that they could.consider a one story home that does not encroach on other's privacy or affect the overall ambiance of the neighborhood? Many of us have remodeled our homes over the -years and have taken that consideration into account as we expanded and updated our homes. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Anne Bachtold ( ~ Jim Renalds \ Address: 20 40 Marion Rd Home Phone 408 1-4928 (e~ Email: abachtold @appde~f.com jrenalds@att.net • ~~ U r~ ~~®~~~3 .. 4 v 0 M ~,,,,~,~DS -~P~d~a~r~ ~~~~~~ ~o~~~ ~~` ~ s • vole Nafi ~f ~~ •M ~~ -~v 5 ca.( ~--~ ~, . ~®®®~ ~/~9--~ ~ oiv ~ ~ ,~~ ~6~BY~~• u- JUN 1 5 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA ""11~1IU1Ty IIFVFI n"" Saratoga Planning Department Attn: Ms C. Oosterhous •• June 15, 2004 20731 Marion Road Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Details on concerns for proposed development at 14265 Burns Ave. Applicant name: Ivan and Angela Burgos The following comments on concerns for their proposed development have been discussed in a friendly, constructive manner with the applicants with alternatives suggested. Unfortunately; the applicants did not give neighbors a chance to offer comments during a preliminary phase as recommended previously by the Saratoga City Council at the conclusion of the last permit review for development of this property. I am a professional Civil engineer in State of California with over 30 years experience in design of facilities including extensive experience in design for fire prevention and fire fighting. My family has lived several generations on Marion Road for over 80 years and we respect the heritage of our community and the well being of our neighbors. Let's keep this review in perspective to two previous development proposals.by different applicants. All-had major impact to the neighbor on north side of property. The present proposal is bigger than any of the other proposals and did not_learn from the lessons on former reviews. By bigger, I am referring from a fire evaluation point of view to the total square footage of two stories and full basement in the proposed house plus a proposed structure and covered bridge across the ravine. The structural total appears to be order of magnitude 6,000 sq. ft. exposed to fire not counting house area of closely adjacent neighbor on north side nor the dense woods that could catch fire. Two major concerns were discussed with the applicants during our review of their proposed drawings. My comments concerned fire impact from the limited existing fire water hydrant system and my comments .mentioned concern for major impact on the neighbor on north side of property. The latter could have been greatly mitigated with alternative layout of facilities if time had been allowed for early .review. Fire impact issues: 1. Hydrant fire flow at 20 psi pressure on this branch line only averages about 400 to 450q~~tn~This is a serious matter and does not even. meet the code minimum. recommended flow of 1,000 gpm required for single family houses less than 3,600 sq. ft. 2. The proposed house is bigger than 3600 sq ft when counting full basement for fire considerations. If house is less than or equal to 4800 sq ft then code requires 1750 gpm. Fire Dept. may consider half of this if full approved sprinkler • • r~ U ~~®®a~~ - •~ •• system but this still requires 875 gpm. Only one half of this is available through hydrant so how can a permit be issued for this size house? It should be smaller. 3. The proposed drawings showed less than 8 ft. on north side wall to neighbor's fence. -The roof extended past wall to near fence. Concern is for fire carrying over to neighbor's house. There is not enough hydrant fire water flow to cover one house let alone two houses. This puts neighbor at risk. The set back spacing should be increased to mitigate fire danger to neighbor. 4. The proposed development includes a building on West side of ravine in a densely wooded area. This building adds fire risk to closely spaced trees than can carry fire a great distance quickly up or down the west side of ravine. No access is available to Fire Department. This building should not be there. Major neighbor impact issues on north side: The proposed layout completely cuts off the southern view of mountains by neighbor on north side. The proposed 2 story layout puts a gable roof facing north which puts neighbor's back yard and garden into shade from about 10am through rest of day. The impact of this could have been reduced if applicant had considered alternatives in layout. The garage could have been on opposite side to lower profile. The gable off main roof should not extend to property line on north side which cuts off sun. 2. The depth of excavation to provide basement is of concern to neighbor on north side because of close spacing. to neighbor's wall. This excavation may cause settlement or cracking of neighbor's house. 3. The proposed house has limited size garage which does not seem consistent with 8 bedroom house. Concern is for vehicles parked on narrow street. Relevant issues for applicant: 1. The ravine width has increased considerably over the last 30 years because of deep scour and because of changing curvature of creek during storms. Applicant was advised of this: The rear of their proposed house is very close to ravine and may be in danger of undermining during severe storms. 2. The same comment applies to the foundation for proposed bridge that crosses the ravine. It is my opinion that applicant could have learned from past permit reviews if they had followed City Council advice to meet with neighbor on north side and "work it out over the kitchen table" before permit review. I hope the above comments may be considered constructive and that we can maintain a good relation with applicant as neighbors. Gary Campbell Cc: Hal Netten, Saratoga Fire Dept. ~~0~3~. •• •• Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: u ~ e 1 2 ~4- PROJECT ADDRESS: l~- 2 fo S ~ V~~S A•/E t 5~~~ TO G/F ~ CA, 9S~7a Applicant Name: S v A n! k~ ~ Lb.~J 6 E L i4 J"3 v 2 6 0$ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 ow certi s the follo g: I have re wed the pr ' ct plans; _ understand th co a of w rk• and I do OT have a concerns o issues w ' h need to be addr s by the a licant prior the City's blic hearin n the pro sed 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 p~E~tE SFr ~ attach additional sheets if necessary): i " t~J p M A ~ o''~ W^~ ~ ER'~S CAS-r~rr~ SET?E~, DoE S E~ctST~~-y p'+~er +FYt7rt,i-'~-' 1 SysTf^1 n~oT ~+E~ T GaDt:' (2Ewv1~2~Zn'~i;^'~. `~ 13Y GhfTJ/Z o~ ~ ^~ C~Gi{ , ~-2F ;••, s+zE of P~of'oSbD ~EVF1.o~'rfc• ~~ pi2oPoS~ ~~v~'Lop-ti~NT ,c,Jvy~n cr-,1Se~ r+~-J~ /~+~Ae- o'~ ~c ~s7 J4t~N r ~r~Avlji?oR on, n-o~TN tiDr Qy l?~ocK-~~ Sum ~ ~ov.a~Jb VJE...t ~+7 I3'Y ADD•.-( R+SK~~<<.s~~y S~A~E9 -flb~Se IF ~'/ACCT. Neighbor Name: ~A-/zY .A•~1D J+~"~ c~ M t'!JE'~. t-,. Neighbor Address: Zo7 3~ /yt~AJ2/~.J rQo.~) Sq Q~ ; d G•4 ~ Gs}, Neighbor Phone #: $~ 7 ~ 3 3 2 7 Signature: Printed: ~1.2y L, G9MPBr1,L City of Saratoga Planning Department ~®~®~2 • ~~ •• •• Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: c'- - /S - o ~ _ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~ 2: ~ ~ ~~-~'~.i G~ Applicant Name: ~~"'''t ~ • oS r ~'t - ~ ~(- ( r Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 scone 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): ~., • Neighbor Phone ~~G ~ ~- S ~C ~ Printed: f2~~~ v ~~ J ~ ~ Planning Department ®®®®a~ Neighbor Name: ~ ~f~ ~-t ~ S ~ ~vl~~~ `~ ~ ~~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~f C ~ O X ~ i ~ G~ ~o~ ~i /LIi~~~ ~~a ~J ~~~ ~i~ ~~ ~~ _ ~ A. Signs 5/18/04 • • • Response to the Neighbor Notification for Develpment Applications Proposed new home 14265 Burns Way, Ivan Burgos and Angela Pollard The proposed 2 story home.with guest cottage and basement level, is not compatible with the Marion Rd/Burns ne~hborhood where we have resided since 1988. 1. There are no two story homes on Burns Way. (There is a small, historic water tower containing one room on the corner lot of Burns Way and Marion). 2. There are only 3. two story homes (out of a total of 21). on Marion Rd., one of which is very small and of a historical nature,Victorian style. 3. The immediate neighbors, the Voersters, may be affected adversely with their home being over shadowed much of the day. We were told by Ivan and Angela, that the proposed home would be 70-80 feet back from Burns Way, and "behind", the Voerster home. Because there no numbers on the plans we were shown, the setbacks may or may not have been to scale. The proposed guest cottage may also impact the Renalds family's home. Has the architect done a plan that shows the angles of the sun during the different seasons, and the effect on the Voersters and the Renalds light? 4. ,The Burns Way/Marion Rd. neighborhood would be adversely affected by a two-story home. EverXone currently enjoys the view of the hills while driving, walking, etc., on the streets. A two-story home would impede the vista that is currents enjoyed by everyone, and possibly lead to increased development in our idyllic neighborhood. 5. The guest cottage, being across a creek is not quickly accessible in the event of fire. The architect is refering to the creek as a "ravine". It is our understanding this is a creek that flows with-water run-off from the hills. Is the area behind the creek considered a buildable area by the city? • 6. The Burgos -have expressed to us, they do not intend at this time, to rent out the cottage. But, is there any additional parking required for a guest cottage? We did not see any additional parking in the rear by the cottage, and how could that be accessed? Can Burns Way support the increased traffic a potential rental unit could generate in the future? 7. Could the lower level, (basement) that is being proposed, be expanded. to meet the homeowners needs? We realize they are allowed a substantial amount of square footage. However, it may not have to be a 2 story that is not compatible with other homes in the neighborhood and on their street. 8. Our neighborhood has had many remodels, additions, and rebuilds by residents who were sensitive to the special quality of our neighborhood. We do have a unique mix of styles, ages, lot sizes and square footage of homes in our neighborhood. Perhaps. the one unifying factor in our neighborhood is the "one-story" syle. We ourselves took that into consideration when we planned the rebuilding of our home. We knew of the previous 2 story home proposals in 1991 and 1997, have been strongly opposed by many of current residents on both Burns Way and Marion Road. 9. We realize that the Burgos family needs their home rebuilt. We have expressed our concerns with both Evan and Angela and still believe that aone-story plan could meet their needs. Has there been a rendering of a single story home by their architect? Has the one story option been seriously considered? Thank you, Mr. and Mrs: James Payne PO Box 2126 / 20631 Marion Rd Saratoga CA 95070-0126 408-741-5401 Please use the new mailing (PO Box 2126) for all correspondence. ®034 r~ ~J cc: Saratoga Planning Department ,, •~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications r • • PROJECT ADD SS: ~ _I ~~v.~ -' Gam' S~t~~~- Applicant Name: ~ ~1 C~ QS P,~ /"~ ~/~-f'~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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. My signature below certifies the follow' reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and have issues or conce s, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been a are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ,~'~ u ~ . 'spy' Neighbor Address: TT__ ~n~2 r'1ar•i~on ~. .~l1YGf•}~~~_9 5~7~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~~ 7-°~~,5~ _ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga u~ MAY 1 4 2004 U Planning DepartmjY DF SARATOGA N1TV i1FVFl !~"' ~~~~~~. •• •• •i What is it that appeals to people when they _ contemplate moving into a new neighborhood? -- pleasant surroundings,. the proximity of neighbors, privacy, etc. Construction of a large two-story home at 14265-Burns Way in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. does away with the conformity of all of the existing homes on Burns Way." As a concerned neighbor, I feel that building this large home would-interfere with the pristine views of the surrounding hills and trees, in addition to adversely affecting the privacy of surrounding neighbors. ~~`- ~~~~ ~ ` ~~ U MAY ~ 4 2p04 CITY OF SARATOGA • enA1 RJ1'f V nFVF~ r~~'. i= • ~~~336 i ~,t C~i.w~ J v1J~~~t-~t.G~:ly~ • • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~i'1- U~ PROJECT ADDRESS: J `~' Z- ~ ~ $ ~~ ~'~~ ~~ Applicant Name: .T Y ~ hi ~ U~: G OS ~ ~ N 6 E L ~ P ? 