Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal ABSENT: Commissioner Schallop STAFF Planners Oosterhous ~sz Ungo-McCormick, Director Livingstone and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 11, 2005. (APPROVED 5-0, UHL ARRIVED LATE) 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 regardingOral 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 May 19, 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, or ten (10) calendar days for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd 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. 1. APPLICATION #05-134 (397-17-014) ANDERSON, 19571 Farwell Ave.; -The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new detached 594 square foot hobby shop and convert an existing 637 square foot detached guest house into a secondary dwelling unit by adding a kitchen. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 15 feet. Design review is required because the total floor area of all structures on the site exceeds 6,000 square feet. Total floor area on the site including the main residence and garage would be 6,683 square feet. The property is zoned R-140,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) 2. APPLICATION #05-024 (397-19-005), LEONARDI, 15360 Bestview Court; -The applicant isrequesting design review approval to construct a new single-family residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence is approximately 18 feet. Design review is required because the total floor area of all structures on the site exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. The total floor area including the main residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit would be 7,015 square feet. The lot size is approximately 59,000 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (DEBORAH UNGO-MCCORMICK) (APPROVED 6-0, WITH CONDITIONS) 3. APPLICATION #04-266 (517-11-006) PRASAD, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence and detached accessory structure. The total floor area of the proposed two- story residence is 4,319 square feet. The detached accessory structure is a total of 1,125 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet 9 inches. The gross lot size is 32,049 square feet and the site is zoned R-120,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 9:15 P.M.TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 8, 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, Andrea Sandoval, 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 May 19, 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.saratoga.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, May 24, 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, MAY 25, 2005 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA Application #05-134 - ANDERSON Item 1 19571 Farwell Avenue. 2. Application #OS-024 - LEONARDI Item 2 15360 Bestview Court 3. Application #04-266 - PRADAD Item 3 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 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. • CiIY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA SzvDY Mort Ar~A 1. The Planning Commission will be reviewing. altetvatives to make the Design review process more efficient and possikaly l form+al`by investigating new locations at City HaIT for the meetings, thr Pros. sand a~' cab TV, k and other mtthods t©u~aprovt the process. ~~ The study sessioa is an in6ormation m+~etwg for the Piann#a~g Connmission. ADjovtuvhtnvt 3'o Rr~vLAtt PLANNING CoMM1SS~oN iViEE1 iNG - Wedaesday, May 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council ChambrrsK.fvk Tha~t+ez 13777 Fruftvafe Avenue, Saratoga, CA s ~ ;} C1T'Y OF SARA'j'OGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGIIVnn DATE: Wodnaday, Mary 2S, 2005 - 7~0 pm. /Civic lhes~ec,1377T Fnaitvak Av~apax, S~~rtog,~, CA , . . ROi1. CAU.: Caamissionas Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Rdxit Kutxkz, Linda Ralgeis, Miclmd 5cha11op~ Mfkc Ulil, sad Chsir Susie . Pty€oFAU.t~tA~ ~~_. M1NLR'E.S: Dn~ft Miaata fiaan Regular Planning Commia~on Mocdng of May 11, 3vos. ORAL Colrn~urscAtroNS - My..nKMber of dK I'al~c will be allo~wad ~ a~+ess elk PiapmiagCa~sion~r up m drat nos on . ~ not oa des T1ic lawgaia+~lh pi+ohib~ts dK Plmm6g Cona~ionirom dlsass~g or tail acdon an such ~ Howcvrr, dap~a~adrgConu~dssion ma~-+nsoructste~goaj-r~din~goralc~a~nioa~ioiu md~r~la~gco~ndssio~dinaaon rosta~ ~OtA'~Coluttrttlt~K.~-T'IONS- Pf1-NNiNG~COM~ItSStoN D1RECnoN to STAFF tmaon to staff ring actions nay cin~+mt Oral Ca®muniaations. REi~T of P~oSTING AGENDiA P~ta~nt to Go~mmem Code 54934.2, the agenda fat this meeting was PmP~f pasted an May l9, 20U5. R~RT~ APPgIIL R~HTS If j~0 ~ 1Ni3h ta'ppeal any derision On this Agenda, ~ may B1e aII "Appeal boa" with the Clty Clerk w1~ia $fteen {~ cakndar days of the date of the decision, or txa (10) calendar drys far a conditional use permit, P m Municipal Ca3e 15.90.0!SO (b). . CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS AII mteasted persons may appear and be heard at the abc~we time sad place. Ap~plicants/Appcllants ana their repraea have a total of tea m#auta far o~paa~ epomaesrw. Members. of the Public mn3t cosatnent oar .any item far up to .three. minutes Applic~c/Appellanos and their repcrseatatives have A total ~ five miudmum for closing statemcnta. 1' APPhICA'~ION ~OS<l34 (397-17-014) ANLIERSON, ,19571 Farvvdl Ave.; -The applicant is t , requesting design revi~ruv approval to construct a new d~tachod 594 .aquae foot hobby shop aid coaavrrt an eng 63T aquae foot detached -goat hoease i,oa~o a u~ dwelling unit by adding a ltiochea. The masitnum ~-right of the proposed ~cture is 1.5 fat. Design review is req~rianed bocauae the local floor area of all savctuzes dal tb~e sine e~xedr6,000 square foot. - Towl: floor area cn the site incli~ng for main residence and ~-~} bt 6,i~i83 square feet.. The prapaty ie zoned R-l 4i},f~00. (UTA VASUDEVAN) .~ _ , z ~-~• . . , , _ _ _ - _ __ __ _ _ _ ,.. ~ ..'. 2. APPLICATION #OS-024 (397-19-005), LEONARDI, 15360 Bestvicw Court; -The applicant isrequesting design review approval to construct a new single-family resldence and a secondary ', dwelling unit The project includes the demobton of an existiag.residence. The maaomum bright of the proposed residmee is approzimatrly 18 feet Design revlew is required bocause the total Boor area of all sttvcxures on the site excads 6,000 sq. ft. The total floes stria iactisding the main rsildettCe, garage and secondary dwelling unit would be 7,015 square: fete. The lot size is approicimaccly 59,000 square feet and the, site is zoned R-140,000. (DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK) 3. APPLICATION #04-266 (517-11-006) PRASAD, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -The appl#cant ngnescs review and use paznit approval to ~t a two-stio~y s~k-family rcaideact and detached accessory suvcturc. The project includes the demolition of an elristing . OnC~8ti03y and detached aCCtsaOly 8tNCturC. The total floor' area of the. tw0- sooarq residmct i 4,319 square feet 'Ihc detached accessory structure is a total of 1,125 square feet The magnum height of the prolwscd residence is 25 feet 9 inches. The gross lot size is 32,049 lest and the site is zoned R-120,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) ~ngCDG"Y'O1~S ITEM CoM~oN ITEMS CAMMUI~IICATIONS - Nave .. ADJOURNMENT TO NExT MEETING . - Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avmne, Saratoga, CA Incomplianccwitl- thcArru~icans with Disabilicics Act (ADA), if you nad spaial assistmicc topartic.~putc in tMs moct~fn{g, please contact the city Cleric at (408) 868-1269 or ctda~k~saratogacaus. Notification 48 hams prior to the mati~ will enable dcc City w make reasonable arra~g~cments ro rnsurc acccssibiiity to this mating (78 CFR 35.101: 3SJ04 ADA Title In. Certificauof Postisgof Agenda: I, ICrisein Sorel, spaialist for the city of saratoga, declem that the f fa' ~ ~ ~ Plaml~g Cammissiorc of the city of Saratoga was posted on May 19, 2005 at the otfia of die City of Saratoga, 137T7 Frceit~w><Avacc~ Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location The agenda is also available an the City's websia at -+'w'-+'~43~4 rya, „ ~ ~ ~ A~aa•s via ~-mail. please send your a-~ address to !, 0~ ~I MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Ann Welsh and Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of Apri126, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 26 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 20. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication Items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 5, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal 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); 10 days for Conditional Use Permits. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 Page 2 APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-O1), SHANKAR, 22461 Mount Eden Road: -Requests 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 Hillside Residential lot contains 1.89 acres and has a 28% slope. The house contains 5,188 square feet with a 2,570 square foot garage/basement, a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and conversion of the barn into a 592 square foot cabana. The height of the house is 25 feet 11 inches as measured from natural grade. (ArrN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new residence a 1.89-acre parcel located within the County at 22461 Mount Eden Road. This property is being annexed into the City of Saratoga. • Described the proposed residence as consisting of 5,188 square feet with a 2,570 square foot basement, 533 square foot second unit and the conversion of a barn into a 592 square foot cabana. • Said that the maximum height would be 25 feet, 11 inches. • Informed that the parcel has been pre-zoned as Hillside Residential, which allows for single-family dwellings on two-acre lots. • Explained that this project has undergone numerous revisions in part due to the propensity for landslides on this parcel. After several options were considered, the new home's footprint was moved to this currently proposed location on the site. • Reported that neighbor concerns have included drainage, the driveway placement, privacy impacts and bulk. • Said that the Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports has reviewed the driveway location issue. Privacy impacts have been dealt with through the requirement for a landscape buffer. The bulk and/or size of the structure have been dealt with through changes to the southwest facade with the inclusion of a berm feature and the reduction of the garage to three bays. • Explained that the site drainage would be directed to the plate. • Reported that the Trails Subcommittee had requested that the currently used trail be dedicated to the City and the applicant has agreed to that request. • Said that privacy is protected through a substantial landscape buffer using natural landscape. Impervious coverage is just 13 percent. The on-site drainage channel is undisturbed. The north and east facades are low profile in design. • Stated that this proposal is compatible in size and height with neighboring properties. • Said that she was available for questions. • Pointed out that during the site visit, the adjacent neighbor expressed a desire for Deodar Cedars instead of the proposed Italian Cypress. City Arborist David Bagby said that this would be an acceptable option in that location and recommended the use of four 36-inch box Cedars located 20 to 25 feet apart as well as three 24-inch box Oaks located 25 feet apart. This material should be planted before the start of construction. Commissioner Cappello asked if this recommendation represents a direct replacement for the initially proposed 15-gallon Italian Cypress trees. • • Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 3 '"'" Planner Ann Welsh re lied yes, this material would replace the proposed 11 Italian Cypress on the P landscape plan. Commissioner Hunter asked why only four Cedars are required to replace 11 Italian Cypress. Planner Ann Welsh replied that too many Cedars would overwhelm the area. Commissioner Kundtz asked if this proposed planting material would truly accomplish the screening required by the neighbors. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the visual screen achieved would not be 100 percent upon planting but would eventually provide the required visual screening. However, it is not immediate. The house will take between two and three years to build. If this landscaping is planted as soon as possible, it should be well established by the time of occupancy. It will take between five and eight years for this landscaping to fully mature and establish. Commissioner Rogers pointed out the color board, which includes a base color of Malibu Beige and a second brown trim color. Additionally a white color is proposed for the pilasters and balustrades. Planner Ann Welsh said that the main body color of Malibu Beige has a reflectivity of 57 percent. The range between 50 and 60 percent reflectivity is considered acceptable. Typically minor trim areas are not addressed as a major issue in review of a project. Instead mostly the main body color and roof color are considered. However, the Commission could consider the trim color if it wishes to do so. Commissioner Uhl asked staff where in the Resolution the issue of trees is included. Planner Ann Welsh pointed out page 15 of the staff report. Chair Nagpal asked if the requirement includes irrigation. Commissioner Uhl suggested that if not, the condition should be modified to include irrigation. Chair Nagpal asked about drainage to one area. Planner Ann Welsh said that a revised grading and drainage plan provided shows the direction of drainage to Mount Eden Road and a drainage swale. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Udaya Shankar, Applicant and Owner, 22461 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Stated that this Planning Commission is now very familiar with this application. • Said that the City has reviewed five to six different revised plans. • Said that issues raised previously have been addressed and this project has come a long way in well over two years time. • Expressed his hope that approval will be granted tonight. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if he is comfortable with the Arborist's recommendations regarding screening landscaping. Mr. Udaya Shankar said that he is comfortable with the recommendations although he personally prefers Italian Cypress to Cedars. However, if the Commission wants to approve the use of Cedars, he is fine with that. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the use of the paint color, Sierra White, for the balusters and rails. Mr. Udaya Shankar said that this color would be used a limited amount. If the Commission prefers another color, please let him know. It is being used as a contrast color but he has no problem changing from his selection of Sierra White. Ms. Ann Sanquini, Member, Trails Subcommittee, 14087 Loma Rio Drive, Saratoga: • Said she wanted to publicly thank Mr. Udaya Shankar for his willingness to enter into a trail dedication. • Explained that there are approximately 15 miles of trails in Saratoga. This Mount Eden Road area is more of a challenge in that it was developed prior to the establishment of the Trails Program. • Said that these trails are mainly for equestrian use. It is terrific to expand the equestrian trails in this area, which is part of the heritage of the area. • Thanked the Planning Commission for its support of the establishment and maintenance of trails in the City of Saratoga. Mr. John Keenan 22215 Mount Eden Road Sarato a: g • Said that he wanted to be on record as opposing athree-story, 35 foot high house in this area. Mr. Paul Scola, 22301 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that this is a tough one. • Added that this applicant has been before the Commission several times but that many of the delays are due to poor planning. • Said that the house originally designed for this parcel was tucked into the hill and not on top of the hill. • Stated that the overall height is misrepresented, as is the landscaping. • Declared that neither privacy nor bulk issues have been adequately addressed but that he prefers the new landscaping recommendations to the original. • Suggested a continuance to allow the landscaping and bulk issues on the west side of the property to be dealt with further. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Paul Scola if he has any recommendations on the issue of bulk. Mr. Paul Scola said that that elevation should be contoured. Right now it looks like a hotel that is sitting on top of a hill with lots of decks and glass overlooking a valley. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Paul Scola about the landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Paul Scola said that the screening landscaping needs to be bulked up. If the amount of landscaping planted is determined to be too much after five or more years, some of it can be removed later once it is determined to be excessive. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Paul Scola if he believes that six 36-inch box Cedars would be enough. Mr. Paul Scola recommended that the trees be staggered when planted but he was not certain of the proper spacing. Commissioner Hunter pointed out to Mr. Paul Scola that his wife has indicated a preference for Redwoods to Cedars. Mr. Paul Scola said that his wife had consulted with a nursery. Commissioner Hunter asked if both the Scolas are all right with the Cedars now proposed. Mr. Paul Scola said that some sort of middle ground could be reached. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that Mr. Udaya Shankar was previously asked to share his view on how his design is i compatible with rural Saratoga. • Stated that he shares the neighbor's concern with the three-story effect of this home. • Said that the landscaping is an academic problem. • Stated that he is not sure how to draw a conclusion to balance what he sees versus what is known. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that this is a tough case and that he attended the last Study Session on this proposal. • Reminded that the issues raised have been addressed for the most part. • Added that the Planning Commission could address landscaping adjustments. • Said this project is now beyond the point where this applicant should be asked for more design changes. • Pointed out that this is the only real location for the footprint of the house on this property. • Said that while it is not an ideal situation, he is in favor of the Resolution in the packet and is willing to address landscaping through further clarification of the conditions. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed with the comments of Commissioners Kundtz and Schallop. • Reminded that this applicant has done lots of work. • Said that she does have concern as to how this home would fit into the rural character of Saratoga and that it would be visible from across the valley. • Said that the applicant has done a lot to conceal the bottom portion of this house and basement using berm landscaping, which should help soften the view from across the valley. • Echoed the concerns raised by Commissioner Uhl regarding good landscaping using native trees. • Pointed out that Italian Cypress are not native. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 6 • Suggested that the use of Sierra White paint color would pop out even if used sparingly. • Proposed that the light reflective values of paint colors used be no more that 50 to 60 percent. Commissioner Hunter: • Reminded that the unfortunate part of this application is the fact that were the property not being annexed by the City of Saratoga, the house would have remained on the existing footprint. However, when the City elected to annex, the location of this house had to go onto the top of the hillside. • Recommended that the number of screening trees be expanded to six 36-inch box Redwoods or Cedars. • Explained that a house located above her home has a trim color that is very visible from below. • Said that there is not much more that can be done now. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that staff and this applicant have done quite a bit of work in order to address concerns raised on issues of drainage, privacy and the safety of the driveway placement. • Said that this lot is perched atop a valley. • Stated he did not feel he was in a position to decline staff's recommendation. • Agreed that white paint would stand out even if only used sparingly. • Expressed a preference that the Sierra White paint color be changed to one that is less reflective. Commissioner Uhl: • Agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners. • Suggested that the only thing that could have been done differently would be to have been more specific in directions provided to this applicant, including very specific direction on the issue of bulk. • Said that this applicant has done a lot including working with the Trails Subcommittee and with the neighborhood. • Said that while this is a beautiful design it will stand out. • Said that there are lessons learned here that can be used in the future on the issue of bulk and prevent such problems from happening in the future. • Stated that with additional direction of the Commission, he would support this request. Chair Nagpal: • Stated that this process has been difficult for the applicant and his neighbors. This is a sensitive neighborhood. • Said that there is a special circumstance with this parcel as there is only one viable building pad area available. • Said that with the drainage improvements and Trail easement, she will support this project. • Stated her agreement with other Commissioners that a native tree species be used in place of the non-native Italian Cypress, such as Coastal Redwood or Cedar. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the Arborist was concerned that Redwood trees would become invasive on the neighbor's house and retaining walls while Cedars would not. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Uhl said he supports staggered planting, which could be thinned out later if it becomes necessary. Commissioner Kundtz agreed. Planner Ann Welsh asked for clarification that the paint reflectively should be no greater than 50 to 60 percent. Chair Nagpal suggested a maximum of 50 percent. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Chair Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #03-272) to allow the construction of a new house on a parcel proposed for annexation into City of Saratoga located at 22461 Mount Eden Road, with the following amendments to the conditions: • That irrigation be included for the screening landscaping to the west side of the property; • That the screening landscaping include six 36-inch boxed Cedar trees that are planted in a staggered pattern in place of the originally proposed Italian Cypress and three 24-inch box Oaks that replaces the originally proposed Douglas Firs on the landscape plan, to be located in front of the Cedars; and • That the paint trim color have a light reflectivity value of less than 60 percent; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Nagpal extended congratulations to Planner Ann Welsh and acknowledged that this is Ann's last meeting with the City of Saratoga. Expressed appreciation for all Ann has done and wished her every success. Planner Ann Welsh said that it has been great working with this Commission. Director John Livingstone advised that Planner Ann Welsh is leaving Saratoga to take a new job as Community Development Director for the City of Fairfax. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #05-012 (398 OS 001) -JOSEPH, 13001 Anza Drive: -Request Design Review Approval to remodel an existing single-family home to include an 1,175 square foot addition and to exceed the 18 foot height limits. The total floor area of the existing residence and proposed addition is . 3,877 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 19.41 feet. The gross lot size is 16,804 square feet and zoned R-1-12,500. (DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK) Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 8 Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for the remodel of an existing single-family residence to add 1,175 square feet and increase the maximum height from 18 feet to 19.41 feet in order to continue the pitch of the existing roof. • Reported that the addition will offer a family room, living room and kitchen. • Described the architectural style as contemporary. The home was originally built in the mid 1970s and the colors and materials of the addition would match the existing home, which consists of tan stucco and composition shingle roofing. • Advised that this property is a corner lot and meets the setback requirements. The addition is located at the rear of the house. • Informed that no trees on site are affected by construction so no construction fencing or tree replacement is required. • Said that the neighbors were notified. One letter was received expressing concern regarding window placement and potential impacts. Upon review of the proposal, it was determined that this plan does not adversely impact that neighbor. • Reported that staff makes the findings and recommends approval by the Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked about the format of the neighbor notification forms. Director John Livingstone advised that it is a standard template that is sent to adjacent and across the street neighbors. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that at the last meeting some neighbors had said they were never • contacted. Director John Livingstone explained that there is a two-fold sequence. The staff does the official notice in advance. Most neighbors get a two months' lead. Chair Nagpal asked staff if they question the applicant if that applicant says he or she has been unable to reach each of their neighbors. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick added that some neighbors chose not to respond and they cannot be forced to sign the notice form. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jason Mundy, Project Architect, Paladin Design Group, 2470-E S. Winchester Boulevard, Campbell: • Explained that this home would extend above the 18-foot height slightly for just about a 200 square foot area, which is minimal. • Added that this height is needed to keep the roof plains consistent. • Said that he was available for any questions. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Hunter said that this project is just fine and she has no problems with it. Commissioner Kundtz complimented the designer on a fine project that is sensitive to privacy issues by having the addition located at the furthest point from its neighbor. Commissioner Uhl said that this project is good and he likes its design for its architectural integrity. He complimented staff for a great job. Commissioner Rodgers said ditto. Chair Nagpal told Mr. Jason Mundy that she appreciates his having taken the time and effort to come before this Commission in order to preserve the architectural integrity of this home. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-012) to allow the remodel and addition to an existing home on property located at 13001 Anza Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-398 (503-19-117) YUNG 20673 Rice Court: -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct asingle-story, single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 5,465.43 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23.6 feet. The lot size is approximately 40,376.75 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow a new single-story single- family residence and the demolition of the existing home on this property. • Described the proposed new residence as including 5,466 square feet with a maximum height of 23.6 feet. The architectural design is contemporary French. • Explained that this project is before the Commission as a result of the height above 18 feet. • Reported that the project site consists of 40,376 square feet or approximately one acre. • Added that the significant vegetation on the property will be retained. • Said that the house's footprint would be shifted slightly toward the street and the garage is being moved to the other side (right side) of the building from the existing garage location. • Said that the existing pool and gazebo would be removed and replaced with landscaping. There is also an existing vineyard on the property that will be retained. • Advised that between 850 and 950 cubic yards of cut would be required and would be kept to a minimum in the area currently developed. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 10 • Reported that the site contains 48 protected trees and all but four would be retained. The City Arborist supports the proposal to remove the four trees, three of which are Pines and one is a Cedar. They would be replaced. • Advised that the applicant has done a good job with trees and a tree bond that equals 100 percent of the trees' value of $140,000 would be secured. • Said that the property's trees help retain privacy. • Advised that findings can be met to support approval. Commissioner Uhl asked about the color board. Chair Nagpal pointed to plan sheet A-4 and asked if the dotted line represents the existing house's outline as it currently stands. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes, it would be shifted slightly forward but the area of development is essentially the same. Chair Nagpal asked about the reason for the requested maximum height. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said the reason is architectural. She added that the impervious surface would be less than 35 percent with the elimination of the pool. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. ' ect Architect, Metro Desi n Grou , 307 Orchard City Drive, #107, Campbell: Mr. Tom Sloan, Pro J g P • Reported that the Yungs purchase their property last fall and he was retained to remodel the existing home. • Added that the Yungs purchased this property because of its privacy. • Said that they decided that they wanted asingle-story home with no steps or stairs due to Mr. Yungs health concerns. • Advised that it was decided that the existing home would be too expensive to remodel and it would be best to demolish it and start fresh. With the design of the new house they relocated the garage but plan to keep the existing driveway in order to preserve a large Oak tree. With the relocation of the garage, they have to lower the building pad. There are many advantages to doing that because dropping the pad results in an overall lowering of the building height. They wanted to move the bulk of the building forward on the lot to enable them to get a backyard. • Explained that the maximum height at 23.6 feet represents a very small portion of the new home. The owners wanted 10-foot average wall heights. • Said that a rendering of the new home has been provided to show how it would look from the street. This rending does not include the existing very large Oak tree so that the architecture of the new home can been seen more clearly. • Reported that in December he and the Yungs traveled to each neighbor and met with each one. A few of them were uncomfortable with signing the City's acknowledgement form. This form is too intimidating to many people because it seems like a contract and several outright refuse to sign even though they had no objection to the project itself. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the reason for the Porte couchiere. Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 11 that it would allow the Yun s and their uests to enter into the house in a Mr. Tom Sloan replied g g protective manner. This is a feature that was requested by them and the existing mature Oak will mostly block this feature from view from the street. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Porte couchiere would allow Mr. Yung to enter from the front door. Mr. Tom Sloan replied yes. Chair Nagpal thanked Mr. Tom Sloan for going through his design logic as well as providing his impressions on the City's notification form. Asked about the average height of the existing home, as this new one does not seem to represent a huge difference. Mr. Tom Sloan said that the relative difference is between 1.5 and 2.5 feet. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Sloan if this takes into consideration the fact that the new house is lowered on the lot. Mr. Tom Sloan said it represents the existing versus proposed ridge height. They are lowering the pad by two feet because there is a requirement for a large under floor space. A two-foot crawl space is required whereby currently the crawl space for this house is 18 inches. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated that this design is quite attractive and lowering the foundation takes away much of the height difference. The additional height will not impact privacy. • Said that the lot position means that there are no privacy impact issues. • Asked for the reasoning for removal of trees. Is it the driveway? Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. It is also where the house is to be shifted over as well. Commissioner Hunter said that she has no problem with this request. The home has a nice design that will look nice. She added that she has no issue with the removal of these particular four trees, as they are not in the best condition. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed that this is a nice design that is moved downhill just a bit. • Stated that retaining the vineyard saves a nice part of Saratoga history. • Said that it is also nice to have a selection of houses in Saratoga that meet ADA requirements. • Expressed support for staff's recommendation. Chair Nagpal agreed with the previous comments and said that she could support this proposal with just a two-foot height difference. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-398) to allow the Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2005 Page 12 construction of a new single-family residence on property located at 20673 Rice Court by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Schallop advised that he would miss the training on May 19~' and the next regular Planning Commission meeting on May 25`t`. Commissioner Kundtz reported that he too would miss the May 19`s training but would be at the next regular meeting on May 25`t'. Commissioner Uhl said he would not be able to attend the May 19`h training. Commissioner Rodgers reported that she had attended the Annual League of California Cities meeting in April where she learned a lot. She advised that the not topic was a new type of zoning code that incorporates pictures instead of words. She promised to put together a report on the sessions she attended for the rest of the Commission when the tapes arrive. Director John Livingstone advised that two antenna approvals have been appealed to Council. One will be heard on May 18`t' and the other (flag pole at the Library) will be heard in June. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ,,,. .: f . t ~ n Item 1 'OR.T TC~1~THE PL~N~I~ COI~VIIS~i01 lication No./Locatfo~ OS-134;1;9571 F~vrll Av~aue Tic of App~ic~tian: Rte' of Arq Sttucturc . downer ° Gil~eoa Aadq~on Planner: Lata Va~udevan, AICP Associate P}annCr ~-t~ ;~9' 25, 205 ,iN:. 397-17-014 Deparament Hcad ~~ tt i M ~. r C ~ ti ~ `; .r ~: k.. f ~j VIII 19671 Fi1wNAtir. tM :rti,: .;;.z ~ lrtpYw6~b60Qhf! wr „ X77 ~arvveI~ Au .~ ~. ~: ~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Nance published Mailing canpkted: Posting completed PROJEC-r DESCRIPTION: 04/12/05 05/04/05 OS/ll/OS 05/04/05 05/13/05 The applicant requests design review approval to build a 594 square foot detached hobby shop suad cx~nv+ert an existing guest cottage into a second dwelling unit by adding a kitchen t . area with its existing 637 square feet. The height of the new hobby shop will be 15 feet. Its eaoctas~l materials and colors will match the main residence. The fairly new main -~ was approved by the Planning Commission in 2002. b S'ZJIFF RECOMMENDATION: Sts rcoommeads that the Plaruung Commission approve the application for Design it~vlcw with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTAC~IMENi'S: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing list for project notification 3. Reduced Plans Exhibit 'A,' datie stamped May 12, 2005 • ~~ Application No. OS-134;19571 FarwellAvenr~e STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,168 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.51% GRADING REQUIRED: No grading will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal 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. C ~D®4~3 Application No. OS-134;19571 FarwellAvenve PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 31.1% Maximum Allowable 35%" Main and secondary 6,688 sq. ft. dwelling, &t accessory structures Driveway 3,258 sq. ft. Patios, walks, and pools 3,470 sq. ft. TOTAL 13,416 sq. ft. 16,619.9 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main residence total: 4,641.3 sq. ft. Garage/Workshop and Greenhouse: 810 sq. ft 2nd Dwelling Unit : 637.3 sq. ft. New Hobby Shop: 594 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,682.6 sq. ft. 6,688 sq. ft. Min. Requirement Setbacks: (of new Front 315 ft. 30 ft. hobby shop Rear 51.3 ft. 50 ft. o~y) Left Side 57 ft. 11 ft. Right Side 24 ft. 11 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Hobby Shop 15 ft. 15 ft. Municipal Code Section allows a one time 10% increase in Iloor area and site coverage (10% over the 6,080 square feet and 35% site coverage limit, respectively) for secondary dwelling units that have a deed restriction that requires that if the property is rented it shall only be rented to a low income household. ~®004 Application No. OS-134;195T1 Farwell Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 594 square foot hobby shop with a height of 15 feet. The exterior will match the main residence and the other accessory structures on the property. The applicant is also proposing to convert an existing guesthouse into a second dwelling unit by including a kitchen. The second dwelling unit will also have a full bathroom, a bedroom and a living room. Consistent with definitions in the Zoning Code, the differentiating feature between a guesthouse and a second dwelling unit is that the former does not have a kitchen whereas the latter has full independent living facilities. The applicant is not proposing any exterior changes to this structure. The proposed second dwelling unit meets all Zoning Code requirements. Furthermore, the applicant is seeking to obtain a deed restriction on this second dwelling unit such that if it is ever rented it would be leased to a low income household. The Zoning Code allows a one time 10% floor area and site coverage bonus if such a deed restriction is placed. The applicant is taking advantage of this incentive in order to build his proposed 594 square foot hobby shop. The site has another accessory structure which is a combination greenhouse and garage. All other requirements aside, the Zoning Code does not limit the number of structures on a site. Normally, this type of application will not require Design Review approval from the Planning Commission. However, Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square feet, Design Review approval is required. This lot, with the proposed hobby shop, will have a total of 6,682.6 square feet. The secondary dwelling unit is a permitted use in an existing structure; therefore, it is only the design of the new 594 square foot hobby shop that is subject to Planning Commission review. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the plans to all neighbors within close proximity of his lot. No negative comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. Parking No parking is required for the new hobby shop. For a second dwelling unit, parking requirements include a minimum of one off-street parking space within a garage. The garage requirement may be waived if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate households. Nonetheless, two parking spaces within a garage is located at the main house, and another two spaces within a garage are located in the existing greenhouse/workshop structure, thus meeting the parking requirements for both the main and the secondary dwelling unit. In addition, the site also has ample open parking in the driveway areas. • ~®®005 Application No. OS-134;19571 FarwellAvenue Trees No ordinance sized trees are located in the vicinity of the proposed hobby shop. Furthermore, the proposed gravel pathway leading to the hobby shop will require no grading within the rootzone of the Walnut tree that is on the neighboring property. Therefore, Arborist review was not required as part of this application. 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. The maximum height of the proposed hobby shop will be 15 feet. No windows are proposed on the East elevation facing the neighboring property. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the building site is flat, minimal grading is proposed. The proposed hobby shop will be in keeping with the general appearance of the site and neighborhood. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No ordinance-sized trees are proposed for removal. No ordinance-sized trees are located in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed hobby shop. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The proposed hobby shop is not more than 15 feet in height. It includes a hipped roof to minimize bulk. It is a simple structure with earth tone colors that will blend with the natural environs. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The hobby shop is compatible with the scale of the site and with the surrounding structures. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the Ciry's current grading and erosion control standards. (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 compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and the staff report. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ®O~~'i • • Attachment 1 • ®~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 05-134 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Anderson; 19571 Farwell A venue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to build a 594 square foot detached hobby shop and convert an existing guest cottage into a second dwelling unit by adding a kitchen area within its existing 637 square feet. The height of the new hobby shop will be 15 feet. Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square feet Design Review is required. The proposed project currently exceeds 6,000 square feet and therefore requires Planning Commission review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of construction of a 594 square foot detached hobby shop and conversion of an existing guest cottage into a second dwelling unit 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; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed hobby shop will be 15 feet. No windows are proposed on the East elevation facing the neighboring property. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the building site is flat, minimal grading is proposed. The proposed hobby shop will be in keeping with the general appearance of the site and neighborhood. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No ordinance-sized trees are proposed for removal. No ordinance-sized trees are located in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed hobby shop. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed hobby shop is not more than 15 feet in height. It includes a hipped roof to minimize bulk. It is a simple structure with earth tone colors that will blend with the natural environs. ~©~~8 Application No. OS-134;19571 FarwellAvenue (e) Compatible bulk and height. The hobby shop is compatible with the scale of the site and with the surrounding structures. (f) Currentgrading and erosion control methods. The proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (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 compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and the 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, the application for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A' date stamped May 12, 2005 incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following: i. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. ii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The height of the structure shall not exceed 14 feet, 6 inches as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 4. Evergreen landscape screening including dense, tall, wide, and fast growing minimum 15-gallon Toyon trees (4), Italian Buckthorn trees (5), and Carolina Laurel Cherry trees (7) shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. • ®®U~9 Application No. OS-134;19571 FarwellAvenUe 5. The applicant shall record a deed restriction for the secondary dwelling unit that restricts it so that it may only be rented to below market rate households prior to Building Permit issuance. FIRE DISTRICT 6. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 7. 