1.1.A~'-~7 Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant,-have not been addressed My concerns are the foIlowirig (please attach additional}sheets if necessary): ~Q. ~.Qi ~.Lf L~Yi /W~ I'~ft'1[~~ttt.'2~ ~3i.+ ~~~LD lys~ (.c-y[L~i-•. / r2Ca:~ rH6~7 /'ry,~fsvl-71P~ l ~ ~ Cd/I/J G:c~ jpa. ca~_°Cyf.r, `~~ .~ua~~ . Gt~.,t Gt~.c. /-r~~riZ..1 ~i~'G- Se~ Lrti !~ it¢cy ~t{,f~ .s~a>:. ;.~,t ~ .a .tom ~ ~ ,~~~-try. Gw, Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ~ ~ V / GiC y L--u m Neighbor Address: o2L~~G~ i ~a~tan~ Rt7 ~~R:~-c ~-,~ ;~ ~ ~ K-y~ ~, ~. ~ L~C~L~~dl~ III U MAY 2 4 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA "EMI INITV nRVFI ~^• Neighbor Phone #: `I i% ~1 ° ~[:~ ~ -GL: 3 c~ S~~ture~; --~_.. ---~- Printed: Rat y /.-~c.---. v~ ~Y ~ ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~®®~~ ~~ • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 5 a i ~,/ PROJECT'ADDRESS: ~ I Z~D~ ~~ Applicant Name: d ~~"~ ~~~~~ ~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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. Sta, f~`~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 Ciry of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone 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 scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are .the following (please a h additional sheets if necessary): -- - . ~ 4 FUC~; f . ~ (( C''(7i~i f ~7 ~; iii ~'1 'i~ )~'l ~~ ~_ ~~rYJ~~ S ~~ ~ Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: /' ~b51~~ . ~~ ~~- IZ l O (~/ ~ _f ~~ 7~~ ~ ~-~~ Neighbor Phone #: Printed: • City of Saratoga Planning Department .~~~~~~ •• •• Neighbor~`Notification Template for • _ ~ Development Applications i Date: ` % ~~c_:- ~ ~'~ PROJECT RESS: ~ `L6j ~v~~~ ~~ ~ c~~Z V ' ~-~-, r Applicant Name: ~v ~~ ~3~ 26 ©1 ~ n ~e .Ia ~1 ~m,~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 scone 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 scone 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): .~.--- Neighbor Name: T/?~~~ ~E / ~j,-1,; 1 / 2 ~, ~ +~, ~IAY 4 2004 Neighbor Address: CITYOF °`' ~ ~~ '~Y' L~C`~l-c~~ ~FVELOPMprrT ~-° fix. ~~ ~' e - Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ _{ - ~ `~ . Signature: ~-: Printed: 'T .E City of Saratoga Planning Department=~~® . c; !~ •• Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • Date: S 6 ~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 ~l 2- ~' ~ '~~t{tS Wa-~ , ~ c~~ra~'d~G ~ GH ~(So Applicant Name: Zy k1N ~ v rq~~ ~ Qriq ~. ~A ~o l ~G (~7 Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 scone 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 scone 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): ~~Q ~ ~G~'Y ~S Neighbor Name: v ~~~,`'v r 1 Neighbor Address: 11-1' ~ ~ Q~~_9 C~~`-~"P,~' jar L- ~/ - 3 ~~} t~~~---~t~_ Neighbor Phone #. G,y 7 Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~~~~ •• •• r~ L~ • • DAVID A. BELSHAW, MD JANINE BELSHAW PO BOx 456 $ARATOGA, CA 9507 i -408-867-9443 June 10, 2004 To: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed plans for 14265 Burns Street Applicant names: Ivan Burgos, MD, Angela Pollard, MD We hereby, as joint tenants of 14240 Springer Avenue, an adjacent property to -the above sited address under application #04-133, have no objections to the proposed improvements to the property assuming the following: There are no unusual property line variances, encroachments, uses beyond the normal or any uses that wilt require special permits and/or applications. If there are any circumstances that require any public or private discussion,-this agreement shall cease to be valid. This letter is to be used as a substitution to the pre-printed "neighbor notification template for development applications" that was signed by David A. Belshaw, previously. This memo is being submitted appropriately as a joint tenant response. i rel , D vi .Belshaw - - ,~ J ine Belshaw Joint tenants ~ ~~~o~~ JUN 1 4 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA `~MI)N1TV nFVFI n,,. ®~®®~i • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • 3 a~ Date: ~'~,~~~ , PROJECT ADDRESS: /~I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ c ; ~~ i S ~~ Applicant Name: ~~ ~d~-' ti ~~- ~~° /~~" A` Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 scone 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 scone 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): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~p;'{~~_~ ~ /-~, Neighbor Phone #: ~~ - ~ ~r Signature: Printed: .~~ ~~ ~7~ n~~~ ~l City of Saratoga Planning Department v s~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ .Z Z O PROJECT ADDRESS: ~4 ~ ~ S ~t~v115 ~a ~ . Sara~Ju~ ~ ~ Applicant Name: ~ ~~ iJ ~ ~' ~ 6 cz5 ~» -- lp ~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 Sarato__~- 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 projec 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): Neighbor Name: ~ H J , r ~ fal~' ~ Neighbor Address: ~ J/ ~~~ b/ ~ 24~J~ybb~ L.O~i/rt r~ City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #:C y° ~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~~~ ~' Printed: Planning Department ~~®®~~ • ., Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications _~ ~ .Z-~ ~ PROJECT ADDRE S: ~ 1 ~ 2 6 S ~~ TrtS ~vA~ ~-'~~ `i `~ ~ ~-- ~ 5 ~ Applicant Name: ~ JAN ~t'~6y j I ~n~ e.~i ~~ t~~r~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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. Ivly 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): Neighbor Name: ~c° =~ :• 1 d h n S f o~ Neighbor Address: ~~~61~ l~mn~w~c~ Z.a-i,~,~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~U ~ / ~ ~ ~ - 2 3SS Signature: Printed: ~ L~ ( ~Y __r__~ • • • City of Saratoga Planning Department • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: i' ~ ~~ C ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: l ~ 2' ~' J ~~t?"I'll c.~Jq..~ Applicant Name: ~U~ ~: faf g ~ ,~ 'A~"cl (~* ~Q L~G~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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. Sta, fj'•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 scone 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 scone 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): (~ ~P p C, t e ~ ~` 5`~~ ~ ~.S r"T-f 64 ~ "(G~ tS ~ P~ ~ i C~~; aty Neighbor Name:..1~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -S 0 ~( Neighbor Address: X06 Z ~ /?~ f9" r~ r ~ (~~ ~ ]7 sa~~~G~ Signature: V~J ~/1~ City of Saratoga 7~ Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~~~ ~~ S( 1,~9 (L, S o ~` Planning Departure ~~®®,~ • # Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: Z O~, PROJE T ADDRESS: ti 4 Z G 5 ~ crrYt.J ~~+Y Applicant Name: ~V ~rN ~c-2 (df / ~'r1 a t~ a Po l Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 scone 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 scone 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): s Neighbor Name: ~~~. ~ A ~ li~ n„ 1~ 7C~ -w ,. . Neighbor Address: -_ -~eL-~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: City ofSaratoga ~ Planning Departmen' -.~~®~~~ .- Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ 3 ~ PROJECT ADDRESS:.- , ~ ZG5 ~c1rr1S ~~ Applicant Name: S~1Cn_~ I~l ~''~IOS ~ ~l Y~~i °t.~Ci I"d ~ ~AN G~.. Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 fo 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. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone 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): Neighbor Name: =~ ~ ~f e~ercrr-~~ C~~1Yt~SoIJ Neighbor Address: ~~ ~ Q+~l ~1 ~ .~ ~ ~ D Neighbor Phone #: C / ~~J ~~ ~ ~ IO~S Signature: • Printed: ! l ~ ~-dro4~P7N City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~®~~ • • Neighbor Notification Template for f 3 ~ ®~ Development Applications Date: ~ I ' f 2 L5 1 PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ `t ~ t"'~J ~~~ Applicant Name: -~-y-31J ~:;,~v~ I ~ ~ ~ EQ. ~ ~~ f e Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 th ate and communicate it to the 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 b.~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 scone 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): Neighbor Name: ~~ ~ ~1Y\ ~ 9. ~0~~ . Neighbor Address: i ~ ;~ ~~ . Nei bor Phone #: ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Signa ~ Printed: ~, C ~ ~~ i City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~®~~$~. • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: Z~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ rI ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Applicant Name: ~~ ~ ~~ 6} l ~~'"1~ Y r ~ ~~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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. Stafj~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 scone of work; and I do NOT Gave 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 scone of works 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): Nei bor Name: - ~L ~~ ~ V `~~'~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~~~ (~ $- ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ SSA -] - `L LC `~'~ S Printed: S ~ ~-~~~ ~ ~~L~~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~';®~ << Neighbor Notification Template for i Development Applications Date: ~ l d - n PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ 2 6 ~ ~`'{'~~ ~'`~ Applicant Name: ~~ ~ ~ ~/ c~ (~~ ~ J 1 ~~ ~i -~~ 'Y~ ~ ~~ V~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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 alt 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. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; L 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): Neighbor Name: Neigph~bor Address: ~ u ~T ~~ Nei hbor Phone #: ~~%/ ~ ~~~? g Printed: • City of Saratoga Planning Department c ._ r Neighbor Nottficatton Template. for Development Applications • Date: ~ I ~ ~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ Z ~ ~~'~' ~ ~ Applicant Name: ~~ ~,n ~~~~ a ~1 ~~ ~~. ~dt ~""'~ " Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants 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 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. 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): Neighbor Name: ~ e ~ ~ ~ `~ ~a fe Yvt ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ ~ a Z i~ Neighbor Address: ~~v~31 ~UrviS WQ~,~ ~GtrGt~o~a C~ °/S G'7Z~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ ~ g ~ L - t t ~ ~ Signature: • Printed: i. City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~~~ • Attachment 2 • ~t~~®~~ • ` - ---- . __ .....___...~ D ! s ~ ~~_,c • ~~ ~-- .~ ~.,~__ f ~~ .~ ~ s T. ~~~ ~yy,~~.,cP~-C /s~~ _ _ ~~ F E B~ 5 2005 L . aTti~ of sa~ro~" ~~~®5~ ~~I~~Ui ~I) The Pollard-Burgos Family J F E B 1 5 2005 v 14265 Burns Way • Saratoga, CA 95070 ciTY of snwaTOC ~ February 14, 2005 . Dear Saratoga Planning Commissioners, Since our Study Session with the Planning Commission on September 22, 2004, we have been working diligently with city staff to implement the recommendations from that meeting. -You gave us general guidelines: i.e. to attempt. move the house further away from our northern neighbors; and to reduce the "bulkiness of the northernmost wall. However you were also very explicit stating that we did not need to "redesign the house." On 9/30/04, Christy Oosterhous sent us an e-mail explicitly delineating the changes necessary to "reduce bulk and mass" (see a-mai19/30/04 subject "revisions burns way"). In addition, for the first time in the five months during which the planning department had been reviewing our plans, Ms. Oosterhous stated that the house height did not meet code. As a result of this late discovery, we have been making substantial changes to meet code and to sufficiently reduce bulk and mass. The latest revision of the plans goes well beyond the changes discussed during the -study session. Now the design calls for a Craftsman style home that from the front of the house is only 23 feet in height. A small portion of the house is now located 11' 10" away from our neighbors to the north. This is almost a 50% increase in the required setback. Most of our house is set back behind the Voester's house and 109' 2" away from the street. Ms. Oosterhous made the following recommendations, and we have addressed them in the following manner: "Reduce garage width by 2 feet..." The square footage of the garage is only 467 s.f. Due to the size of our family we have two large SUV's. When we placed both these cars in an area equivalent to the reduced recommended space, we discovered that we were unable.to fully open the car doors: In addition we have no additional space in which to park the children's' bicycles. We choose not to reduce the width of the garage, as we need this space to make the garage functional for our family's needs. 