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 or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 25th day of May 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • O00®10 Application No. OS-134;19571 FarwellAvenue 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 • • ®©®~~1 Attachment 2 ~~®~12 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, 1~ V ~ils4((~e VILW ,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 Planning Commission on the ~ day of 2005, 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 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 • 0®®~13 owner street city state BARRINGER LYNN H 14535 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA JAVADI SAEED & SORAYA 13046 TWELVE HILLS RD CLARKSVILLE MD WAN ROBERT T & ROSA Y LI 14601 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA KALKUNTE VENKAT & ANJANA 1476 EDDINGTON PL SAN JOSE CA ROLLINS JOHNS & ELIZABETH M TRUSTEE 19551 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA ANDERSON GIBBON JR TRUSTEE ETAL 19571 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA KATZMAN JAMES A & SYLVIA B TRUSTEE 19607 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA LEACH M ROBERT & MAGGIE M TRUSTEE 14608 EL PUENTE WY SARATOGA CA COLMAN JOHN P & CHERYL B 800 POLLARD RD 1 LOS GATOS CA FONG ALLEN G & GLADYS J TRUSTEE 19609 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA CA NAQVI SIKANDAR R & MAHNAZ TRUSTEE 19611 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA CA YEN DAVID W & GRACE S 19653 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA CA PESTANA IRENE & ERNEST E 2225 OAKLAND RD SAN JOSE CA DOX JOSEPH F TRUSTEE ETAL 14603 EL PUENTE WY SARATOGA CA SAMSON WILFRED J TRUSTEE ETAL 19691 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA OBERHAUSER MARY F ETAL 14462 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA PAGONIS MILTON J & JOANNE 14450 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA PAGONIS ELISA A & GARY E TRUSTEE 14448 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA NOTHHAFT HENRY R & RANDIE L 14563 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA CHEN DENNIS SHING DER & YI PING CHU 14551 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA LINDORES LISA M & COLIN M 14545 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA THORPE LOUIS M & SANDRA R 19550 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA MARCOS GARY E & ANN K 19520 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA DRINKER HENRY R JR TRUSTEE ETAL 14711 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA RIVERS JAMES P & SUZANNE 14760 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA MILLER HENRY W & SANDRA M TRUSTEE 14765 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA JOSEPH RONALD & GAIL TRUSTEE 14751 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA MOORE ROBERT P & PATRICIA G 19608 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA SWANSON JAMES R & MARILYN M PO BOX 3466 SARATOGA CA NELSON NORVAL J & EILEEN R 19612 FARWELL AV SARATOGA CA BERARDO STEVE C & LYNN A PO BOX 785 TAHOE CITY CA COHN RONALD S & REBECCA W 19475 RIESLING CT SARATOGA CA DOW STEPHEN C & ELIZABETH D 19493 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA CA CHANG PAUL C & CHING-LI TRUSTEE 19486 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA CA TSAI CHEN-LUNG & MEI-MAN TRUSTEE 19498 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA CA • zip apn 95070-5642 39717008 21029 39717010 95070-6135 39717011 95129-3725 39717012 95070-5506 39717013 95070-5506 39717014 95070-5506 39717024 95070-5552 39717025 95032-0000 39717026 95070-5552 39717027 95070-5512 39717028 95070-5512 39717029 95131-1402 39717036 95070-5502 39717037 95070-5508 39717038 95070-5515 39717055 95070-5515 39717056 95070-5515 39717057 95070-6152 39717068 95070-6152 39717069 95070-6134 39717070 95070-5507 39718022 95070-5507 39718023 95070-6136 39718024 95070-5511 39718069 95070-6136 39718075 95070-6136 39718076 95070-5507 39718078 95070-1466 39718079 95070-5507 39718080 96145 39718105 95070-6115 39736008 95070-6102 39736028 95070-6130 39736035 95070-6130 39736036 • ®®~~.~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 25th day of May 2005, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. The following item is on this public hearing agenda: APPLICATION #OS-134 (397-17-014) Anderson, 19571 Farwell Ave.; -The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new detached 594 square foot hobby shop and convert an existing 637 square foot detached guest house into a secondary dwelling unit by adding a kitchen. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 15 feet. Design review is required because the total floor area of all structures on the site exceeds 6,000 square feet. Total floor area on the site including the main residence and garage would be 6,683 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, May 17, 2005. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Associate Planner 408-868-1235 • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 3 • ®~~~~ . ~~ s ~ ~ ~--~- A ~- s ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ Q • '~tl~~ny -n~n~l I ~~N~'~ _ ~- ~ ~ ~- 4 r g~~ ~- , ~ ~, .~ ~~.~v ~ ,t ., Ao,A 44 ~~ ~ Q ~p ~ .. ~~„ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~~~ ~ a~~ ~~~ ~- ~ -a,,,.r,~„v ~~~ ._ ~~ e~ R 00 i .~ ,`_n` V+ ~v s J _~__~ ~~ t n ~ I ~ --~ ~ ~ ~ Y t r I. -~- - _____~ .. ~ -- i~~~i~ -~, ,. ~~ ~~ ',. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O '^ ~ `~ • 6 N~ ~o15/~S~ ~~f1fy.'~W'T~~ ~ ~ 1 y~, ~ Nols~~nN~ _.)JNfI ~Ut n~ ~~~~ 1V.~~~Ci 1~1 ~U ~3 ~ r ~~~~ a ~~ .r~ ~ ~ ~~C a• ~Q N O _ .-a . ,~ ~ ~ . ° p ;~ ~ 0 ~'~ 1--, . __1 _. -1 ~- 4"i' ~ T~ ' ~ ~ r ~ d ~~ ~ L ~ L_1 L ~ - - ~, ~ ~ U a ~ © ~°;t P 1 N f ~" ~p 1 ~~%% ~ 3~~ 4 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-c ~ o~ ~ .. ___ _ -~ 3 -- - ° ~, x~N p I5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ R ~ ' s I ~~ ~~R ~~~ ~~ A _<~. ~~ v~ ~~ -~-_. ~ d ~ 4 ~ =~ a~ ~1 >~ ~g a-Q ~ ~ ~ a '~ ~ v ~ ff N ,p~ 1J E ~ ~ ~ 1 _ -4 _~ i • _. • • ~~ ~ ~ of o,~ 11Nf't ~ ~~ ~ ~t-~71 1~2!'~1N~d ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ® ~ ~~- ~- 3 ~ ~ MIM L '~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~eI r NI` ({G -~ _ ~x ~ ~ ~ _A .® ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ _ ,~ m~ o ~ _~ . . ~~ ~~ ~, ~~ A ~ n ~~~ ~ N 3 Q ~~ryx~7~ ~~ - ~~ i~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ ~ ~ ` N .-` ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~~ ~ ~' $ ~ v v .~ .~ • • • • Our firm believes that the above examples illustrate the use of the long single ridge roofline as being pure to the architectural style of the Craftsman home. We have carefully studied the Craftsman style and influences as set forth by Greene and Greene, Julia Morgan, Bernard Maybeck and Frank Lloyd Wright. We feel that the request to break the ridge of our proposal would not "minimize the perception of bulk"asset forth in the Residential Design Handbook. We also feel that if the ridge were to be broken, the purity of the architectural style would be compromised. We thank you for the opportunity to defend our design. Please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank You- Adam Rockwood Rockwood Design Associates, Inc. 408-741-0189 408-741-5085 • ~d®~$ir~ I~~T't-t L" L~vA'T'iOrs Greene and Greene: Willett Residence • • • ~~~~~~ • 1 Il.~'U-:JLln,.i-1K I L~KI~%~.L~~17~..LC~L./K.. "r !'L1t~F7V~{Q U-1L11V~~f-1 C~RE~'riE S,~R~~t`iE,~.OCttTu, rc~ 4R1lCif bLU4. ~Oc5t3Mll~l.i'x] ~. ..,.,~ .. ~_ 'f4 Yww,...s ....«,r,,. fi..~. ....... y.... II.w, O,Gi 1~M.. K w v~nw ~~r...1 ti 4 .....- ... .. ...... V •..,,~. .oW ,~ ~ ~~ ~~t~_f7 <.».... t ii .~~~... _ G .~.~.,. r 'I _..., ~ ; 4 . qr,, tr-.c a...~ • 'i; Bandlnl bw~alow, Aasadena. 1903. (Haase den+oJbhed.) Greene and Greene: Bandini House • ®®®~V~ • • .. --- ~ -- - m.A.;~ ~4 ~~~ ~'. _~srr: c~.r-.aTtcw ?~ Greene and Greene: Gamble House ~®~®Si 1 .......~,......u.w.ar. ~~ .....'.....3~ .._....._ ............. _.._._ R~ ... .:,. ..... io. ..,... ....,,. •1 .. ? '~ .. ......M ~. .i........ ....... .........1A.. ::.. ~VN Greene and Greene: Pratt Residence • Ssb'. I~1: loM ~kkswH PhNbp laws. Pamdswa. IS'06, 8~bo, rp~t: lfey 4 Rrrxy Mws. MO Amofo Tn. .~,_ , o- ~ ~"'"..... ......,... .....~~ti_. ~~?'~'' ~ sine R 3: .#i......~...... E ,~,,.. .....» ................. ... .. ~ ,. _. ~ ~ _y.. € ~ ~ ~ -. } _ wt.raa.- kf «c~ ~ ~ it N~nr. ~ ~~ _ ac i .. < . ~~ ii%' :.: MT4ti: .... -. .~.` ..K '~'w.~. ._.. .....~. 71`.i +wt ~ Greene and Greene: Phillips Residence and Ranney Residence o~o~s~o • • ~~~~~~ Huusc#, Sarari~ca, Julia Morgan: Goodrich House (Hayfield House) Saratoga Julia Morgan: Chapel of the Chimes, Oakland I would also like to point out that the height from finish floor to the top of the ridge line is 20'-10", keeping in the tradition of the low pitched gable design of which the Craftsman style is most recognized. The Cross gabled design is best illustrated in the roof plan below: west soum • East Rooi Plan Once again, it is the West elevation that the ridge-line is most apparent. However, it is important to remember that the trees provide privacy and do not allow a direct view of this elevation as our architectural elevations illustrate. The landscape plan above further illustrates this point. I would like to include the following examples of Greene and Greene Craftsman style homes that incorporate a long single ridge-line in the design. I would also like to mention that the new Saratoga fire station, designed in respect of Julia Morgan, has an unbroken long single ridge-line. I have also included a copy of Julia Morgan's famous Goodrich House (Hayfield House) off Douglas Lane that is a simple Side Gable Roof with an unbroken Ridge for reference. ~'~®~QcB • } J _......1 . _~ .. _ ~.-,w-w,-......--- ~~.. ~~ __ __ -~-~._._.... ... ~. ~:. ~ ,. ~! .~~„ :~_ ,~ . _.. ~_ "~ __~~_ _ _ ::r ~ . ~ ~l___. _....T_..--__ _-____.._............~............ .._.. __._..-----__._..________._ South Elevation west Elevation The West facade is the elevation that prompted the request for our firm to break up the massing by avoiding the long, single ridgeline we have proposed. However, we have tried to minimize the perception of mass by incorporating the cross gabled roof. .~ ~~~~~~ The large Oak Tree to the north east provides privacy from our neighbor to the east and some protection from the street to the north. The pine trees in the middle portion along the eastern border of the property block most of the view of our proposed residence and ridgeline from our neighbor to the east. We are further protected by the many trees across the property both existing and proposed that will block most if not all viewing into our property. Please note that the Landscape plan does not locate the vast amount of shrubs along all of the property borders that only increase the privacy of our proposed residence and our neighbors. I would also like to point out that our neighbor to the east has signed off on the neighbor notification template after reviewing a previous scheme that had proposed for the removal of the Pine tree fence along the joint property line. One can only appreciate the amount of privacy our site affords after visiting the property. Unfortunately, this is not as much an issue of privacy as it is a matter of the interpretation of the Residential Design Handbook. However, we do believe that the privacy of our residence does play an important role in the interpretation and outcome of this matter. As per section 15-12.100 of the zoning regulations "The staff and Planning Commission will use "A Field Guide to American Houses" and other resource material approved by the Planning Commission as resource documents to assess the purity of architectural design". The key issue here is the "purity of architectural design". Unfortunately, the Residential Design Handbook does not assess the purity of architectural style. It is used as a reference for the zoning code and implementation of those regulations. The policies set forth in the Residential Design Handbook are to minimize the perception of bulk, integrate structures within the environment, avoid interference with privacy, preserve views and access to views, and design for energy efficiency. We feel that our design has been respectful of all of the policies and intentions of the Design Handbook, while respecting the "purity of the Craftsman style. I have included the following drawings of our proposed residence for your reference: North Elevation ~~~~~~A • • • The four principle subtypes of the Craftsman style aze all distinguished by the form of the roof. The four subtypes aze as follows: The Craftsman Residence we have designed for our client incorporates all of the identifying features of the Craftsman style into a cross gabled roof type as illustrated above. Due to the many trees located throughout our site, and our desire to preserve as many as possible, we have situated our residence on the property in a location that offers the most privacy from all of our neighbors. The landscape plan below best illustrates this. ~ ; ~~ ,~ t~I ~ ~ ;n /': \ ~ East a ~ '~~ ~ ~ -. 1i.. ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;m: T[Bes to_te~rta'n 1 r ~ ,,. ...~~~. ' .~.. _ f ~~~~~~~ ~~.