2. "Reduce downstairs bedroom #1 and porch by 2 feet each." Done. This change essentially made the setback between our house and our northern neighbor 2 feet wider.- - 3. "Consider hipped rooflines instead of gable." We had many discussions with our architect, Mr. George Wittman, prior to changing the roof. Due to the need to meet city code, we decreased-the height of the roof by three feet. From the. front of the street the highest point of the roof is now only 23 feet. We accomplished this reduction in part by decreasing the slope of the roof. The slope is now very low. We felt that changing the roof lines to a hipped roof would completely ~~~~ change the character of the design and would be less in line with a contemporary Craftsman style. In addition, we felt that we would not gain much in terms of further being able to reduce bulk. To implement the recommended changes would only serve to further compromise the architectural integrity ofthe house. 4. "Retain tree #26 including a substantial portion of its canopy." We have no objection to keeping this tree. We may only need to cut a few of the branches to clear space for the roof. By moving the house an additional 1' 10" away from the neighbors, we may now have enough space to be able to retain the tree. 5. "Remove 2 feet from the building line along the north property line of the upper floor. During the study session, the recommendation of the commissioners was to make some changes to the master bedroom wall to reduce the perception of bulk. Our architect redesigned that portion of the house. He changed the gable roof design to a lower sloped shed design. The gabled roof over the master bedroom/ closet was pulled back 2'-3" and a lover sloped shed roof was added over this portion of the closet. By doing so, he managed to lower the outer most projection of the roof by 4 feet compared to the original design. 6. Revise the design of the pop out WIC element to reduce bulk: See above comment #5. In addition, a wall mounted wood trellis was added to the closet wall facing the north property line to enhance the northern facing elevation. 7. "Redesign rear deck to address privacy concerns." Done. The chimney flue adjacent to the master bedroom deck was widened to further obstruct views of the northern neighbor's rear yard. 8. "Reduce overall height...."Done. As mentioned in the above comments, to meet code we needed to drop the roof height by three feet. This decrease was accomplished by decreasing the pitch of the roof, by sinking the first floor deeper into the basement, and by reducing the entrance ceiling to eight feet. This was done after several communications with Ms. Oosterhous regarding the various options available to us to comply with the maximum average height requirement of 26 feet. We were discouraged to move the house forward to meet compliance. We ended up reducing the pitch of the roof to a degree that maybe aesthetically detrimental. We have been in constant communication with our planner, Ms. Oosterhous, through meetings and numerous e-mails, updating her on our ongoing revisions. We recently had a lengthy communication involving the necessity of story poles. We had been under the impression that story poles would not be required for this project due to comments by various commissioners during the September meeting. We agreed to place the poles after Mr. Livingstone related that numerous neighbors had expressed a desire to have the poles. ~~~~~~ Ms. Oosterlrous two weeks ago brought to our attention her impression that the western part of the project was bulky. We were very surprised by this revelation, since it was never shared with us during the previous 10 months, and because this is a view which can only be visualized from our own property. After a lengthy discuss with Ms. Oosterhous, we decided to generate more detailed elevations. Since then we noticed that there are large oak trees which will- cover most of the rear view of the house, making this portion of the project viewable only from the middle of our creek. We have continued to update our neighbors on the revisions to the plans. We have offered on several occasions to discuss the changes with the Voesters, who have received an updated set of the plans. More recently we have received from the city engineer a copy of the city geologist peer reviev~r report. In this report they are asking us to provide an updated topographic map. VVe have spoken to our land surveyor. He has set the points for the story poles and has taken other elevations near the creek bed to better delineate the topography. We are working with a consultant geologist and civil engineer to provide further geotechnical details: We have also been recently asked to contact the Fish and Game Department to find out if we require a permit from them. We will be doing so. It is our hope that this letter provides you with more information about the process tluough ti;~hich we have been going. We ask you to review a-mails and communications we have had with our city planner. This is not intended as matter of complaint, but-more as away to help you understand how we amved at the design. changes which have been made. We leave been watchuig some of the recent public hearings and have heard you discuss upcoming meetings with the city council regarding early and continued commissioner's involvement in the application process. This is certainly something we wish was already in place. The study session was very helpful to us for setting the direction of changes to be made. Thank you again for faking the time to review our project. We would welcome you to contact us to discuss our project further or our thoughts about the application process in general. Sincerely,- Angela Pollard Ivan Burgos ~~a--~ • ~~~~rJ~ Page 1 of 2 From: Ivan Burgos [iburgos@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:15 PM To: Christy Oosterhous Cc: Tom Sullivan; George Subject: Re: story poles and height Christy, We are very disappointed with your decision not to give us the 5 inches height exception to preserve architectural integrity. You may consider all the reasons you listed below, but the truth of the matter is that the overall height of the proposed structure is now 23', 5" which is quite low for a two story Craftsman style home design. We cannot further reduce the pitch of the roof or further sink the house into the ground or attempt to reduce the height of the walls. To do this it would compromise the design and functionality of the house. In regards to the story poles, we understand the reasons why they may be beneficial. However we understand that they are not "routinely required " in the code as you previously wrote. In addition, we would like to reiterate that during the design review study session with the planning commissioners, you only gave us few days notice to place the story poles. Despite this we came up with a solution and placed pvc pipes at the corners showing the location of the house and respective heights and maximal height. The planning commissioners during their visit to the • site noticed this and seemed satisfied. You suggested back then to have formal story poles before the public hearing. Mr. M. Garakani Mr. M. Garakani specifically expressed that it would be too late by that point and therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, during the meeting the following day, the recommendations put forward by the planning commissioners did not include putting story poles. We also are frustrated at the slow pace of progress on this project. We initially turned in the plans to you in May 6, 2004. It seems extraordinary that it would take this long to go thru the design review process. You may imagine the financial consequences of further delay, not to mention our need to complete the project as soon as possible due to the demands of our growing family. We agree with you that this project should be in front of the commission at the latest by March. At the study session, the recommendations by the commissioners involved only a few small changes. However, the scope of the required modifications has grown over the last several months. We have quickly replied to all of your recommendations and have attempted to meet the code requirements. As you may recall, the initial design review meeting was delayed three months by you to accommodate the vacation schedule of our retired neighbors. The other delay has been due to dealing with the average height requirements, a miscalculation which -was missed by you for over 5 months. At the time of the study session everyone looked at the house as 26 feet in maximal height. We have dropped that height by 2' 7" after finding out few days after the meeting that we did not meet average height requirements. We cannot drop it any further. The only alternative we have left is to move the house forward by approximately 2 feet. This would be the simplest and most practical change. However, during previous conversations with you, you stated you could not allow us just move the house forward on the lot because it would go against the initial design for which recommendations were given during the study session. . You must acknowledge the thought that was put into the design of the house to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. We moved the house back as far as we could on the lot to deal with the privacy and views issues previously discussed at length. We have further moved the house away from the neighbors, increasing by 50% the setbacks from the required 8 ft to now 12 ft. We 2/15/2005 ~~~®S~ Page 2 of 2 have made changes to meet everyone's needs. The height concession we asked from you was mainly to avoid moving the house forward and closer to the Voester's. We felt that this was a • small concession you grant not only to us, but to our neighbors, the Voester's. By avoiding moving the house forward, there will be less of an impact on them from this row shorter and narrower structure. We wonder if you have had any communication with the planning commissioners about all the changes- that are taking place in our design, which I'm sure goes beyond their expectations. If not, shouldn't you? We feel that we have reached an impasse in the design modifications and are having difficulty meeting code. At this point we are requesting a meeting with-Tom Sullivan and- would like to know how-to schedule such a meeting. Please tell us how to schedule such a meeting so that we may expedite the remainder of this process. Thank you, Angela and Ivan • _/ ~~~~ • • • Deaz Saratoga Planning Commission, L5 ~1 ~ ~ U' 6 5tP 1 5 V ZOfl4 CITY OF SARATOGA 'SRI I~IITV nC\IC1 r^- We, the Pollard-Burgos family, are trying to build a house to raise our children, and we aze having a very difficult time doing it. Apparently this is nothing new to our particulaz property. There appears to be adeep-seated prejudice against the development of our property. However, we are committed to building our family a new home on this property, and would like to work with you to do so. We moved to Sazatoga in 1998 when we bought our first home on Sixth Street. We were both freshly out of medical residencies and had asix-month old son, Gabriel. I was raised in Monte Sereno, and knew I wanted to return to the azea to start our family. Many generations of my family have been in the area, both families contributing greatly to the development of the South Bay. Ivan had lived primarily in Southern California during his adulthood and took a little convincing to move north. However, with his first visit to the azea he was convinced. After little more than two years on Sixth Street we had outgrown our house. By then we had a little girl, Siobhan, and I was pregnant with our third child. We began to look for our next home. When we discovered our current house on Bums Way, we had mixed feelings. We absolutely loved the property location, close to town, at the- end of a quiet cul-de-sac, and surrounded by large trees. Also my cousins, Kirch and Shazon DeMartini have lived one block away for nearly forty years. However, the house was in very poor repair, the weeds created an impregnable jungle, and the yazd was filled with several generations of hazardous waste. We knew it would take much work to make it livable and safe for our growing family, but thought it would be worth the effort. So, we started to fix up the yazd and house, I had baby number three, bouncing boy Daniel, and we all moved in. That was over two years ago. We thought we should live in the house for a while to get a better feel for the lot before building another home. Besides, we have been a little busy. I have been the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Community Hospital of Los Gatos-Saratoga and have a busy private medical practice. Ivan has been an attending physician in the Emergency Room at Santa Claza County Valley Medical Center, teaching residents from Stanford University and treating trauma patients. He also has been working in the Emergency department of Los Gatos. In addition to this, we had the addition of baby number four, daughter Julia, eight months ago. Early during my pregnancy we realized that four children could not live in one small bedroom forever, and that we needed to move forward on the new home. Another reason we took longer than expected to produce plans for the house was that we were intimidated by some neighbors. We did not know anything of the attempts to build on this property prior to purchasing it. Our real estate agent, Steve Cooper of Coldwell Bankers, had failed to disclose any details of the difficulties the Jayakumar family had with their plans for a new house. He had mentioned that the Jayakumars were planning to build a house, had azchitect plans produced, but then changed their minds and withdrew their plans, choosing instead to rent out the existing house and to build elsewhere on a larger lot. He required us to pay an additional $10,000 for these plans. We first found out ~~~~ y~ about some of these difficulties several weeks after we moved in and met our neighbors, the Voesters. They greeted us with, "Hello, nice to meet you. I hope you aren't going to try and build a large home like the last owners." This was quite a shock. We hadn't decided what sort of home we planned on building, but we knew it had to be adequate for our burgeoning family. We thought that should be no problem given the size of the lot was neazly 30,000 sf. The Voesters-then suggested we contact Steve Cooper and a lawyer to immediately get our money back for non-disclosure. We could not possibly believe that building the home would be as difficult as the Voesters' implied. Since we loved the property's location, we decided to proceed with planning of the building. Based on the Voesters' comments we did reseazch the history on the lot. Based on the documentation from the Jayakumaz's application, the most concerning objections of the neighborhood involved the impact of the house in terms of privacy, views, light, and . neighborhood- incompatibility. Prior to contacting an architect, we sat down with the Voesters for several hours in October, 2003. We walked our property with them and showed. them multiple sample floor plans we had found on the Internet. We discussed our ideas about the house in order to mitigate the objections from the prior application. They again voiced their major objections to any new construction neaz them as problems with light, privacy, views and neighborhood incompatibility. They said that they could not comment on any of the -floor plans specifically, stating that they would-have to see the actual design. Mr. Voester also stated that he had no intrinsic objection to a two-story house, only to its impact on light, privacy and views. In addition, we showed the designs to many other neighbors. They all commented on the objections of some individuals to a -two-story house, but also unanimously stated that the biggest concerns were about • . privacy and views. We proceeded to interview 5 azchitects.~Every one of them felt that the best design for the house given. the unique narrow shape of the lot was atwo-story. They understood he history of the last application. However, given the concerns for privacy, light; and views, with the substandazd set-backs of the Voester's residence, they all felt that atwo-story design which maximized green-space but minimized exposure between the two houses would be the most appropriate. We understood completely that whatever design of house we built would impact the Voesters' the most. Due to our isolated position at the end of the cul-de-sac, the impact of our house on the rest of the neighborhood is minimal. No one on Marion can even see our property. We eventually chose George Wittman as our architect due to-his unique approach to the design. He set the house behind the Voester's to minimize any impact on their views or light. The house is set back approximately 87 - feet from the street, utilizing a different footprint than the existing structure. The second story is smaller than the first and pushed back and away from the Voester's house to eliminate privacy concerns, and significantly mitigate the light and view impact. We did consided a one story design and played with various footprint measurements. We immediately realized that one story would affect the Voesters more dramatically due to a required larger footprint of the house and side by side adjacent proximity to them. We spoke at length with the Saratoga Planning Department prior to embarking on any design. We were informed that no moratorium on two- story homes existed in our azea. We also • discussed the issue with the Voesters again. Ivan walked with Kurt around the site ~~~o~® ., explaining the general layout and discussing the idea of pushing the house back and away from them to mitigate their concerns. Kurt seemed somewhat satisfied stating that we had been the first ones to think of that. He, however, was still concerned about the execution/implementation of the project. He again stated he needed to see the final design plans. Only then did we embark on the design. As soon as we had a preliminary design from Mr. Wittman, Ivan discussed the plans at length with the Voesters'. Ivan even-made a photocopy of the blueprints for the Voesters to inspect at their leisure. We approached them on several occasions to tell us their opinions, and they always responded, "Not now, later." They would never specifically state their concerns. Ivan brought our architect over to see Mr. Voester one time when Mr. Wittman was in town. Ivan explained to Mr. Voester than Mr. Wittman was working in Seattle and had only a limited amount of time in the area to address concerns about the plan. Mr. Voester, however, refused to speak with Mr. Wittman. In April, the Voesters called a meeting of the entire neighborhood to galvanize protests against the plans. We were not invited to the meeting. However, prior to the meeting, Mr. Voester asked Ivan if he could borrow a copy of the plans. Upset that we had not been invited to the meeting Ivan declined. Instead, Ivan showed Mr. Voester the plans and walked the site showing the layout of the footprint. He extended an open invitation to walk the site, see and discussed the plans as often and for as long as he wished. After the meeting and after noticing a pole placed behind the Voesters house deceptively indicating the height of our newly design house, Ivan questioned Mr. Voester's tactics for raising protests against our plans, objecting that we had the same rights to build a house as he did. To this Mr. Voester replied, "No you don't. I have lived here for 35 years!" We spent many hours showing our neighbors on Burns, Marion, Springer, and Brookwood Lane the house plans and answering their questions. We know that the Voesters also spent a great deal of time criticizing our plans with the same neighbors. When I visited Mrs. Dorothy Stamper with our plans Mrs. Voester called over as I was amving in an attempt to prevent my visit. Dorothy-was kind enough to allow me to show her the plans, despite the attempt. To this date the Voesters have never shared any specific objections to the house plans with us. They told us that we knew their objections from the last application, and they remain the same. The last time Ivan spoke with Mr. Voester was in June. Again Mr. Voester refused to share any concerns about the plans. Ivan said to him that we loved the area and were going to build a house. Mr. Voester replied, "You may not. Two people before you left." We truly feel that we have gone to much time and expense to include the neighbors in the conception and implementation of a design which will both fit our needs as a busy and growing family as well as be an asset to the neighborhood. We also feel that certain very vocal neighbors will attempt to block all our efforts to construct a new house due to the inconvenience. to them. The documentation from the previous application indicates that their current behavior is not unusual. The vast majority of our neighbors is in support of our project and has no objection to the plans as long as they are in accordance to Saratoga codes. ~®~~. OBJECTIONS TO THE HOUSE PLANS • We have addressed the major objections to our plans in the following ways: 1: Loss of privacy We are especially sensitive to the privacy issues generated by our new home. For two years we have seen the Voester's bedroom window looming down into our bathroom window. Our privacy has been impacted by the Voester's house being located only five feet from our property line. We realize that any house we design will need to take into consideration our neighbor's close proximity. Aone-story design would have to be located entirely adjacent to the Voester's house, compromising both ours and the Voester's privacy. Atwo-story design, by requiring a much smaller footprint, could be - set back almost-entirely behind the Voester's house. In our current design, the living space of our house begins behind the Voester's house. The front porch is the only portion of the house. which lays along side the very back end of their house. The only window facing in their direction is in the stairwell, located above eye level. The deck off the master suite is facing the secondary structure well away from view of the. Voester's property. The placement of the house in the center of our lot sets the house out of view from all but two homes on Burns Way, and makes it invisible from Marion. We would not impact the other homes surrounding us on Springer due to the large distances between "the homes and the dense vegetation. . The concern b Ms. Bechtold that our house, located well over250 feet away and • y through very-dense trees, could invade her privacy is "only ludicrous and does not deserve in depth comment. However, I am surprised that Ms. Bechtold, who recently completed a second story addition in her remodel and has a lazge window of her study facing down on her adjacent f ve neighbors, is not concerned on the impact of her house on her neighbors' privacy. (Please see pictures.) 2. Loss of light Any house we build will have some impact on the Voesters' light exposure. Our current home already casts shadows onto their home-and visa versa. With their house located only five feet from our property line, a one story home which must run a longer distance adjacent to this line will have a much greater impact on their light exposure than a two- story house set-back behind their house. The Voesters' biggest concern was the reduction in Southern exposure light into their master bedroom during the winter mornings. We have gone through the expense to produce a light study investigating the impact on light exposure to the Voesters' house (please see enclosed studies). These shadow studies indicate minimal impact from the two-story design. In fact, the movement of our house to a more western location dramatically increases the amount of southern winter light into. their bedroom window. ~ • ~ ` ~®62 . 3. Loss of views A major objection of the Voesters' to the last application was their loss of views of the top of the hills surrounding Saratoga from their master bedroom windows. We are quite at a loss to explain this comment. The Voester's simply do not have a view of the hills from these windows. They have a southern view of the tree tops. By moving the footprint of our house to the west, we are significantly increasing the Voesters' southern and eastern views. The front porch is the only part of our proposed house adjacent to the back of the Voesters' house. The roofline of the porch ranges from 10 to 12 feet, which is predominantly shorter than our existing 12 foot roof height running along side their house. We requested that the Voesters' show us the views about which they were concerned, but they declined, stating, "You want to validate our views?" This time azound, the Voesters do not mentioned in their letter to the city views of the top of the hills. They only mention views of the neaz and distant trees. However, Mr. Campbell in his letter to the city states that the Voesters would lose, completely, the views of the mountains. I wonder how he reached that conclusion. The photos we have taken above the level of our neighbors' high master bedroom windows clearly do not show such views. We cannot detect any view of hills despite the fact that we have optically enhanced the views, creating a higher line of sight and originating the views from the front of the high bushes obstructing the master bedroom window. (Please see pictures.) We have also had comments that atwo-story house on our lot would block the views of the hills from Marion. It is possible that a two story house located at the front of the lot could partially obscure these views. However, by setting the house back from the street close to ninety. feet, it will be difficult to even see our house from Marion, and it will not block these views. 