` ` °1 a April 5, 2005 City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Attn: Christy Oosterhous Re: 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road The following document has been written at the request of Christy Oosterhous in the Planning Department in regards to my Client's project located at 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos road. The issue directly relates to the enforcement of the Residential Design Handbook, Policy 1, Technique #6, which states architectural features shall be used to break up massing and that long single-ridge rooflines shall be avoided. We have proposed a 2 story Craftsman residence with detached garage and cabana. First, it is important to understand the Craftsman Style. I would like to take a passage from A Field Guide to American Houses, which as per section 15-12.100 of the zoning regulations will be used by the Staff and Planning Commission to assess the "Purity of Architectural design". "Craftsman Houses were inspired primarily by the work of two Californian brothers- Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene- who practiced together in Pasadena from 1893 to 1914. About 1903 they began to design simple Craftsman-type bungalows; by 1909 they had designed and executed several exceptional landmark examples that have been called the `ultimate bungalows"'. (McAlester, pg. 454). The identifying features of the Craftsman style are low-pitched gabled roofs, unenclosed eave overhangs, exposed roof rafters, false beams under gable ends, trellised porches, triangular knee braces under the eaves, multiple roof planes at the gable ends, and mixtures of wood horizontal siding, shingles, stucco, brick and stone. • ~~®QL~'~ • Attachment 5 • ®©~~43 51711027 FARFEL, GILBERT S & URSULA B TRUSTEE 14741 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 51711030 MORRISON, THOMAS A & WILMA B TRUSTEE 14763 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 51711033 PAYNE, BOB & MARY TRUSTEE 14781 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 51711052 BANIANI, MOHAMMAD H & SOHEILA TRUSTEE 14648 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 51711028 AUVIL, PAUL R & SARAH J 14751 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 51711031 KARR, DANIEL A & KELLY J 14769 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 51711050 WANG, CHING-CHY & SUWEN TRUSTEE 14676 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 51711053 SHEN, JU & JANET 19808 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3214 51711067 51711066 UNKNOWN OWNER 14586 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 51711072 VIJAYKAR, ATUL & MONA TRUSTEE 14661 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6086 51711073 WEY, CALVIN S & SEFEN TRUSTEE 14681 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6086 51719038 KELLOGG, TINA L & DONALD C 14740 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6018 51720037 BARYON, FRANCIS P & VIAUREEN A 14720 MONTALVO RD ~ARATOGA CA 95070-6059 51727010 EtHODES, RICHARD W & DEAN 3 14784 VICKERY AV 3ARATOGA CA 95070-6037 11727013 ~ROTTA, DOLORES D TRUSTEE 14721 VICKERY PL 3ARATOGA CA 95070-6038 51719040 SIADAT, MEHDI S & LORRAINE D 14771 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6036 51720041 CHO, CHANG H & JAE O 14768 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6059 51727011 WHETSTONE, WILLIAM D & PAULA M 14768 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6037 51727017 OLSEN, KENNETH R & RITA C 14720 VICKERY PL SARATOGA CA 95070-6038 51711029 SIMPSON, WINTERED B TR ' TRUSTEE 14757 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 51711032 STONEBRIDGE, PETER W TRUSTEE 1344 DISC DRIVE PMB #144 SPARKS NV 89436-0684 51711051 BRUNNER, RUTH K TRUSTEE 14662 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 51711054 BENCUYA, IZAK & ROSA 14793 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6034 51711069 JOHNSON, NOEL L & ELISE L 14586 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 51711074 TITUS, MARY M & JOHN L 14570 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6004 51719041 MARKULIN, ANGELA 14777 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 51720042 CASTELLO, GENO I & VICTORIA M TRUSTEE 14744 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6059 51727012 ROUND, FREDERICK W & CYNTHIA G TRUSTEE 14731 VICKERY PL SARATOGA CA 95070-6038 51727018 SHEN, JACOB YUN-MO & WENDY CHEN TRUSTEE 14740 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6035 ~®®®4z 39720039 HUESBY, KEVIN & SUZANNE 1 671 HORSESHOE DR TOGA CA 95070-5971 39721004 MASHKOURI, RAZI 14600 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39720077 SEAGRAVES, MARGARET TRUSTEE 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4535 39721005 SMITH, PETER B & MARY K TRUSTEE 14566 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39721012 39721021 DENISON-PEABODY, CLAUDIA MATHIAS, JOHN E TRUSTEE A ETAL 1096 HARLAN DR 14527 WESTCOTT DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-3024 SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39721025 PERRY, WILLIAM C & VIRGINIA C TRUSTEE ETAL 14529 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39721026 LEE, TERI L 14531 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39721029 MODI, RAJENDRA TRUSTEE 20345 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD TOGA CA 95070-0000 1032 IOYE, JAMES D & CAROLYN A 14672 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39737013 LEE, LESTER H & HELEN E TRUSTEE 14653 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5907 51710018 BARNETT, SCOTT 14601 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 51710043 FUKUDA, HORACIO & LILIAN 14585 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 1005 UZZINI, HELEN TRUSTEE ETAL ?0280 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS 39721030 GOLDMAN, MICHAEL D & BEVERLY P TRUSTEE ETA 20360 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD 39721033 ZOUFONOUN, AMIR & LISA 14650 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39737014 PACE, SAMUEL TRUSTEE ETAL 242 MERIDIAN AV SAN JOSE CA 95126-2903 51710019 BECKER, JEFFREY L TRUSTEE 14615 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 51711003 SISCO, RAYMOND D & TERRI 20330 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5924 51711006 PRASAD, KESHAV & MALINI R 20270 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5924 39721003 HAQ, NOOR U & SAIRA Y 21450 MT EDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5302 39721011 MARDESICH, MARIANNE 14571 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39721024 BLATTNER, ORR1N J & MARIAN J TRUSTEE PO BOX 3411 SARATOGA CA 95070-1411 39721028 SCHUMACHER, FRED & MARY L 14561 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39721031 HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVEL LLC 18450 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5610 39737012 VAN DEN BERG, MARC & KATHLEEN M 14631 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5907 39737015 ARNOLD, THOMAS A & JENNIFER S TRUSTEE 14697 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5907 51710020 MILLINGTON, GEOFFREY H TRUSTEE 14625 ALOHA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6003 51711004 WILSON, MALCOLM C & SHEILA M 20318 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD 51711008 i9.~G~1 ti~~c~~z. ~ Li 1 L i. ~,~,. c ~L ,i -~ _ ~ ~d0~41 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 25`h day of May 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. r~ APPLICATION #04-266 (517-11-006) PRASAD, 20270 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD; -The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct a two-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence and detached accessory structure. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 4,319 square feet. The detached accessory structure is a total of 1,125 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet 9 mches. The gross lot size is 32,049 square feet and the site is zoned R-120,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before 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 coosterhousCu?saratoga.ca.us or 408 868-1286 • ®®~~~o . 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 i i {~~ Planning Commission on the day of ~'~'~ ~°'~ 2005, 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 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. ~ - ~~ ~~ o ~ ~~ , Signed '' ~" • 0~~®3~ • Attachment 4 C~ ®~~~a~8 M O ~ ~ : 2~2>o s.,~..,~ ~,,,,~ l..~. ~ ~ t>~: ~:~ of str.top ~..-~ naelep~e.l ~ .>.~, ~ ~: ~P ideti6a 31 rtes of Ordiwloe-as- ~ W bee lsdoad w tie dr eot q sale. lade: Febry 23.2003 27 ;"~ ~ { LAT s p J 21 19 _ lower t~we ~ 320.51 w~s~lt'00'E 9 ~. `Jq:. O ~ ~~ 2 trA.[ a ~ c J - ~ ;~ - ~ of - ~ _ 7°° "" PROTECTIVE FENCING -; ~~ ~_ ~7• _ ~ - '~'~y ~ (demolition & construction phase) _ ~; ~ `" ~ '" ~,, ' :; :~: _ , vt^~d ~: ~ $ PROTECTIVE FENCING (all phases) ~ ~b~ ~ ~ i i ,r . :: - >' -- '.. ~ ~- - O ~ y Q PROTECTIVE FENCING - iJ 1 - b (atl phase) __ - .~ 1",. ` O ,2i _ ~ S ~~ ~ r v _ I L0T 75 - 52ost wsspt'OOt `L-J "C.J•> LOT 73 Prcp~red By: ARBOR RESOURCES lr.J +H.svl Ar1.He.ll.rl Cw.4lq ! Tn. C.n 1.0.9e T32lS lI. tt1t1R G lNtQ IY~c Rwl iSS-)bl . f~il:M°w"w~liid~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-- ~~ __, `- --- f ARBOR RESOURCES - - Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care ' TREE INVENTORY TABLE .~ ~ .. ~ a .. ~ ~, a ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ a b c °\o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' o ~ ~ -° a ~, ~ ~ ~ °~ , fs~ 3 a ° `~ b^ Q o ~ ° 30~ U ~'~ ~ TREE NO TREE NAME ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ Mexican Fan Palm 31 Washin onia r+oGusta 14 65 10 100% 100% Good Moderate 4 - S1,375 Coast Live Oak 32 er+cus a ' olia) 18 35 40 75% 75% Good Hi 3 - X 54,270 Coast Live Oak 33 ( ercus a ' olia 10 30 30 50% 50% Fair Hi 3 - X 51,110 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- allon = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 53,000 32-inch box =57,000 72-inch box = 513 000 Site: 20270 Sarotogo-Los Gatos Rd, Saratoga Prgwred joi: Cqy ojSaratoga Coaun. Derdop. Depast Prq~ored by: Dovid L Babby, RCA 3 oj3 X36 ARBOR RESOURCES • Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE IlWENTORY TABLE _ .. ~ .. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ W A v FL ~ ~ ~,+ ~ ~ O r ~ ~ ~ TREE ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ g ~ R ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ u ~b a ~ ~ ~ Q NO. TREE NAME ' -- ~ a . - Montet+ry Pine 21 (Pines mdiata 24 70 20 75% 25% Fair Moderate 3 - S780 Coast Live Oak 22 ( ercus a ' olio) 8 25 25 100% 50% Good Hi 3 - S1,020 Arneri(can Sweetgum Z3 Li idanrbars ci ua 12 45 30 100% 75% Good Moderate 3 - S1,630 Southern Magnolia 23a (Ma olio i oro 12 30 25 l00% 75% Good Moderate 3 - 52,350 Mexican Fan Palm 24 (Washin onia robusta l6 25 10 l00% 1009/o Good Moderate 4 - 5250 Arizona Cypmess Cu ressus orizonica 20 45 35 100% l00% Good 4 - X S6,000 Coast Redwood 25a (Se oia sem iriens 8 25 10 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - S670 Coast Redwood 2Sb (Se oia sem rvirens 11.5 40 10 0% 0% DEAD REMOVE - - SO Coast Live Oak 26 emus o 'olio 14 25 30 l00% I00% Good Hi 3 - X 54,410 Coast Live Oak 27 ( emus a 'olio 34 40 80 50% l00% Good 2 - X S18 00 Silver Maple 27a (Ater soccharinunt 11.5 25 25 75% 75% Good Moderate - X S400 Coast Redwood 28 (Se oia sem irens 8, 8, 7 30 25 75% 25% Fair Low 3 - S1,400 Coast Live Oak 29 ( emus a 'olio 8 20 25 100% 75% Good Hi 4 - S1,500 Coast Live Oak 30 ( emus a 'olio I 1 25 25 100% 75% Good Iii 4 - 52,300 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES gallon ~ SI20 24-mc6 box = S420 36-inch box ° 51,320 48-inch box = 53,000 32-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box a 513,( Site: 20270 So~ogtLoa Gotas Rd, Swotogo Pr~.sd fcr: city ojs...roa. co>hni. nevdop. nepmt. Preporsd by: Dorid L Bobby, RcA 2 of3 0~0~35 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ sa $ ~' ~ $ o ~ ~ ,,Q ~.", p ." ,, p.. G Q ,.., ~ ~ U ~ .. U w a a -~ w ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a O~ TREE NAME ° ~ ~ v, ~ Mexican Fan Palm 1 Washin onia robusta 14 65 10 100% 100% Good Moderate 3 - 51,375 Atlas Cedar 2 (Cadres atlantica) 21 70 30 75% 25% Fair Moderate - X S3,530 Coast Live Oak 3 errtts a 'olio 18 40 55 75% 75% Good Hi 3 - X 55,100 Coast Live Oak 4 errtts a ri olio) 12 30 30 75% 75% Good Hi 4 - X S2,590 Black Mulberry S (Moms ni 6(4 , 3 20 30 l00% 50% Good Low 2 - 5820 Coast Live Oak 9 ( acres a 'olio 32 50 l00 l00'/0 l00% Good Hi 4 - X S24, Coast Redwood 13 Se oia sem rvirens 15, 3 75 ~ 25 75% 75% Good Moderate - X S2 340 Coast Redwood 14 Se oia sem rvirens) 9 20 15 25% 25% Poor Low X SO Coast Redwood 15 Se oia sem rvirens 12 45 15 25% 25% Poor Low - X SO Coast Redwood 16 Se oia sem rvirens) 10, 5 50 20 75% 75% Good Moderate - X 51,670 Coast Redwood 17 (Se oia sem rvirens 20 75 30 75% 100% Good Hi - X 54,290 Monterey Pine 18 (Pines rndiata 12 65 40 50% 75% Fair Low 3 - S300 Monterey Pine 19 (Pines rndiata 16 70 25 50% 75% Fair Low 3 - Monterey Pine 20 (Pines tndiata) 20 75 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate 3 - S460 5560 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 allon ~ S120 24-inch lax =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = SS 000 52-inch box = S7 000 72-inch box = 515 000 Sits: TOT70Soratogo-Lor Gator Rd, Saratoga Prepared Jor: City ojsormoga Coaun. Dsvdop. Depart 13epared by: David L Bobby. RCA 1 oj3 wl(~Q~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 25, 2005 17. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design and implemented by the landscape contractor: a. Lawn or plant material should comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. Plant material installed beneath an Oak's canopy should be drought-tolerant and compatible for planting beneath Oak trees; contact the California Oaks Foundation at www.californiaoaks.org for obtaining a list of suitable plants. b. Irrigation should not spray beneath an Oak's canopy or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. Please note this may require converting the existing irrigation system. c. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. d. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided. e. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be established on top of existing soil grade. 18. Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www.isa-arbor.com. The pruning should be limited to the removal of dead branches one-inch and greater in diameter, establishing sufficient clearances from the current and future driveway, and reducing any heavy limb weight. Due to the existing site conditions, I recommend all tree removals and pruning be performed prior to the arrival of heavy equipment to the site or installation of protective fencing. 19. Mitigation for the removal of trees should include the installation of two Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) of 48-inch box size, one Coast Redwood of 36-inch box size and two trees of 24-inch box size comprised of Coast Redwoods or those defined as native to the City of Saratoga.2 The landscape plans should show the location, size and amount of new trees that will be installed. The new trees should be spaced at least 15 feet apart and be 15 feet outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. Any support for the trees should involve using double-stakes with rubber tree ties or equivalent (I suggest this occur for all other newly installed replacements). Irrigation must be a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of `Landscape Plan Proposal 1') Z Native trees include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. Prasad Property, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Page S of ~®©~~~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 25, 2005 of clean sand or coasse wood chips from a tree company shall be spread over the exposed areas and remain moist until the overlaying materials are installed; the placement and removal of the chips or sand must be by hand. Any soil placed within the voids created by the hazdscape being removed should have a percolation rate of approximately 0.5 inches per hour. 7. Where soil cuts aze required beneath the trees' canopies but outside the pazameters specified in recommendation #1, the work must be manually performed using shovels. Any roots one-inch and greater in diameter must be cleanly severed at the soil cut line. 8. Grading for drainage along the south side of the garage (area beneath tree #26's canopy) should be limited to two feet from the foundation. 9. The removal of any existing plants, shrubs or groundcover beneath the trees' canopies shall be cut to grade and the roots left intact. The stumps can either be axed away or ground below grade. 10. Prior to construction, afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company should be manually spread within the fenced areas designated for trees #9 and 26-28. The mulch should not be in contact with the trees' trunks. 