4. Soil Stability We understand the Voesters' concern about soil stability with the construction of a new basement. We, more than anyone, aze concerned about this issue. This is another reason we set our house behind theirs. The basement would begin 30 feet behind the end of their house, and is set at a diagonal to their back corner, not parallel to it. Our architect and a licensed civil engineer have studied this issue and consider it not to be a problem. 5. Size of house We understand that size of our proposed is lazger than the existing one. However, it is not out of scale with other homes. in the neighborhood. Currently, 4060 sf and over 3000 sf homes are under construction only doors away from us. Both homes aze on-lots considerably smaller than ours. There is also a home well over 6000 sf on Marion. Our proposed house is in accordance to the Saratoga code and to scale with current construction throughout Saratoga. We have one of the largest lots in the neighborhood. Having one of the largest-homes is permitted by Sazatoga's code. There is no "conformity" to the existing home size on Burns-Mazion as is alleged by several letters. The homes are extremely varied. Although it is true that there are several small homes of . modest size and proportion, these homes are also in general very old and on small lots. I ~~®~~ . am certain that one by one these homes will be remodeled and expanded. The newer homes are much larger than these older homes. The need for a guest house comes from the requirement to house a quite large extended family. My pazents retired to Tucson from Monte Sereno 25 years ago. They aze now finding the summers there too hot and would like to live with us for half the year. In addition, Ivan's mother is widowed, has no permanent home, and needs to reside with us for extended periods.. 6. Two Story Design We understand very well that the two-story design is the most controversial aspect of our application. We spent a very long time considering the pros and cons of a one- versus two-story design before settling on the two-story plan. For over a year we sketched out possible one-story designs and discussed them with several azchitects. We discovered that a one-story house had a much greater impact on light, privacy and- views than atwo-story would if designed properly. Given that those three concerns were the most worrisome during our conversations with our neighbors and during the last remodeling application, we decided to proceed with atwo-story design. The majority of individuals concerned about asecond-story home aze not concerned about the specific impact of our home. They know that our home, being so isolated at the end of the cul-de-sac has virtually no impact on the neighborhood as it is not even visible . from Marion. Also, I would absolutely challenge the Bachtold~-Renalds to demonstrate how our home would impact their light, privacy,. or views, being located so faz away from us and through dense foliage. These.individuals are primarily concerned-about setting a "precedent" for more two stories in the neighborhood. A very large and beautiful orchard is located at the center of the neighborhood. The majority of neighbors are very concerned that when this property is sold, the orchard will be ripped up and large two- story homes will be built, homes which because .they are in the center of the neighborhood would block views of the surrounding hills and trees. My problem with this argument is that the precedent has already been set. Two of the newest homes aze two-stories. One of the oldest homes in the neighborhood is a two-story. A recently remodeled house has asecond-story office addition. Multiple two-story homes aze visible from the neighborhood. Our home in particular is surrounded by 2-story homes on other- . streets. Currently under construction, 150 feet in front of our property and visible through -the orchard, is a sizable two-story on a small lot. The neighborhood is not only a single story one; the precedent for two-stories was set long ago, and continues to be set. The neighbors have questioned why we did not make a larger basement so that we could put our children's bedrooms downstairs and thusly eliminate the second-story. In the first place,- several of my children suffer from allergies and one from asthma, and to place their bedrooms in a potentially moldy and damp basement would adversely jeopardize their health. Secondly, I will not place my small infants in a basement away from my bedroom. It is simply not safe. ~ • ~~~®~'~ r 7. Parking Our 2 space parking garage with a 3rd pazking space located outside is completely in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and is compliance with Saratoga code: Once again we feel as though we aze being held to a sepazate standazd than the rest of the neighborhood. Only two houses in the neighborhood have three car gazages. Our adjoining neighbors, the _Voesters, have no garage space for either their cars or RV. We feel that our proposed three caz spaces and long driveway should be adequate to allow traffic to flow on Bums Way. 8. Neighborhood Compatibility Many of the neighbors lament the loss of the "quaint cottages" of the 40's and 50's. I also remember fondly the more rural landscape of Sazatoga from yeazs gone by, and grieve for the orchazds of my childhood. However, I currently live in one of the "quaint cottages," and it is crumbling azound my ankles. Many of the small homes built in the 40's and 50's were never meant for year-round occupancy and were constructed from substandazd materials. As a result, many of these homes are in poor condition and will eventually require remodeling. Our current home, for example, was built after WWII with whatever materials were available in Sazatoga. It lacks a foundation under the majority of the house, has no insulation, and was added onto throughout the yeazs. The neighborhood has changed considerably in the last several years, and the average size of the homes has increased. The design and scope of our proposed- home is completely in keeping with these changes. There is no "typical" home in the neighborhood. The styles are varied from small bungalow, to moderate ranch and large farmhouse. Our home, a Craftsman style, attempts to capture the more rural feeling of the azea. 9. Fire Hazard We have met with the fire department, and have agreed to all their recommendations to meet fire code. CONCLUSIONS For two yeazs we have contemplated how to design a home which will meet our needs as a large and active family, and which will be compatible -with the neighborhood. The history of the property would seem to hold a curse for would-be remodelers. Part of the difficulty in designing a house is the lot's unique shape and close proximity of its northern neighbor. Another difficulty is the neighborhood's fear of future development of the orchard. These challenges make aone-story design in conflict with the neighbor's privacy, light and views concerns, and make atwo-story design fuel the fears of development of the orchard. The majority of our neighbors aze in favor of our proposed design. We spent many days explaining the design to 16 neighbors. We attempted to show them to others, but timing did not permit it. 12 of the neighbors favored the plans without any concerns. There is a very vocal minority who oppose its development, mostly for very personal reasons which have little to do with our property. We do understand that any construction on our property will affect the Voesters, and have tried to involve them closely in our plans. They have chosen not to "sit at the kitchen table" with us, not visa versa. The concerns ~~~®~~ • which were verbalized either during this or the former application for construction have. . been considered at length, and we feel that we have adequately addressed them. We feel, . however, that no house we propose will be acceptable to certain individuals. We understand the unique character of the neighborhood. We have no desire to destroy it; :~ some of my ancestors were some of its first owners. However, we also need a home to serve our needs. We are concerned that the Voesters aze ignoring ours. Mr. Campbell once questioned Ivan, "Why aze you going through the trouble of building? It is only a piece of dirt." Well, it is our dirt. And we aze going through the trouble for our family, and to build what we feel is the best house for a neighborhood which has, and will continue, to change. Thank you for your time and consideration ofour-application. Sincerely,. `~ Angela M. Pollard 9/12/04 ~i I"~'1 • g~~~~~ ,r 1 t 20231 Marion Road Tall one-story over 6000 square feet including secondary structure • ~~~~~~ a~ r ~ • s ~~` C 20631 Marion Road 4060 square foot home under construction at the corner of Burns and Marion • ~~~~~~ t e 20680 Marion Road Tall one-story 4110 square feet C~ ~~~~~~~ 14231 Burns Way Recent remodel two houses away from ours. Over 3000 square feet. ~~~~~® • • ~~ ~ ~:. ~ High roof line on Marion Road ~~~~~~. • ~7 High roof line on Marion Road • _~ :~~~~~ • t House behind our house 1 _. ,. ~0~~~ • Northern view from back part of the lot where secondary structure will be U .. ~~~~~~ Northern view from site of secondary structure. Notice 6.5 foot tall fence post • ... .. ;~~~..~ • Other two story structures visible from Marion Road • • • r~ .Another two story structure clearly visible from Marion Road __ --, Enhanced neighbors' southern view from their masterbedroom • • _ ~ _~ • • Enhanced neighbors' southern view from their masterbedroom . . .. ~~~'~ ~ Enhanced neighbors' southern view from their master bedroom • ~7 _~ . . . __ ___ . _ . . _ V.., .~ ~~~~~~o `:~: ~~~ x ~t two story home I~ 478o square feet ~~~~~~ 2068 Marion Road r. 20636 Marion Road 'Ibvo story structure at the corner of Burns and Marion • • ~ ..~ _ , ~ ` , t, - ~.. ~ - # - ~f ~_ : _~w 20615 Marion Road Two story structure 3779 square feet t 14224 Springer Ave. 'Iwvo story house Adjacent two our house ~J • . _ _ ;.: ~~~~ • t Two story house Adjacent two our house . _. _ ~ _. ._ ~~~~~ • -, _~ Two. story .house being built 150- 200 feet east of Burns- way. During fall and winter, it will be clearly visible from all houses on our street: • • _ ~~~~~~ t 20640 Mazion Road 'Ibvo story structure at least 220 feet away from our house. • • -, J 20640 Marion Road 'Iwvo story structure at least 220 feet away from our house. • • • .: ~~~~~ vry..'^r+i.Ti View of the Voester's house and the mountains beyond t View of the Voester's house and hills behind, partially obscured by their RV [7 • • • • ~~ View towards the Voester's backyard from secondary structure site .: ~,~~,~ . _ _ ~ __._ ... ~. • • DRAFT MINUTES 14265 BURNS WAY PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 5-7PM SIGN IN SHEET CIRCULATED COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: MIKE GARAKANI CHAIR (MG) LINDA RODGER (LR) SUSIE NAGPAL (SN) JILL HUNTER (JH) RUCHI ZUTSHI (RZ) ABSENT: MIKE UHL (MU) MICHAEL SCHALLOP (MS) STAFF: PLANNING CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS, FIltE HAL NETTER • PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT: ANGELA POLLARD, IVAN BURGOS GEORGE WHITMENT ARCHITECT ON HISTORY, DESIGN, NEIGHBOR INVOLVEMENT KURT VOESTER CONCERNS: PROPOSAL ALTERS CHARM, NEGATIVE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORHOOD, BULK, AND PROXIMETY TO VOESTERS, WINDOWS IN STAIRCASE, DECK ON MASTER BEDROOM, BLOCK VIEW, ENGLISH WALNET #26, PARKING. NEIGHBOR CONCERNS: TWO STORY, PRECIDENT SETTING, DOMINO EFFECT, FIIZE CONCERNS, NEIGHBOR SUPPORT: RIGHT TO BUILD HAL NETTER FIRE DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED FIIZE CONCERNS REGARDING WATER PRESSURE, DIAMETER MAINS, PROJECT CONDITIONS SPRINKLERS, ETC. MG: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ARE REVIEWED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. LR: DETAILS STILL NEED ATTENTION, FIXING VIEWS, LOWERING HOUSE, REDUCING BULK, TOO LARGE FOR LOT. ~~~~~~ JH: RAVINE DIFFICULT FEATURE TO BUILD AROUND, REDUCE SIZE, • AGREES WITH LR COMMENTS SN: PROJECT NOT PRECEDENT SETTING, READ EVERY WORD OF PACKET TAKES APPLICATION AND ISSUES VERY SERIOUSLY, LOVES ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, TREATMENT GOOD, SIZE DIFFICULT ISSUE TO COMMENT ON FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF LIVING IN AN EXTENDED FAMILY ENVIRONMENT, REDUCE BULK. RZ: APPRECIATES OWNERS.EFFORTS TO MOVE RESIDENCE BACK, REDUCE HEIGHT, BRIDGE SHOULD BE COVERED FOR FUNCTION IN RAIN BETWEEN MAIN RESIDENCE AND UNIT. MG: ALL PROJECTS REVIEWED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, MOVE RESIDENCE AWAY FROM VOESTERS. • • ~~~~~ • Attachment 4 • ~~~~~~ - ~ ARBOR RESOURCES • Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 14265 BURNS WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: BURGOS/POLLARD APPLICATION #: 04-133 APN #: 503-23-006 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 •i • May 25, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #796763. ~~~~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 Si;i~vIMARY Twenty-seven trees were inventoried for this report. Trees #8, 10, 12 and 26 are in conflict with the proposed design. Given their size, species and/or condition, their removal is appropriate and replacements are recommended. Though not in direct conflict, trees #5, 13, 14, 20 and 23 would be severely damaged. The loss of tree #23 is acceptable due to-its condition and replacements are recommended (whether retained or removed). However, plan revisions aze necessary to achieve the survival of trees #5, 13, 14 and 20. Tree #27 is proposed for removal on the landscape plan. This tree has a poor structure and is at risk of splitting apart. Replacements are suggested. Regardless. of the proposed project, trees #3 and 15 should be removed as they are unsafe and present a significant risk to public safety. I anticipate the trees anticipated for retention can survive the development activities provided all measures presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report are cazefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. • Per City- Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention is required. My review indicates trees #1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16-22, 24 and 25 would be retained: Based on the proposed plans, the total value of these trees is $74,200. INTRODUCTION • The City of Sazatoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with demolishing an existing residence and constructing a new one with a basement at 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the attached table. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets SD7-1 thru SD7-6 (by George Daniel Wittman Architect, dated 4/9/04), Topographic Survey (by DeBolt Civil .Engineering, dated 2/9/04), Sheets 1 thru 4 (also by DeBolt Civil Engineering, dated 4/30/04), and Sheet CL-1 (by DJA, dated 5/3/04). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters aze presented on an attached copy of Sheet 2 of 4 (Grading and Drainage Plan). The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9'" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 1 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department ®~~®~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May. 25, 2004 For identification purposes, metallic tags corresponding to the numbers presented within • this report are attached to the trunk of each accessible inventoried tree. Trees #1, 2, 15-19, 21, 22 and 26 are not shown on plans reviewed. Their locations presented on the attached map are estimates and should not be construed as being surveyed. I suggest each tree's surveyed location be shown on all future plans. FINDINGS The 27 trees inventoried for this report include one Big-Leaf Maple (#21), one California Bay Tree (#18), two California Black Walnuts (#8, 26), three Califorua Buckeyes (6, 14; 21); eleven Coast Live Oaks (#1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 16, 25), two Coast Redwoods (#5, 19), one Coulter Pine (#20), two Green Wattles (#15, 17); one Japanese Cedaz (#27) and one Silk Tree (#3). Trees #8, 10, 12 and 26 will require removal to accommodate the proposed design. Given their size, species, condition-and/or location, I find their removal is appropriate and must be mitigated by installing new trees equivalent to their appraised values. Tree #5 would be significantly jeopardized- by constructing the proposed home design. The plans show a basement wall proposed seven feet from its northernmost trunk. When considering a typical soil cut of five feet beyond the wall, this places excavation two feet from the trunk. This cut would remove major support roots and significantly impact the tree's health and longevity. As a result, the tree would be extremely vulnerable to decline and failure. . The stability and survival of this tree will depend upon no basement excavation or grading occurring within 10 feet north of its northernmost trunk, and 20 feet on all other sides. This will- require establishing the basement wall and/or first floor foundation beyond 10 feet (such as 15 feet away). Please note that some time ago, the tree was reduced in height at approximately seven feet below its existing top. This type of pruning exposes the top of the tree to decay and weakens the attachment of surrounding branches. As a result, I suggest periodic inspections are made- (such as every three years) to minimize the risk of branch failure. Trees #13, 4 20 and 23 would also be adversely impacted by implementing the proposed grading and home design.. I recommend plan revisions are made to achieve the survival of trees #13, 14 and 20. Revisions to the proposed-design are not suggested for protecting tree #23; replacements for its loss aze recommended (whether retained or removed). The driveway will adversely impact tree #2. To minimize root damage, I _ suggest it is redesigned to be no closer than 10 feet from its trunk. The driveway should also remain at least 10 feet from tree #1's trunk. Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 2 ofS City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 Tree #3's trunk is cracked where the tree's two leaders originate. As such, the tree is unsafe and at significant risk of splitting apart. Its removal is recommended for public safety reasons. Replacements aze not suggested. Tree #27, a Japanese Cedar, is proposed for removal on the landscape plan. This tree has two trunks of equal size that originate at grade and grow with an extremely tight angle of attachment. As a result, the tree is at high risk of splitting apart and its removal is appropriate. Replacements aze recommended. Tree #15's trunk grows neazly horizontally towards-the south and is lying on the existing chain link fence. Due to this tree being located on the western neighboring property, I am unable to fully determine whether it is uprooting or growing in this manner. In either situation, the tree is unsafe and presents a risk to public safety. As such, I recommend its removal. Please note a signed letter by the tree's owner authorizing its removal should be secured before removal occurs and submitted to the City. Trees #1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 25 are situated on neighboring properties and were inventoried for this report due to their close proximity to the proposed project. They all aze expected to survive. There are approximately seven Oaks of Ordinance-size situated south of tree # 13. They were not inventoried for this report as they aze located a considerable distance away from the proposed building envelope. However, protection measures aze expected apply. RECOMI~~NDATIONS 1. To maintain the stability and survival of tree #5, the plans require revision so no basement excavation, grading or trenching occurs within 10 feet north of its northernmost trunk and 20 feet on all other sides. 2. The plans should be revised to comply with the- following grading and trenching setbacks (including drainage and irrigation) from the trees' trunks: eight feet for trees #13 and 14, ten feet for tree #20, and twelve feet for trees #7 and 25. 3. Swales proposed beneath the canopies of retained trees must not require. excavation deeper than four inches below grade. Soil fill can be placed on top of existing grade to achieve the required swale but not exceed 6 inches in height or 18 inches in width. 4. The proposed driveway should be revised to be no closer than 10 feet from tree #2's trunk. Any grading required for the portion of driveway beneath the canopies of trees # 1 and 2 shall be performed manually. 5. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, basement excavation, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot .high chain -link mounted on -two-inch diameter, Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 3 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~9~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 galvanized 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. Fencing shall be established- at or beyond the outer canopy edge (where possible), no further than one to two feet from the existing and- future hazdscape, and four feet from the new homes' footprints. Fencing is also necessary for the protection of trees south of #13. -Please note protective fencing is not shown on the attached map -due to the recommended design revisions; it can be delineated upon review of future plans. 6. Unless otherwise approved, all demolition and construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed), as well as outside beneath canopies of -trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7. I recommend protective fencing remain installed throughout the landscape installation phase. Small openings can be created at that time (i.e. only .immediately before landscape construction begins) to only allow for foot traffic and wheelbarrow access. 8. Prior to using an excavator to dig the basement, athree- to four-foot deep trench shall be manually -dug (i.e. use hand tools) where within 25 feet of tree #5's northernmost .trunk. Digging shall begin one-foot towards the trunk from where the basement wall is proposed. -All roots that become encountered during the process and have diameters of -one-inch .and greater shall be cleanly severed. near the soil .vertical soil-line using Toppers or a handsaw. The freshly cut ends of roots two inches and greater in diameter shall be immediately wrapped in a plastic bag secured by tape or a rubber band. 9. -Great care must be taken by the equipment operator to avoid excavating soil during the removal of the pond. and large boulder beneath tree #4's canopy. Any roots that become exposed during the process shall be immediately covered with soil. 10. The trunk locations of trees #1, 2, 15-19, 21, 22 and 26 should be surveyed and shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans. 11. At-the start of demolition (during the months of May thru October), water should be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter.- The water can be effectively applied by placing soaker hoses on the soil surface beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. 12. Downspouts shall be directed away from trees being retained. and placed at least 15 feet to. the side of each trunk. 13. All underground pipes and irrigation lines planned for removal beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and be cut off at existing soil grade. Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 4 of5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~1®® David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 • 14. Upon availability, plans showing imgation and underground utilities should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 15. All underground utilities (i.e. water,. gas, sewer, electrical) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. 16. Irrigation trenches should be designed no closer than 10 times the. trunk diameter of trees being retained. Where this is not feasible, the irrigation system must be placed on top of existing grade. 17. Irrigation should spray no closer than five feet from the trunks. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material must be compatible for planting beneath Oaks and be drought tolerant. 18. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the neazest trunk. 19. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use neaz trees. • 20. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standazds. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 21. New trees shall be installed that are equivalent in value to those approved for removal. Based on my review, trees #3, 8, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26 and 27 would be removed and have a combined value of $6,120. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big-Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The replacement species, location and size should be shown on the future planting plan. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table -Site Map (Copy of Sheet 2 of 4) • Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page S of S ~~~.®~ ' -~ ARBOR RESOURCES ,Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE w ~ ~ 3 b A ~ . ~, ~ ° : .~ o ~a ''~' a ^ > ~ a o °o o ~ ~ u b "~ w ~ A a~i 2: a ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ p . ~ . on o ~ ~ ~ i ~' Q TREE ~ > ~ .~ ~ moo. , ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x U ~ c c ~ w ~-' " NO. TREE"NAME H x U x ~ ~ O ~ Coast Live Oak 1 (Quercus agrifolia) 18 35 35 100% 100% Good High 3 - X X $7,500 Coast Live Oak 2 (Quercus agrifolia) 18 30 35 100% 100% Good High 3 - X X $7,500 _ Silk Tree 3 (Albizia julibrissin) 11.5 20 35 50% 0% Poor Low 2 - - - $0 Coast Live Oak 4 (Quercus agrifolia) 10 25 30 100% 75% Good "High 2 - - X $1,950 Coast Redwood 23, 18, 5 (Sequoiasempervirens) 16.5 50 35 100% 50% ('rood Moderate 1 - - - $11,500 Califolnia Buckeye 6 (Aesculus californica) 12.5 30 35 100% 50% Good High 4 - - X $1,0 Coast Live Oak 7 (Quercus agrifolia) 21.5 40 40 100% 100% Good High 2 - - - $10,300 California Black Walnut g (Juglans hindsii) 12.5 30 35 75% 25% .Fair Low - X - - $160 Coast Live Oak 16, 10, 9 (Quercus agrifolia) 5, 3 40 35 100% 75% Good High 3 - - - $7,000 Coast Live Oak 10 (Quercus agrifolia) 6.5, 6 25 20 100% 50% Good Moderate - X - - $1,220 Coast Live Oak 11 (Quercus agrifolia) 6.5 20 15 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 - - - $900 Coast Live Oak 12 (Quercus agrifolia) 7.5 20 20 100% 50% Good Moderate - X - - $1,050 Coast Live Oak 13 (Quercus agrifolia) 12.5 30 30 100% 75% Good High 1 - - - $2;710 California Buckeye 14 (Aesculus californica) 9, 3.5, 3 20 25 75% 75% Good Moderate 1 - - - $1,380 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- lion = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000. 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Site: 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depordnent Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA 1 of 2 •. ~2~~°®~ '• ARBOR RESOURCES ,_ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE Green Wattle 15 (Acacia decurtens) 8, 5 25 30 75% 25% Fair Low 4 - X X $0 Coast Live Oak 10,8,8,7, 16 (Quercus agrffolia) 6,5,4 35 40 50% 0% Poor Low 4 - X X $0 Green Wattle 17 (Acacia decurrens) 9, 6 25 40 100% 25% Fair Low 5 - X - $120 California Bay Tree 18 (Umbellularia californica) 18 55 40 100% 75% Good High 5 - X X $3,540 Coast Redwood 19 (Sequoia sempervirens) 6 30 15 100% 75% Good High 5 - X X $760 Coulter Pine (Pimrs coulteri) 18 50 40 100% 100% Good High 1 - - - $4,730 California Buckeye 21 (Aesculus californica) 6, 5, 4, 4 25 25 100% 50% Good High 4 - X X $1,280 Coast Redwood 22 (Sequoia sempervirens) 12,10, 9 40 20 100% 25% Fair High 4 - X X $2,450 Big-Leaf Maple 23 (Acermacrophyllum) 12 30 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate 1 - - - $1,240 California Buckeye 9.5, 7.5, 24 (Aesculus californica) 4 25 45 75% 50% Fair Moderate 2 - - - $1,530 Coast Live Oak ZS (Quercus agrifolia) 20.5 40 30 100% 75% Good High 2 - - X $8,000 English Walnut 26 (Juglans regia) 16.5 45 60 100% 75% Good Moderate - X X - $1,640 Japanese Cedar 27 (Cryptomeria ja . nica) 8.5, 7 35 10 50% 50% Fair Low 4 - - - $810- .. .:. . q] H ... VJ H ~ ~+ . ~. v ~. a '" ~ v ' w b .~ ~ o o « ° a TREE a~ .~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ v '~ ~ .~ ~ ~. a° x ~ o . c ~ obi Y ~ Q NO TREE NAME > ~ . ~ ~ bq 'v x ~ c ~ ° c ~ ° ~ > ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ a o o ~ w . E ~ U x .. ~ " O v~ r .: a r.~ H ~ • REPLACEMENT' TREE VALUES 15 Ilan = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,00( Site: 14165 Burns Way, Saratoga Prepared for• City of Saratoga Commuui[y Development Depardnent Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA 1 of 2 box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 ~ May 25, 2004 `~ ~~~~®v W N '~'~E~ . ~~C~a~~g [JJ ~ ~99 F 1C C~~G Qm' ~ ~=_ ~ ~~~ ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~#~ ~~ ~~ a F A ,~ rp ~a~R ~ 6 .: I ter`- E. :: z Q - N L,~Oy __I x~r - -W .~~ H N _V1 ~ -~ .1- .:J- , •_~ V / ~. ~.. .. I:':r_,' . yg.µR.. i._- - _ { W~/ 31 I _ " ....... L6 _... _- AD ..._. _.. .._.. _.. .._ .. .5 $ ~ ~ c.~ ~ V r ~~~ z _._ \ i ~N ~.... N ~. N }.,~~ - -, \ ~' ~] .~i ~s\, ~. eo. ~ ~ ~ g~o O m ,. . •, .,cams . °-.... , - _ ~ IY~.tl F11 -".. .{ ~ ,~ ~, J ~,j~ 1 ~ fit' ~ .... -'~ 11 ~ 1" N '}:~ fib. {{ a° p'?~.. e~. i; _ ~ ~'~ ` - `~ g ~;;' ~iy DSO ~~~ gp ' ' i ~ ~' `• ~•, ~ ~ ~';, i ~, .1,1` I~ • 1~ // ~ ~ .." 's:. ~ . ~ , ~~ ~~ ` 1' \ ~ ~r ~ z ~, O ~ ~'~ a ~ 3- ,~ z H G : £c ~ Q ~ 6 Q i ~ -- I n ~/ •i • • ~~®~® .L ,_ ~~~"~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • • • June 17, 2004 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 14265 Burns Way; Evaluation of the Proposed Concrete Path Deaz Christy: I have received and reviewed the faxed map showing the proposed. concrete path .for the project at the above-referenced site. The installation of a concrete walkway would impact the root azea of tree #5 (Coast Redwood). However, the damage -can be appropriately mitigated by elevating the portion of walk within 15 feet of the tree's trunk above. existing soil grade. One such way is to construct a deck (rather than a concrete walk) on wood posts. Digging for posts or piers must be manually performed. Sincerely, ~~~ David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist P.O. Boa 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Faa: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796 ~~~.®5 - - ~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care December _18, 2004 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 14265 Burns Way; Recommended Setbacks from Trees #10, 12, 13, 14, 20 and 23 Dear Christy: As requested, I have reviewed the most- recently .proposed Site Plan (Sheet SD7-1 by George Daniel Wittman, dated 11/19/04) to ascertain the setbacks required for achieving a reasonable assurance of survival for trees #10, 12, 13, 14, 20 and 23. These setbacks are, respectively, as follows: 5 feet, 5 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet, 12 feet and 7 feet. They are intended to serve as minimum distances from the trunks for. any surface scraping, grading or trenching activities.. An overview of the design revisions necessary to achieve the setbacks (in relation to the project components on Sheet SD7-1) are presented below. Trees #10 and 14: These trees' trunks appear situated beyond the respective five- and ten- foot setbacks and- could be retained. Trees #12 and 13: To achieve the respective five- and eight-foot setbacks, the proposed .terrace and pool would need to be redesigned away from their trunks. Tree #20: Major design revisions to the proposed second unit appear necessary to achieve the 12-foot setback. Another option, however, can be employed and involves the portion of home within 20 feet of the tree's trunk being established on a pier and above-grade beam foundation (i.e. no soil excavation except for the piers). Tree #23: To achieve the seven-foot setback, the proposed second unif would -need to be redesigned a few additional feet from the tree's trunk to achieve the setback. The other option. is for the portion of home within 15 feet of the tree's-trunk being established on a pier and above-grade beam foundation (i.e. no soil excavation except for-the piers). Sincereily, ~~/" V David L. Babby, CA Consulting Arborist • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink:net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 , ~~~~~ - - =~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • October 4, 2004 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 RE: TREES #5 AND 26 at 14265-Burns Way, Saratoga; Application #: 04-133 Dear Christy: This -letter provides comments regarding how trees #5 and 26 would be affected by redesigning the home proposed at the above-referenced site several feet towazds the south. Setbacks- necessary for achieving a reasonable level of protection for tree #26 aze-also provided. Tree #5 (Coast Redwood) is already expected to be significantly jeopardized by implementing the proposed design. The redesign would place the home several feet closer towazds the trunk, which would further compromise the tree's stability and longevity. To my understanding, the- City is permitting the removal of tree #5; I find this is the most prudent course of action for public safety purposes if either the proposed plans or redesign are implemented. Tree #26 (English Walnut), is also expected to be severely impacted by implementing the proposed design. Four leaders comprise this tree's structure and all originate at approximately 5 %Z feet above grade. The southeast and eastern growing leaders have approximate diameters of 10 inches and will require removal. By doing so, an estimated 50-percent of the canopy will be lost, which will drastically alter the symmetry of the tree's canopy and expose the two remaining leaders to a greater risk of failure. In addition, the tree would sustain an estimated 40 to 45-percent root loss due to the basement and foundation. If this tree is expected to survive and sustain its structural integrity, the home requires redesign to be established at least 17 feet from the tree's trunk (all measurements would need to be verified on site by the project azchitect and/or engineer). Additionally, grading would need to be at least 12 feet from the trunk, and additional protection measures must be employed during construction (these can be provided at your request). P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor X796763 . ~~~~~~ - = `~~-._ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care October 4, 2004 14265 Burns Way Page- 2 If tree #26 remains, the proposed drain line would need to be revised to be at least five feet away from the tree's trunk and at least six feet from #25's trunk. All work would need to be manually performed using hand tools, and root two inches and greater in diameter retained during the process. An alternative to hand digging is to place the line on top of existing soil grade. Sincerely, r/~~~'~ David L. Babby, RCA . Consulting Arborist • P.O. Box 25295; San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~ • Attachment 5 ~CiQ~~~ 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 23rd day of February 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details-are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD =14265 BURNS WAY: . The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single- . ~ family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence: The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of . the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the ~ upper floor is 1,335 square-feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed:. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence.is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 15,000. 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 may be 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 the Tuesday, a week before the meeting.. 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 LT.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. Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us 868-1286 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) r I, ~~ ,being -duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age- of 18 yy~earps~that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of I ~/~(J 200 that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said 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 Ciry 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. ~, ' _CJ ~ Signed DOPPELT, PHILLIP H & ILENE J LUM, ROY & VICKY J TRUSTEE 20661 MARION RD ' 20659 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5817 SARATOGA CA 95070-5817 . NGUYEN, TRUNG H & BICHNGA P TRUSTEE 20673 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5817 PATEL, YASHVANT J & VARSHA Y 20685 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5817 PAYNE, JAMES W & MARY L P. O. BOX 2126 SARATOGA CA 95070-0126 NARASIMHA, MADIHALLY J & RAMA TRUSTEE 14099 ELVIIZA ST SARATOGA CA 95070-5833 CAMPBELL,- GARY L 20731 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5890 RENN, BRAD E & ANN E 20615 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5817 BURGOS, IVAN & ANGELA 14265 BURNS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5804 STAMPER, DOROTHY M STAMPER, DOROTHY M TRUSTEE ETAL TRUSTEE ETAL 20562 MARION AV 20562 MARION AV SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ALLEN, HOWARD O TRUSTEE 20520 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5816 ALLEN, HOWARD O TRUSTEE 20520 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5816 SEAGRAVES, MARGARET TRUSTEE 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4535 DUNCAN, GORDON A & HELEN J 20531 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5868 LAVELLE, THOMAS R & GAYLE KAHLE, JOHN R & HELEN P S TRUSTEE 20571 BROOKWOOD LN 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5868 ~ SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 RANGACHARI, SARANGAN & VIDYA N TRUSTEE 20613 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 JOHNSTON, EVELYN A TRUSTEE PO BOX 53 SARATOGA CA 95071-0053 HIGGINS, WILLIAM L & VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5800 RENN, GERALD N & PATRICIA A 5061 CABRILLO POINT BYRON CA 94514-9475 IlZVINE, MELVA M 1005 LIVE OAK DR SANTA CLARA CA 95051-4711 BERNARDO, DONALD K & MAYA 20544 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5816 SEAGRAVES, MARGARET TRUSTEE 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4535 TSAO, CHICH-HSING & HSIAO- JEN 20567 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5868 JOHNSTON, MICHAEL R ETAL 20611 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 HIGGINS, WILLIAM L & VIIZGINIA B TRUSTEE 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5800 JACOBS, HUGH A & GLORIA M DEIMLER, LOGAN S & CARO~ TRUSTEE E 20510 BROOKWOOD LN - 14320 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5800 SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 ~~~.~.~ HORN, DAVID H & ELIZABETH A TRUSTEE 20646 MARION RD TOGA CA 95070-5832 VOESTER, KURT & BARBARA S TRUSTEE ETAL 14251 BURNS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5804 SCOTT, JON M & DEMETRIA R 14256 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 BELSHAW, DAVID A & JANINE P TRUSTEE 14240 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 WILSON, DAVID S & SANDRA W 20678 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5832 r ~ ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE-5 KK CAMPBELL,. GARY L 20731 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5890 K, LETA 41 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 RENALDS, JAMES P & ANNE 20640 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5832 LOTTI, RICHARD & MARCY 20636 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5832 KETTMANN, JOHN R & MARIA A TRUSTEE 14250 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 MAULDIN, CAROL 8i MICHAEL 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6356 BROCKETT, PATRICK 7 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE-5 KK CUNNINGHAM, DENNIS M 14407 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6080 JANSONS, NIKOLAJS ETAL 123 NEW YORK AV LOS GATOS CA 95032-6111 MCCABE, JAMES M & BERNICE TRUSTEE 23 GLADEVIEW WAY SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131- 1213 NG, SONNY C & ADA K 20650 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5832 SHAHBAZI, MEHDI & FATEMEH R 14231 BURNS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5804 SARNA, CHANDER & ANUPAMA 14224 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 EARHART, HOWARD F & CATHERINE R TRUSTEE 20680 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5832 JOHNSTON, DAVID S 20616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 SARATOGA CITY OF WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 NOVAK, BARRIER & RAVI V 14231 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 OH, DAL- S 14261 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 ~~~~.~~ RIOS, AURELIO & JING 14271 PAUL AV - SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 SZALAY, TIBOR ETAL 14290 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 LU, MEI-SHIO 14260 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 QIAN, HAO & SUYING 14261 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 KRAFT, BARBARA L TRUSTEE 14299 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 FRIEDRICH, FRANK J 14220 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 CHIEN, EDWARD Y & TEHCHI H 14314 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 KOVACS, JOSEPH L & MARIA P 14280 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 MARKHOVSKY, FELIX & ISABELLA 14250 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 CLARK, ANTHONY L & L1NDA R POBOX81 SARATOGA CA 95071-008.1 SCHWARTZ, DONALD M & RUTH TRUSTEE 14271 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 TENNYSON, JAMES F & ELAINE W 14315 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5889 NOLA, MARYANNE 14300 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 ., HUANG, DAVID & EMILY PO BOX 895 RUTHERFORD NJ 07070-0895 MARTIN, RONALD P & YOLANDAI 14251 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA -95070-5823 DEIGNAN, RICHAD & SUZAN TRUSTEE 14291 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 CHEN, JIE & QING 14230 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 r~ • , a • mDD~Rm~~6~i~0~~~ii -~-p JCm~Zm~~AlI Lr@rp DNm~p DmA -gyp m(l iflDp~mpRADmmO O ~~ z ~n~gm~'~vQmi~cE~cm~m ~~o r~DO Opmmmm~yp~DOt~ rnL. P~i~ ~~ ZmEycnDL~mm(n(1~ III a~ ~~~mm~~ymy~mAO`13 ~ ~_ pm~Ri~~•ZmE~ ~@ ~ a ~ - (1 pD=~7mimnr~r mFm g~~ mmOm~~~DA~A~~'~ ~ ~i+r~ mL0 ~~ xm~gm~m=„mm D ~i~y~~~=~~~~~~~om'^^ ~o m(~_1G~m~~ZpOm=ziE'' V' ADS i03S~mmAm~30A~~ (~_ =.POm pr°A3AAADpAp~aZ7~ci - m ~ L~L~O~ 300~~~ m~m~~ ~~;n!1 3~Omm=m~~m~EpX -) ~ yAa ~E~ppp=~I=m33D(1 $D~ao~ g~$ mzo~Amm~~Lm~mpleu 0 p~pLZ~pz~yyD~~AmAAEpO~3UA0 Z 03~p(~m D~<m~~mAm 8~mp~'AppDmp~ZOpN pp~a LL~~yAmDg~ ~zt~mm~i~m~E~ir ~~Z-~mim3m(mi <~<£~r ~~ymEeC--ppDE~Itlmy3 Am0 AmDOfiep~r ~cmE A(D1~Z p ~ g{ n m s B ~~X pmt iT~ ~" ~ v ~ \ ~ -Q t O \ / ~ ~ i / a ~ ~ N ~ I~ i ,tgd9 ~1 W~ l \ / / ~ \ \ / ~ ~ I ` ~ ~ /~ ~ \ w / \ n \ U V • ~ ~ 1 r 7{ ~~ ~rr lel . \ /O L ~0 \ \ \ ~~~~ / \ 7xi'' \ ~T11 ~\ o ~, ~ ~ \ ~ \ I ~` `~~ _~~~~ =S1~LL~LRLLI~ \~\\ \ II r~ ~ ~ '} ce/ \\ \~~ I m ~ ,~ i ~ \ \ ~ _ o~ \ ~_ _ D \ ~~' r ~ \ ~ r~ ~ ~~ s ~~ ~~- z m m D to ® ~ ~ u m ~ ~ !~ u p p (1 n Y Q A p b P x W GA` O w ~ ~ m y z o - Q n~ 0 g 0 D r ~ 0 D r r ~ r ~ m i p ~ ~ D r a• m x 6 n y N ~ ~ ~' ~ P D 0 SR ~ ~ fn a - ~ a o I i - ___ ____ _.. ____ ~ __ m -- _' _- -' a o ~ s A ~ m ~ A w ~ ~ 6 _ ~ ~ ~ PROPERT7 LINE _ - _--- ---- - ~ - T'-'ti r--Ns3amm•mm'w s9mm~ ~ -- __ A __r 3 p r N m 0 D b a O I ~ i` ~ j n ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ z.1 ~lJ _ _~ I -_. ~ C ~ m O I / / ~ p . 3 -Zi O m 8 D Z UOA U `i A ~ ~ m D F p ~ m _ ~ /~ I I- ~ a ~ ^ ® A m m ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~~ / A n ~~'' P~ 4g _~ i w / '~ l / r--t-' I I oI / I ~ / r-~ / - I ~ I /~ I / 0 i ~,i ~~/~~rD I ~ i a e\ €~ ~ ~ I/A P$~/~I / ~ ; ~ 3 ~ 1 1 ~~ I j >F / rO I ~ N 6 III ~~ 05~, / ~ ~ ~ ~-~~ sk ~ ~ 1 ~ I i N II / ~. ~-- I, / ~~~ r~/ /~ ~~ / I/ / m \ an ~ N NN .. ''nn '~~~ `~Y s•-r / a~-ia I I e~"le• I x V to ~ ~ D 0 V' m /~ I ~ ^ 4 ~ i ( ~ ~ ~ ~n / ~; m ~, / , . ~ U 1111 ~ - r \ \ _ ; i _ - ~ ~ "1~1L s W A D~ ~ I I r ~ ro ~ ~ ~ //~ I ~ ~ n ~~~ e,111~ T ~/ '\ D ~3 ~ /~ I I -( n I I I I P~ a~ ~ I ~ ~»~ e ¢a ' _ ~ °"Z ^ ~ I s ~ II ,I I I ,; i; ~ I X11111 m ~D1 N D m p 0 r b L~ 0 ~ D ~ m U U ie N ti J f ~. C ~ B m ~ ~ ~ ~ m x ° r u m ~ D. 0 ~ r z .. w P ~ ~ x 0 C~ ^ P ~^ ~ ~. u n ~ m m x b y y b U T u 0 PIS w x U ~ ~ 6 I~ A T VA ~ 0 A 0 W m ~ r A m A @ ~ n iD ~ A m S~ X 6 t°n (gyp ~ y O m 0 A y A ~ B ~ ~ s r C` x Oi $ ~ d ~ 0 ~ 6 ~ ~` e 6 T a ~ e ~, b 6 0 (~ Z ~~ II 9 z"'~~ 9 ~03~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ t~tm o z~ ~ ~ ~ i J a• r D b p ymy 3 X 3 J ~' ~ ~ Z ~ ~ _ ~ 3 po A g m ~m m w ~zI ~ 1~ ipp E L ~ mm C ~ Q I 7y ~ y ~ ~' C 0 p m m DI ~ r ~ ~ D r m 0 ra ~ m ~ Q i D ~ o ~ in ~ ~ ~ ~ x 9 ~ ga ~ ~ W~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~€~ I ~ I N ;; ~8~ ..P~ ~~ D ~~~ m - i ----- i -- I i I ~i ~ I iii ! I I, _ , ;I , I; I li III -------- I I I ___ - J I I ~ ~ A~ \ Z ___ __ _______ J ~ I D A ~\ ~~ X N a $ I t I o m ~ ~ ~r~ ~ie~r ~ ~ o I I ~ I I ' D ~ ~ j~ ~~~~~~~~ to N m €~ o I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OI ~ a"i vr• ~~ ,a s£ ~ I ~ = a ° 5 8 ~~ ! I g g 0 ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ r I - _ - - - - T5-FRONT YARD SETBACK I m to I I I I I I q -~, - I w - -I -- - - - - - - - 10' 5 ?EASEMENT I I _-_--~-- -- -_ I I ,, I _ PROPER71' LME I BU~1S WAY N ~~+ am' mm' w 5m.~, ------------- '"f ---------- C4 n u - - o ~~~ p v~ ~ ~ SARATOGA RESIDENCE ~~~ Dm ~ , 3r ~a~ I ~ ZO tt ~ ll gm ~ OWNERS : IVAN BURGOS & ANGELA POLLARD ~= ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ P ~ 1 ~ r m ~_ 4265 BURNS WAY / SARATOGA / CA ~ ° Z ' - ~. n ln - - _ " - '' 4 I I = I e I . ,: . ~.- - / I i ~ ~ > / i i ~ / I / I / _~ \\~ I. / I _ / I I ~~ ~ (~ I • • • ~~ I I ~~ I~ m 0 z C z ~'I r O O r D Z O ~i ~ G7 ~ :O ~ Z m Z = n' p ~ o rC• ~mm m r 'TI r O O - - Zi r z ~\~\ ~1 O D ~ ~ r D ~ ~ D ~ m ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ N r ~, N O ~. co O Z1 ~ ;, N O ti ~'$2 C ~ ~ ~ D ~ Z m ~_ °- r O b m c . m r~rl !-F~ -- 'n - -- - L~q ~ I ~ r I D Im Z V~ ~~ I ~~ I ~~ W ~ cn ~~~ ~t_ m ~ ~ ~~ I ~j I 7 I I I I -- ~~= ~~~ ~ ~ s Fi ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ SARATOGA RESIDENCE ~~~ =.~Z ~ ~ ~ s m ~ ~ ' ~ ~R~ ~ ~~~ 0-Dm ~ IV ~' o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ OWNERS : IVAN BURGOS & ANGELA POLLARD T ° ~ ~ ~ - ~ _~~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~y~ ~ 14265 BURNS WAY / SARATOGA / CA ~ ~ D r ~ ~~~~ ~ ~z m j ~- I ~a ~ I~ i~ I I ® r--- i ~ I I ~ ~ '-~ a I ~ I ~ ~ ~ o ~TJ L __~ ~_ ~_~ I I I I ~~ I ~ ~ ! I ~Q I I ~ ~ I I ~ I I I ~ 1 1 y 1 I ~ 1 1 1 1 ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~ ~ 1 a / ~~r ~ m e~ Imo ~6 1 1 1 4~ m t B~ rn ~ ~ 11 1 1 1 1 r ---+ 1 1 ~~~ ~ o~ m ~~ ~~ 4~~4 ~~~~ 0 ~~ ZL • • • r-----~ r_-- ~ -, I I ~ ZJ I ~ I I I T---~ ~ - rDri .. 0 O ® r-- I J I I I ~~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I _ I ~ I I ~~ r--~---J I I 1 m I~ °. r D z ~ ~~ I I °s~ I ~f r_--_- J I ~~ j r-----~-~ . J Cpl I J r----~-~ r ~ T_ i I ~ ® i - i g~ I ~~. I I ~ C7 I ~ I ~• ~ I ' 8 I I ~~ L____J_~ O Z I I I L____~_~ - - ~ _ a I I - - _ -° - --~ - C Z - -- -- - ~~ I I _ ._ I- -- ~ I I I j ~ I ~~ I `--~ r--- I I ® `--~ _ r-- L-, I I L-, I I I - L__ i , I I I L-------~ I L--- ---J ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~, ~1 1 11 1~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ e 1 0 ~ ~ 1~ 1 ~ ~ ~ X X 1 / 1/ ~t 11 11 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~ 1 „ . ~ r- 1 o D ~ ~ ~ ~ C~~ ~~ ~ _ 1 ~\ ' Z ~ ®® ®® ® I ® ~ 1 11 ~ ~_ mz ~ ~ . ~ m ~ ~ ~~ ~' C ~ o I ~ ~~~ P a K ~ ~ Im ~ I f r- I ez; ~ ~ ~ RIOCE ~ g ~ TI ~~ I a;~ •~ ~ \ r------ ------, ~ O ~~ ~ 1 ~~ \ ~ I-L----~ ~ m n ~ ~ m ~ I it i~ ~ I ~~ I ~~ I Z 8 0 ~ ~: ~ o /`i ~° ~ ~ RIDGE I A ~a 3 a ~~ f-- ---- ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ PF i ~1 `F ~~ I ~ CTI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -------- -- ~ °~ Z _ - ~ / L i r ~ ~ ~ ----r 1 \ r_ J ~ \ I I J ~ ~~ o~ m RIDGE /~ ~ m ~ ~ W • ~ ' '~ - I -_-_^~ ~ I ~ v' I I -_-~-_ / PoDGE I Ji - /1~ ~l i y 2 ~ ~ _ _ cn ~ i ' ~ ~ I J r•----_ ~ ~ r ~~ I I I I ~~ I I W ~ ~ ~ e r-- - - I I I L---- _ I ~_=_J -----T- r--------J -.~ oc I ( ~ z \ I ~, I I _ I I ~~ I I I ~ L_ - - - _ _ - J SY-11 ~ 1/4' I '-------- I -------J ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ~ ~OFm 9 T ~ Z S m ~' m ~~~~ ~ ,~. ~~ ~~~~~ •~ N" ~ ~ G O YI SARATOGA RESIDENCE xD~ ~~Dm `°8N I -~ Z~ OWNERS : IVAN BURGOS & ANGELA POLLARD ~ ° ~ m 3 m ~ 14265 BURNS WAY / SARATOGA / CA ~ o o D r o iz m ~ ~ ~ ixE~~~~~~ i~~~d~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ I ~ ° zz a ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ I ~ ~~ Z ~~~ >~ I~ P~OPER'r LICE I ~ i r ~.~~ ~ ~ 8 n PI~ I 1 Oj ~ ~ 4 ~n m '" ~ I m I@ i - i i s '~la I~ I I~ la i m P d. i~ P (1 Cnl m D A i _,-~~ I 9.-~~ i ~ m O ~ I I ( O zz_z G~ 3 I~ N D A !0'-10 IR' ffi •A r oO 3 _~_~~ r I. -=i m r r X b. i ~ D ~' g ,~ I I ~ p o ~ ~ n m ~ FRO.°_RiY LIN°_ - - .I - - - i ~ ~~~ a< x, SARATOGA RESIDENCE y~~ ~<-Dm ~~~ =~Z~ OWNERS : IVAN BURGOS & ANGELA POLLARD ~!~ ~ ~ m 14265 BURNS WAY 1 SARATOGA 1 CA ~ ~ ; Z r Ill m 3 II'-'0' f1 O N m • ~ ~ • v• ..- V ,~ ~ I I~ I~ ~~ '~ I~!~ $ I,I' I~ ~ 16 ICI N D r m m a ~~~ ~ ~ n ~~~~~ ~ ~~I ~ ~.~ ~~~~ D m m s ~~ I i~I -~ ' m ~ i~ e -~ I , Ij ~ ~ I~ II ~~ N ~I-~ '- m ~ ~ ;~ r ~ D (1 N Z d ;~ m ~~ A m N A ~~ IlI~ I~ Pik I~ ~ ~i . A gym m v I,i~i ' aiti I ! I ~Z I` ~ I ; S ~` D r m a e ~ -~-- I IA ~~ ~~ im ~ T A 0 3 N m 1 ~ I~ SARATOGA RESIDENCE ~~~ ~ ~ Dm 0 ~ OWNERS : IVAN BURGOS & ANGELA POLLARD ~°~ .~ ~ m~ 14265 BURNS WAY I SARATOGA 1 CA ~ ~ ° Z r 111 I$I~ Iglu I~ I~ I~ I~I~ I,I~I~ I~ ,I' ~ I' I I PI! ~~9 ~Ig ~ ii