11. Any unused, existing underground utilities or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 12. Throughout construction during the months of April thru November, water should be supplied every three to four weeks to trees #1, 5 and 26-28. I suggest 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter is applied using soaker hoses placed beneath the trees' mid- to outer-canopies. For trees on neighboring lots, water needs only to be applied beneath the portion of canopies overhanging the subject site and the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 13. Upon availability, plans showing all existing conditions, proposed underground utilities and services, proposed grading and drainage, and proposed landscaping (both planting and irrigation) should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementation. 14. Trenches for any new drainage features or underground utilities must be designed outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. 1 S. Dischazge from any drainage features, including downspouts, should be directed away from the trees' canopies. Downspouts shall be situated at least 15 feet to the side and directed away from the trunks of retained trees. 16. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use neaz trees. • Prasad Property, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Page 4 of~~~~3~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~,„,~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 2S, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The sections of proposed driveway (including any curb or edging) within 15 feet of the trunks of trees #3 and 18-21, 40 feet from tree #9's trunk, and 30 feet from tree #27's trunk must be established on top of existing soil grade and require no soil excavation (i.e. a no-dig design with no scraping of the soil surface). Soil fill can be used to slope the sides of the driveway down to existing grade. Where beneath the canopies of trees #1 and 3, the driveway should also not exceed the width of the existing. 2. The portions of driveway where pavers are proposed within 40 feet of tree #9's trunk and 30 feet of tree #27's trunk must not require compaction or scraping of the soil surface; the subbase materials can be compacted but should not exceed 75-percent density (incorporating geotextile fabric into the design could help decrease compaction requirements). The pavers must be laid on fully porous materials, such as pea gravel or '/,- to 1'/z-inch gravel containing no fines. The use of stabilizers, cleaners and sealers should be avoided. Herbicides must not be used beneath the canopies for weed control or other purposes. 3. The Site, Grading and Drainage and Landscape Plans should incorporate the canopy sizes presented on the attached table under the column titled "Canopy Spread" (please note the spreads represent the furthest distance across; half of the number equals the distance radiating from the center of the trunk in all directions). 4. Tree protective fencing shall be installed recisel as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection (to include installation of the pool and driveway). 5. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 6. To allow for sufficient site access (such as for staging areas and routes of access), the existing portion of driveway must remain intact throughout construction and be removed just prior to landscaping commencing for the following minimum distances: I S feet from the trunks of trees #3 and 32, 10 feet from the trunks of trees #4 and 33, and 12 feet from the trunks of trees #18-21. When the hardscape (including any walls) is removed, it must be first broken into small pieces using a jackhammer. The pieces should be manually lifted onto a loader that must remain on pavement at all times and off used soil and roots. Within one hour after hardscape removal, afour-inch layer Prasad Property, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Page 3 of ®~®31 City oJSaratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 25, 2005 This report incorporates information from a previous City Arborist report, dated 9/27/00, by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, which reviewed an earlier and different version of the proposed development. At the time that report was prepared, there were 33 trees determined to be of Ordinance-size. Given the current Tree Ordinance, an additional four aze included in this report and include #23a, 25a, 25b and 27a. Please note the appraisal amounts for each tree presented in the 9/27/00 report vary within this one as a result of a more current method being used to calculate values (per the current Ordinance). Presented in the 9/27/00 report include six Monterey Pines numbered 6-8 and 10-12. During a preliminary site visit in November 2004, I observed each had died and all were subsequently removed by the property owner. As such, they aze not shown on the proposed plans and are excluded for review of this report; their locations can be observed within the report dated 9/27/00. Metallic, numbered tags corresponding to the tree numbers in this report were found attached to the trunks of most inventoried trees. FINDINGS Thirty-one trees are located in close proximity to the proposed project and have been inventoried for this report. They include ten Coast Live Oaks (#3, 4, 9, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33), ei t Coast Redwoods (#13-17, 25a, 25b, 28), four Monterey Pines (#18-21), three Mexican Fan Palms (#1, 24, 31), one Southern Magnolia (#23a), one Silver Maple (#27a), one Atlas Cedaz (#2), one Black Mulberry (#5), one American Sweetgum (#23) and one Arizona Cypress (#25). Specific data regarding each tree is presented on the attached table. Trees #2, 13-17 and 27a aze in direct conflict with the proposed design and their removal is indicated on the proposed plan. Tree #2 has an extremely asymmetrical canopy and poor structural integrity, trees #13 and 14 are in overall poor condition, and tree #27a is a low- quality specimen. Trees # 16 and 17 are native specimens that appeaz in overall good condition; however, given their location neaz the center of the lot, it does not appeaz feasible to retain and adequately protect them while constructing a home within reasonable lot setbacks. As mitigation, new trees must be installed equivalent to the combined, appraised value of those removed, which is $12,230. Given the site, I recommend two Coast Redwoods of 48-inch box size, one Coast Redwood of 36-inch box size and two native trees of 24-inch box size be installed. Spacing parameters are presented at the end of the next section. Tree #25b is dead and should be removed as soon as possible regazdless of the proposed project. Mitigation is not necessary as it appears to have died from natural causes. All other trees are expected to survive provided the recommendations in the next section are cazefiilly followed and incorporated into construction plans. Prasad Property, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Page 2 of.~i~~~~Q City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 2S, 2005 . SUMMARY Two different driveway designs were reviewed for the proposed project. I recommend the `Landscape Plan Proposal 1' is adopted over the other to minimize impacts to trees. Thirty-one trees were inventoried for this report. Based on `Landscape Plan Proposal 1', seven (#2, 13-17 and 27a) are in conflict and would be removed. Given their location, condition and/or species, I find their removal for development of the site is suitable and can be adequately mitigated (see the end of the `Recommendations' section for specific sizes, amounts and spacing of replacements). Tree #25b is dead and should be removed as soon as possible for safety purposes. Replacements are not necessary. All other trees are anticipated to survive the project impacts. The tree protection bond amount required for this project is determined to be $82,770.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with demolishing an existing residence and constructing a new one at 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga. This report presents my fmdings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include two different driveway designs that vary at the entrance/exit near Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (both are shown on different versions of Sheet L2). One design is titled `Landscape Plan Proposal 1' (dated 2/8/05) and the other `Landscape Plan Proposal 2' (dated 2/7/05). Of the two proposed designs, I find the implementation of `Landscape Plan Proposal 1' will result in less significant trees being impacted. The design shown on `Landscape Plan Proposal 2' requires the removal of tree #4 and significant impacts to tree #3, both of which are situated on the neighboring southern property. The design on the first proposal will protect trees #3 and 4 but will require the removal of tree #2, which is a large Atlas Cedar with much less structural integrity than #3 and 4. Because `Landscape Plan Proposal 1' appears to be the better of the two in regards to minimizing tree impacts, my review is based on that plan and the trees' locations and numbers are presented on an attached copy. 'This value represents the sum of the appraised tree values shown on the attached table for trees anticipated to be retained.. The values are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9''' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboricultwe, 2000. Prasad Property, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Page 1 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~.~p ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 20270 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Prasad APN #: 517-11-006 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 February 25, 2005 • r~ L • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink~~2~ Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #79676 • Attachment 3 • ©©®®2'7 ~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: $ ( D y PROJE T DRESS: Z D Z ~-o S~k+~T+x~0 Gos (r/f!r3 R+O, Applicant Name: ~ OGk4/eol~ ~.FtSaK~ ~}S'SfX'..filK_ 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 jail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~"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 al! residents residing on your property. Irrespective ojthe opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later dote and communicate it to the City ofSaratoga. ®My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT Gave any concerns or issues wbicb 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; ~ understand the scope of work; and I bave issues or concerns, wbicb after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor~A+ddress: / ~ c~~i~~t~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~' ~tp~~ Signatwe: Printed: `,-~~~~ • o®~®2V ~~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date:B vy ~7 PROJ CT DRESS: Zo L ~ ,S/~iL~TO(r/f~ LOS GAMS R.c-9D App]icantName: ~DCkwaop ~~S,y,yy ~¢srde . ,~„rC. 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 representaliv~e 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 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; ~ understand the scoge of work; and I Gave issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: /y~hi 1~~~~~ /~~~ ~~-1' . ~? ~ ~ ~~ Neighbor Phone #: gb ~ -~ !' -3 Signature: Printed: C~ O®®®25 • Neighbor Notification Template for • Development Applications Date: ~ 0 y PROJE T ADDRESS: ZO Z ~o Sil/lAf~~ ~oS G/lflnf IeD, Applicant Name: ~Gf~C kwo~d DE,S.tG.a I~SSOC ..i„vG, Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior io 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,~j"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 ojthe opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later dare and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~vty signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scoQ of work; and I do NOT Gave any concerns or issues wbic6 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 bave issues or concerns, wbic6 after discussion witb the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~1 l Neighbor Name: ~ (~-t' l 1 ~, e r ~~(,/ ~C ~` Neighbor Address: i ;,. 1-~~ ~ ,9 ~ ~ ` ~ i Neighbor Phone #: ~ `` a ~ ~O - ~S ~ Signatwe: Printed: ~, / % C, ~ . _ _._ ~f , l~- ©~O®2~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: / 0 PROJ T DREpSS~:~ Zo 2710 S/~it/~TOG/1 Los Gras RafO App]icantName: ~CtEwOep ~~GrN ~fSOC. ?rfiC. 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 ro the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative ojal! residents residing on your property. Irrespecxive ojthe opinion expressed below, you may reserve the nght to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City ojSaratoga, y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I and rstand 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 signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ '~ derstand the scoge of work; and 1 bave issues or concerns, which after disenssion • with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: C t •/~ ~.1 ~~ .t/~ Neighbor Address: -~ ~~L ature: • Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ .~ Printed: ~,-Iti~~~ ©©0®23 • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: !y O PROJE T DRESS: Z D 2 SA~ATcaG~ ~oS bif717S ROAD App]icantName: ROC.kWcadlh DES.~G.y /~350G. ZrNC. 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 undcrstand 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 revicwed the project plans; ~ understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, Gave not been addressed. My concems aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: /2C.~,~r~~ ~~~K Neighbor Address: ~"/~~} T~G`1~ ~ 7 ~ N ,e ghbor Phone #: ~ ~ ~ v 7~" ~ ~ 7 Signatwe: Printed: 2-~~i~~a~ ~t t ~~ L ~ / ~~~ ,~ ooo~zz • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: O PROJECT AD RESS: ZOZ ~O $A.~,~171St;~ GOS 6i1T~S /Q D. App]icantName: ~©Gl~w~~ ~E,S•tbN /~SSOC..TrVL, Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective ojthe opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City o~f Saratoga. L'am' My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the scopc of work; and I do NOT Gave any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, Lave not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary)• Neighbor Name: ~~~~' V~/ ~ ~~ Neighbor Address: r~C6 6/ ~~<rc~ y ~t Signature: ~i.~ ~~ • Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ ` ~7 ~ ~ f'3 Printed: ~~®~21 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 9 Z y ~ O y PROJECT ADDRESS: 20 2 ~n SARATOGA -L oS ~ATOS KoAD Applicant Name: (ZoC kwoo~l DE$.~GN i¢,u'vCS~1T£3, trvt.. Application Number: ~ y - Z 6 6 ' J)ESS6N R.E ~.Z E u/ 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 o 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. aMy 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: `~`^~ ~ ~~ ~ \ Neighbor Address: Iy~SI VTCKER~ AvE. Neighbor Phone #: ~Id$-8~~.- 1~'1~ Printed: PO~w1 ( 1 ~~/ l Planning Department ®DO~rO City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 9 L ~ y PROJECT ADDRESS: 2 c~ 2 3o SAa~TObA-G oS bAToS ~ev~lD Applicant Name: Q o Gk w o0 0 i~ ES~bN AsS ocaATES~ ~N C . Application Number: D y ' 266- D ~S~GN Q Eu~zEu/ 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 appiicant 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: Neighbor Address: I `I ~S ~ V = CKE2H AUE . ' hbor Phone #: ~ ~`~ - f ~~ Signature: Printed: Ciry of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~®19 ~_~, Attachment 2 • ®®018 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road • 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 aclrnowledges 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 ~i 0~®®~~ Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Cooking facilities shall not be permitted in the detached accessory structure. 3. Ingress/Egress shall not be provided via the existing alley unless those rights are secured with the owner of said parcel. 4. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department for Building permits. 5. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 6. 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 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 ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 25th day of May 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • ~~®~6 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 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 includes the installation of panel antennas and equipment 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 installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objective of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located: Municipal code section 15-80.030(d)(1) provides for an exception to the reaz yazd setback requirements for accessory structures with use permit approval. The proposed accessory structure complies with the minimum setback requirements and corresponding height restrictions as prescribed in the exceptions section of the municipal code. The maximum height of the accessory structure is ten feet and the structure is located twelve feet from the reaz yazd property line. The structure is complies with the standazd side yard setback of no less than 10 feet. (b) That the proposed location of the condition use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity: The proposed location of the accessory structure in the reaz yazd setback is consistent with the existing development pattern in the project vicinity. An alley is located off the reaz property line. As a result, several properties have detached structures located at the reaz of the site. Because it is not clear the applicant has ingress/egress rights to use the alley the accessory structure is not to be accessed from the alley. (c) That the proposed condition use will comply with each of the applicable provision of this chapter: The accessory structure shall not include cooking facilities and will not be used as a second dwelling unit because second dwelling units aze required to meet the standard zoning regulations and are not permitted to comply with the exceptions section discussed in (a) above. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-266 for Use Permit approval and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ~®©~~~ Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 14. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form • acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $82,770 the value of all retained trees to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 15. All proposed landscaping and approved fencing shall be installed prior to Final Building Inspection approval. 16. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 18. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500. PUBLIC WORKS 19. A Caltrans Encroachment Permit shall be issued for any improvements in the State right-of- way prior to commencement of construction. FIRE DEPARTMENT 20. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 21. 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 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval for the construction of an accessory structure located in the required rear yard setback; and ~~®®14 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 4. 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. 5. 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." 6. 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. 7. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. 8. 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. 9. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 10. The evergreen screening (Ceratonia Siliqua) for the accessory structure shall be a minimum 24-inch box and shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 11. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500. CITY ARBORIST 12. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated February 25, 2005 shall be followed. 13. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staffprior to issuance of City Permits. • BOO®13 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road the removal of thirteen trees with an additional six subject to decline and/or instability. As a result of the redesign, a total of seven trees are in conflict with the project and require removal. d Minimize perception of excessive bul/~ Earth-tone colors and avariety ofearth- tone materials aze used to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. Architectural features and details such as square columns, decorative braces located under the eaves, and exposed roof rafters aze used to add azchitectural interest and to break up massing. ~ Compatible bulk and height The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two- story residences. All proposed structures on the site aze united using a single architectural theme or design with similaz materials. The proposed accessory structure and main residence are a craftsman style with similaz materials, colors and roof pitch. The front elevation is softened by using different materials including stucco and wood. The horizontal wood clad accents create horizontal proportions which reduce bulk. Lazge attic spaces aze avoided. Wall expanses aze punctuated with windows, chimneys, and other features. f. 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 Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-266 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated February 25, 2005 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. ®~~®12 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-266 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Prasad; 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct atwo-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 5,454 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 a licant has met the burden of roof r uired to su ort said pP P eq PP 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. The lot depth is over 300 feet allowing for more than adequate separation between existing residences to the front and rear. The proposed second-story residence is located more than 100 feet from the rear and front property lines avoiding unreasonable interference with views and privacy. In addition, an "alley" further buffers the one-story residence to the rear. Mature vegetation is abundant in the project vicinity. The second floor balcony located off the master bedroom is oriented toward the large rear yard area, as recommended in the design review handbook. The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences with ample lot sizes and dimensions. b. Preserve Natural Landscape. The existing landscape will be relatively unchanged as an existing single-story residence and detached structure will be replaced by a second-story residence and detached structure. The lot is flat and minimal grading is proposed. G Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The original plans have been redesigned at staffs request to preserve more trees. The prof ect, as originally proposed, required 0®0011 • Attachment 1 • ~0~~10 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (b) That the proposed location of the condition use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity: The proposed location of the accessory structure in the rear yard setback is consistent with the existing development pattern in the project vicinity. An alley is located off the rear property line. As a result, several properties have detached structures located at the reaz of the site. Because it is not cleaz the applicant has ingress/egress rights to use the alley the accessory structure is not to be accessed from the alley. (c) That the proposed condition use will comply with each of the applicable provision of this chapter: The accessory structure shall not include cooking facilities and will not be used as a second dwelling unit because second dwelling units are required to meet the standazd zoning regulations and aze not permitted to comply with the exceptions section discussed in (a) above. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Plannin Commission conditionall a rove the desi review and g Y PP ~ conditional use pernut applications by adopting the attached resolutions for application number 04-266. • '~~~9 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The original plans have been redesigned at staff s request to preserve more trees. The project, as originally proposed, required the removal of thirteen trees with an additional six subject to decline and/or instability. As a result of the redesign, a total of seven trees are in conflict with the project and require removal. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Earth-tone colors and a variety of earth- tone materials are used to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. Architectural features and details such as square columns, decorative braces located under the eaves, and exposed roof rafters are used to add architectural interest and to break up massing. (e) Compatible bulk and height The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. All proposed structures on the site are united using a single architectural theme or design with similar materials. The proposed accessory structure and main residence are a craftsman style with similar materials, colors and roof pitch. The front elevation is softened by using different materials including stucco and wood. The horizontal wood clad accents create horizontal proportions, which reduce bulk. Large attic spaces are avoided. Wall expanses are punctuated with windows, chimneys, and other features. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (~ 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 staffreport. Conditional Use Permit Findings The proposed project includes a detached accessory structure. An accessory structure may be located within the required rear yard setback area with conditional use permit approval. Staff concludes the use permit findings can be supported. (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objective of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located: Municipal code section 15-80.030(d)(1) provides for an exception to the rear yard setback requirements for accessory structures with use permit approval. The proposed accessory structure complies with the minimum setback requirements and corresponding height restrictions as prescribed in the exceptions section of the municipal code. The maximum height of the accessory structure is ten feet and the structure is located twelve feet from the rear yard property line. The structure is complies with the standard side yard setback of no less than 10 feet. • ~~~8 Application No. 04-166,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 1) The location of the detached accessory structure is consistent with the development pattern in the vicinity. In addition, the structure is sepazated from the neighbors reaz yard by a 20-foot wide alleyway. These reasons make the structure a worthy candidate for use permit approval, which permits a reduced rear yard setback pursuant to the municipal code. 2) The detached accessory structure shall not have cooking facilities and is not a second dwelling unit. It shall not have a fulltime tenant living in close proximity to the concerned neighbors property line. 3) The proposal includes asecond-story balcony off the master bedroom on the reaz elevation. Staff did not find that the proposed balcony provided unreasonable interference with views or privacy due to the approximately 120 foot distance between balcony and the neighbors reaz property line. Story poles aze constructed for the Planning Commissions' evaluation of privacy impacts. 4) The applicant has not provided evidence of ingress/egress rights to the alley; therefore, the detached accessory structure shall be accessed via the applicant's property off Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The applicant has proposed four 24-inch boxed evergreen trees (Ceratonia siliqua) to be planted along the rear property line to provide additional assurance of screening to address the neighbor's concerns above. Trees The original plans have been redesigned at staff's request to preserve more trees. The project as originally proposed required the removal of thirteen trees with an additional six subject to decline and/or instability. As a result of the redesign, a total of seven trees are in conflict with the project and require removal. Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project supports the findings for design review as discussed below: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The lot depth is over 300 feet allowing for more than adequate sepazation between existing residences to the front and rear. The proposed second-story residence is located more than 100 feet from the reaz and front property lines avoiding unreasonable interference with views and privacy. In addition, an "alley" further buffers the one-story residence to the reaz. Mature vegetation is abundant in the project vicinity. The second floor balcony located off the master bedroom is oriented toward the large rear yard area, as recommended in the design review handbook. The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences with ample lot sizes and dimensions. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The existing landscape will be relatively unchanged as an existing single-story residence and detached structure will be replaced by a second-story residence and detached structure. The lot is flat and minimal grading is proposed. ~~~~~~ Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review and conditional use permit approval to construct a two-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence and detached accessory structure. The total floor azea of the proposed two-story residence is 4,319 squaze feet. The floor azea of the first floor is 2,627 squaze feet and the second floor is 1,692 squaze feet. The detached accessory structure is a total of 1,125 squaze feet. Total floor area proposed for the property is 5,444 squaze feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet 9 inches. The gross lot size is 32,049 squaze feet and the site is zoned R-1 20,000. A craftsman architectural style is proposed for the main residence and accessory structure. Identifying features of the proposed craftsman style include low-pitched, gabled rooflines, decorative beams or braces commonly added under gables, and tapered squaze columns or pedestals extended to ground level. The roof has a wide eave overhang and the roof rafter ends aze exposed. The most common wall cladding is wood clapboard. Stucco is also used. Stucco with wood clad accents is proposed for the main residence. The materials and colors include a stucco finish in sage for the main and accessory structure. The wood trim for the residence and accessory structure is a gray color. The roof material is a dark greylblack composition shingle. The wood clad siding accents on the front fagade are to be a natural wood tone. A "materials and color board" will be available at the site visits and the public hearing. A detached accessory structure is proposed. The floor plan indicates the structure is to be utilized as atwo-car gazage and guesthouse. It includes a bathroom but is prohibited by code to include cooking facilities because it does not meet the reaz yazd setbacks required for the main residence. Revisions to the Original Submittal Staff required the following revisions to the project which aze incorporated into Exhibit A: • Originally proposed as a flat roof, the azchitectural style of the accessory structure was revised to match the craftsman azchitectural style and roof pitch of the main residence. • Twelve ordinance-sized trees were preserved with project revisions. • The driveway was reduced in width and aesthetic treatments were added in the form of decorative accents. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided neighbor notification templates for the adjacent residential properties. The owner of a single-story residence to the reaz has submitted the following concerns with the proposed project: 1) location of the detached accessory structure, 2) use of the detached accessory structure, 3) sightlines from two-story balcony possibly looking into her yard; and 4) possible use of the alley for access to the detached accessory structure. ~~~os Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road • • • Height: Main Residence Accessory Structure Maximum Allowable 25 ft. 9 inches 26 ft. 10 ft. 26 ft. ©®0~.~ Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 38% Maximum Allowable 45% Residence 2,627 sq. ft. Paving 8,464 sq. ft. Accessory Structure 1,125 sq. ft. TOTAL 12,216 sq. ft. 14,422 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 2,627 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,692 sq. ft. Total Main Residence 4,319 sq. ft. Accessory Structure 1,125 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,444 sq. ft. 5,454 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement Setbacks: • Main Front Lot Line (East) 135 ft. 8 inches 30 ft. Residence Rear Lot Line (West) 15t story 104 ft. 7 inches 35 ft. 2"a story 112 ft. 9 inches 45 ft. Side (North) 1 S` story 22 ft. 7 inches 10 ft. 2"a story 22 ft. 7 inches 15 ft. Side (South) 1 S` story 17 ft. 1 inch 10 ft. 2"a story 34 ft. 5 inches 15 ft. Detached Front 275+ ft. 30 ft. Accessory Rear 12 ft. 2 inches 12 ft. Structure Side (North) 35 ft. 2 inches 10 ft. Side (South) 10 ft. 2 inches 10 ft. • ®~~4 Application No. 04-266,• 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD (Residential Low Density) 2.18 Max Dwelling Units per Acre MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 32,049 square feet (gross) SLOPE: Level Lot 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: The materials and colors include adry-sage stucco for the main residence and accessory structure. Trim for the residence and accessory structure is a gray color. The roof material is a dark grey/black composition shingle. The wood clad siding accents are to be a natural wood color. A "materials and color board" is on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. ©~~~ • CAStt HISTORY: EXECUTIVE SZJIVIIIZARY Application 51ed: 08/ZOr~4 A~pficabon csymplde: OM07/OS . Notice published: OS/11/05 Mailiaig cornplded; „ 05/11./05. completed: osn sio8 :: rRwccr D$sc~rrio~; . The:` applicant requests review a~ oonditiornl we permit app~+oval to conatiiut a Y singlo-faanily reaickoce a~ detached ~hu+e. The projext inches the demolition of- an existing oae-story residencx`:and de~chad accessory sbrt~ttn~e. The .. - ~ total floor area of the two-story resideace~ is 4,319 :fed. The -detached acoesaoRy stnrcttrre is a to~i of 1,128 square feet. The maacimurn height of the proposed residence is 2S feet 9 inches. The-gross lot s~ze~is 32,Q49 square fed and the site is zonod R 120,000. STAFF Ti~COHDV11cNDATK~N: Tha abff recomm is that the Plamiing approve the design r+cv~iew and conditional use permit. ap~licatioa. ATTACI~III~NTS: is Resolution of Approval for. the Design Reviaw and Use Permit. 2. Neigtibor Notification Templates. 3. Arborist Report, domed Febnmy 2S, 2005. 4. Affidavit of mailing notices, public herring notice, and mafling labels for project ,: notification. S. Statem~t ~ the Arr~ritect regarding 8ie design, is particular the singlo-rfdge roofline. 6. Reduced Plana, Flchribit "A." • • A~ NoJLocation: 04-2f6; 20270 Sar~tog~-Los G~to~ Road Tjrpe of App~k~tion: Design Revicw uid Conditional Use Permit Owzxr/A~li~csmt Keshav and Msli~i Prod, Propezty Owntra PL~nr~er: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate P)zaa~' Ntay 2s, Zoos APN: 517-ll-006 Dcpartmeat Hcad: 1~ i \ '?' ~~n ~~ ~~ 1, . - / cT ~ ~ ~. a ;• a~os w d-tosio a > M Ay Mus..w~+~..e w t ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ /~ ~~v~iir~ '~ s «r ~ aw . ~ \.~ ~~ `~ . 20270 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road ooooal • • • ~;' Project Information Notes: ~~\ ;' ~ ~ ; Stnxtures To Be G,.~ ~ " ,\ ,`~ _' 1+__ ~ ~; \ ~ f ~ ~ ~J \ Assessor's parcel number: 517-11-006 Removed \ ~ _ " ~ `', ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~' :, Owners: Keshav and Malini Prasad Location 20270 S t -L G Rd ~ - , ,•. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , : ara oga os atos . Existing use: Single Family Residence °~ -- ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ Zonin : R1-2 g 0,000 Non Comformin Width as g per Section 15-12.070 ~ I ~{ ~ - :_ Si f v ~ _ _ ~ ~ ze o Lot: 320.51 X 100 = 32,049 Sq.Ft. ~ ~ -~ -- I I ~ ~ I ~ I '~ i ~ ~ ~~~ l j Proposed First Floor: 2,627 Sq.Ft. Proposed Second Floor: 1 692 Sq.Ft. , ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~, ~ ~i' ~ j ! ~i ~~ ~ ~ Proposed Accessory Structure: 1,125Sq.Ft. rn '' ~ I ~ ~~ ~ !~ ~' ! ~ ~i I I ' ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ I ~ i ~ Proposed Total Sq. Ft.: 5,444 Sq.Ft. I ~ ~ I _ _ I ~ i I _ ~~ _ - ~- Max. Allowable :.~,.~,,,,,°m,,, 5,454 Sq.Ft. ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ "~- i ' I ~ ~~ ', I ~~ Impervious Coverage: Hardscape 8,464 Sq.Ft. ~ 10 ~ ~ I _"_ I , _ 1st Floor 2,627 Sq.Ft. ~ ~ ' I i _ ~ I/~~~/ Accessory Structure: 1,125 Sq.Ft. ~ _ v Allowable: 45% 14,422 05 Sq.Ft N Slope at Building Site: Nearly Flat °' Age of Residence: NA (New Residence) .~ Lowest elevation pt. at building corners: 105.90 .~ a: Highest elevation pt. at building corners: 109.53 to a Average elevation pt. at building comers: 107.72 " o Top most elevation pt. of the structure: 25'-9" m L " a Index to Drawings N L1 Title Page/Site Plan o ,~, L1 A Site Plan ~ "°" "~""°°~ L2 Landscape Plan , i ~ L3 Arborist R rt epo rn Tl E i i T 0 x st ng opo ~ C1 Grading/Drainage Plan ~ I,rrau. 5.11.E mr,,,,,, ,_,~,,, ! Mr _ B 3 Al First floor Plan (0 L wrw urrr ,rr i.r .~ g r 's ~: . I ~I I `~ ' ___ ' ~ A2 Second Floor Plan ~ rn ._ !F h ~ ~ ~ ~ A3 Roof Plan s ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~_ 1_l,__ ~~~~` ' ~~ ~ - - ~ - -- A4 Elevations ~ __ - -- ~ A5 Elevations ~ ,~~ _.. __ A6 Accessory Structure N ~ o ,rr „~,~„=,,,a„„ A7 Sections N ' ~ !~ , ; ! P ' t L i ro ec ocat on 310.51 NISi31gp4 `°"S ~"' ~a~= Rockwood Design 1 4554 Big Basin Way ' S aratoga W 95070 Two floor sin k: fami house 9 IY "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, 4 F 08!741-0189 a: 408/741-SD85 Detach garage with cabana the LLS of record shall provide a written Landscape with pool and trellis certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans" Date: 03.18-2005 larem Pore: Da B " ~..a....,.. ...... wn y: 1 Site Plan ; I' ,",2D.-o° N' . . . 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. S t C ._- ara oga a. • • • N r+ rn N N r+ n v ' ~ cQ 3 ALLEY (LOT 67) 100.00 N 4355'00"W ss wrr -- s ~ - ~ ~; • v N _ ,- ': q s 111II ~ J e 4~ i r Q ~-__ wW r O ~ N V ~ it i ~ t i ~ I 1 tnFba s.m.ct i r---- ~ . i zne - zmfm. ~ J n c ____ _ J~ -_ I z ~ 8 ~^',~ ~""' ~ "' _ a ~, 8 ~ E I ` ~ 'a ~ , ~ ~ 3 1 ~ ~ 9 v N ~a u.,,..r,",..,..d I ! MMiM1 y,L ' ' ~ ~ I ~~ L_' ./~~~?~ ~ 43'Fmrt YVd SrtWA ,'Zi~ :a„ a.,, AREM 32,049 SQFT rasa ~ . crrzu.Tn..*n 1 ~ ---~-- 100.00 N 43 5'00"W „ 1 ~ i SARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD Z ' . ' . , 01 M b ° am eZ ~ Q Z d (p ~ ~ u ~ ° ~ ' m ~ ~ N o ~~ oo ~ ~ r .^. ~ Q. ~, $ ~ o ~ ag ~ Prasad Residence " D ~ cam 2 0 2 7 0 Saratoga - L o s G a t o s R d. Saratoga C a 9 5 0 7 0 • • • _ Notes: mi i ~i ~ ~~ ~' ~ , i ~I ~ Grass ~ E ~g~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mulch - ~ _ _ E ~~~ ~ ~r pg ~ ~I ~ ( a ~~., - ~ ~~ r ~`~ d~ ~ ~ ~ \` I ~ _ :` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~ ~ _ Non-Intedockeg Paver ~ Tnac Arc faa on wIy ~~ rr `~ \ ' -~"( \ i Porous Materials In ~ r 27 11 I % ~ ~~ f{ - ~ ~ g~g ~ f ~ - ~ ~ Interlocking Pavers - LOTS ( i 5 I /~ e 1 ~ -_ ~ ' , / kk" ~ 1l ' ' g .~ ftl \1 ,_,; f s i t ,~ . 320.3 jl r~ ~~ _ ~ a SI31 00 f i t... ~ • - r _ ~ 1 1 ~- Existent O i ~ ~ r l a~ _ N I //' ~ 1 '< ~ 1 Y \ \ ~~ `I-`'~ 12 P Y ~r. ~ L/ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y` / C 0. 4J,. I1 -. To & Renaved . * f ~ S) ~ ' ~ ' tiY - , i e ~ ~~ 2 ' ~' ~ 8 ~ 3 Ql Proposed Trees ~ . ,~ ~ ~ t~ ~Iso y,~ ; ~•„/ 1~' As Per Arboris[ Report g ~, ~.. ~ ' sa r t - ~ Y• '. ~' ~ ' 6 36' Box 9 (, +~~ ~ ~~ ~'treFv' ; ~ ( ~ '~ -~ ~ Other New Trees d OPlams z 8 3 aalo Y I li ~ 1 ~ tF r ~ Y ~ ~ Centaur si0+a ~ ~ ~ ,i> ~_ i _ - -- - ~ / f ~ ~ I I ~ q,~ (~° --- - •~ "7 '. ~ -- ~ r / ~'wor rte 11 Pat Recanmended SetGck ~ I Carus ebe ~ t '~' ~ ~- - - ---~-- 0 ~ ~~ ~\ r 5 ,~ y ~ i 1~~ .,, ~ ~ .o 0 - ~ _- __ i S~ 11 Y i ~ t.. .~ t 1 1 . 1vn i ~ ' R xEt~ Q~ ~~ ~ N lD ,;,. r' ~ ~ _ ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ t 26/~~ ( ~h~ ~3~ ~ ~3 4o- ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ f 3j4. t BI9100'E 1 '~ _ ~ 'O L ) ~, LOT 7 3 i G } / ~ lOT 72 • ` ~ ~1 g I -._ - ~ 1 I ~ a to k N w. ~ eS ¢ de:~ e: e:~ ' J Impervious Coverage : Proposed Trees to be Removed : C ondition Proposed Trees New Trees : R ~ Al Dmreway 3,595 Sq.Ft. #02 Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantka) Fair As Per Arboris[ Aeport ~ AsphaA & Intedocking Pavers #13 Coazt Redwood (Sequoia semperarens) Good 2 Coast Redwood (Sequoa sempervirens) 46-inch Box Sire A2 Driveway 1,198 Sq.Ft. #14 Loazt Aedwaod (Sequoia sempervircns) Poor 1 Coast Redvood (Sequoia sempervkens) 36-inch Box Size a' Nan-Interlocking Pavers #1 S Coazt Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Poor 2 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 24-inch Box Site W 81 Front Patb 693 Sq.Ft. #16 Coast Aedwood (Sequoia sempervirers) Good s_ Concrete 62 Entry Path 6 Stairs 540 Sq.Ft. #17 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Good OillefS: to Concrete #27a Souther Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) Good N c Kitche xrMe 93 sq.FC. Dead Trees to be Removed: Canberra Gim (Grevillia banksii) 6-1ST, 6-15'W carob Tree (Ceretomfa Sikqua) 30'-40'7 10'-1 S'W Ca D Backyard Patio 1,011 Sq.Ft #25b Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Deed , European whRe Birch (Betula pendula) 40-50'7, 10-20'W " " 0 Concrete Feather Grass (Stipaterxissima) 24 T, 12 W Maai.Chkf (Phonnum tenax) 6'T, 6'W [V E Pad s12 Sq.Ft. Dead Trees Already Removed : C ondition Ntuamaki (Podocaryus maaophyllus) 70T,12'W #O6 Monterey Pine (Pious radiata) Dead Red Twigged Dogwood (Comas Alba) 10'7, 1 D'W o F Spa 70 Sq.Ft #07 Monterey Pine (Pious radiata) Dead Rosmary Blue Boy (Rosmarkws offidna8s) 8-12"T, 14-18"W N #OB Monterey Pine (Pious radiaU) Dead Sweetgum (Liquidambar styradflua) 60'•1007, 50-75'W G Pod Patio Concrete Pavers 752 Sq.Ft. #10 Monterey Pine (Pious radiata) Dead sword Fem (Nephroleps cordfoka) ST, 2-5'W ' ' Rockwood Design #11 Monterey Pine (Pious radiata) Dead Tasmanian Tree Fem (Dkksonia Antarctica) 12 T,12 W Total: 8,464 Sq.Ft. #12 Monterey Pine (Pious radiata) Dead Ss toga CAB 95070y 4oen41-0ta9 Fx: 408/741-5085 Date:03-09-03 Drawn By: taem Pere[ ~ Landscape Plan N(\~' ,n6°-1'-0" L2 • • • D ~ ~ ~o n a~ o, ~='E o u a W ~ e _.EEB$.~.~ ~~ ~ ~ N y ~' ~Ep ~~~ ~~~ ~sa ~ .: ~ ~ as i ~ ~ ~~ ~gQ'^. R ~~~~ ~Ag~g•g~~~• ~~E & ~ r~ ~ ~W ~~ ~~~~ g ~ ~ w~ n '~ 9Q~ ~y a'~ O ~ ~: ~~~~~~~~ 8 8 a _ L =' ~ ~~~~~ ~~~E ' ~ ~ ~b O } p~~ ~ $8~~~'~9 ~A g ~ n y~ ' ~ r ~ ~ ~ o C~ ~E~ y w @R g s "' N @RS R •i 5-~ 6.~ ~' cS~ ~ ~ ~ $ § !ga R r•~ E~ ~ 9'R ~ ~ '6~ ~ ~ 5 ~ S Y °° I~ W ~ 5'. 'X ~ii6 C~ g~~~ B~~E ~ ~ T ~ ~ I ~ ~ ,~, ~ ~ S '~~' + g > ~a ~ ~ n ~ P ~ 7~a. ~> O~ ~,C r~I i I~ = A g ~. ~~~ E ~~ 8 ~: ~ •gp• Q. . ' 3•. ~ 3. y~. E~a y r ~: Pc he ~ n ~o>F i7 C w ~ e ~? '~ ~ ~gx~ ~ ~, ~i~~A ~~ j ~6 ~~ ~~~~~E ~~~ ~E J~~ S R~ s ~8~ ~~8~~ 3~ I ~ ~ i - ~~ n SS g N e.~ ~ ~ ~,,~~ ~ '+ _EEC R g~ 8y~• ~ ~ ~•'Q 8, ~ ~~~ a 6~ ~~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~5@ ~ B~• ~~ ~ ~ q 5 - ~ ^g^g ~ ~ ~ t~ r ~ 2t P~ ~ ~ k~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~' '~~~ n ~~ ~ 3 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~ ~g~3 S ~ ~~A =u 9 I ,, ~E ~ Sg~ ~ ~ °• E ~~ 66 ~; @ o~E ~ pa ,Z B ~ ~ RRv.g7 ~~ ~~~ ~~V ~: ~s, ~ N•° ER ~ n ~e ~~~ ~ ~ g~~ ~ ~•e. ~~~ W E~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .gE g~ 6~ E R2:•,~ ~,~ ~ ~p B P '~ o ~ •g~ ~ 5' ~'~ s~ ~gg ~ ~' 6 ~ t ~ ~ ~~ ~ gs ~ ~~ _~ g gRr ~ ~ ~. ~ ~' .~~ ... ~S~ t'3 ~ ~ R~ A z ~ ~ Q ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~R ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~s4~ ~§ E •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ day ~_ ~ B g•~ ~ ~ ~~.~~• ~8 S~ E.~•~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ _ S ~ ~ = raw E~< ~ a. B 6 ~' ~' .~ ~ ~ e E~ a ii' ~g~ s ~ ~ ~ ~' 9 ~ ~~ ~ ~ Es ~ ~- ~~ E - s I i n? S 'i ~~ F i ~ R r 9~ ~ Hti e _ 2g n. ~ A ~ ~S ~ 3.e~ ~>~~ ~ E ~g E ~$ ~ .S&~~ kS;Eg~~ ~~ _ ~ a e ~ v r ~ -•~ ~ ~ ~: 3.~.~'R• C ~ ~~8~ ~ s ~~ ~ S {~ r 0.L ~3 .~ ~ g ~q '~~ "~ ~•~ Q~ ~ yg ~. ~^ ®. ~ S~ ~. ~ Q =aa ~ ~ ~ `IS• 5 2y. &~ ~•0 ~~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ii~~~- p s .~Y nn91E•R ~ 88Bs' e ~ •g ~ ~ ~ g~ ~~,.~ ~ ~• ~g 5. ~ 9~ I $ d r ~~ R E $' eRg E ~ _' ~ ~ J •~ . X 4y ~•$ n ~~ ~ ~ ~~~E9 ~,~~ sgg, tl gCgES.~ ~ ~~ a ~: ~. ~•g~ ~ ~ E. •R~., ff ~~ ~~ ~ g•~ ~ ~~ w3 ~$E~o ~Yw•~~ ~5.~ ~ x ~ o~ ~~E~.~ ~ ~ ~i; ~~ g ~QryrQ~ ~~ qgq ECE ~E~ .s ~ Atl g~, R S .. ~ Epp. C ~~S RR 80 ~ d ~ g ~1 ~ 6 ~5 5~~ p. S 2 FRM1~' g~ ~ p14~YC6 rni, ggY •$~' P17>f S1~' s ~ ~ p• r +~ Q°~{: ~~, 6. ~~p ^, y 8~ 58 E {Q, E@. g y 3 ~ R C~~^~ ~ Q~'~ s~'g'~; 4 ~~ •~B~ $ $ ggg ~ ~ '~ ~t ~ ~,5. a $ ~ g ~ ~ ~. d ~' ~ ~~ ~ 5 q~.BE g~' E~B E g•AA^g~ ~~5 ~~g r~'@@5~~ ~Y W ~ 5• ~ n g3 ,~ ~~ E . `~,~6~ ~~.~~ ~~ '~ ~ ~~jg~~ A QQ e ~~l S~ ~fl ~ i;, ~ ~'~ ~ ~ • ~ Tg~ ~ ~°~• g~6 p@ B^ ~E B ' S ~ 6 ~ e~ ~ , ~ e ~ $ g . s'~ ~. I 3~ ~ g ~ .~' ~~•~Er~R'~'~PS'd K8e ~'6' SS.°, ' `~ ~n p , Q Q ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °-.~i aC E e ~ `~ M ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~-°~$. ~+~ ~ ~. ~. ~ pp E ~ X ~~~~ ~ ~IX~~~9 ~ ~ E r r ~, ~ ~ sE ~ ~.W ~'~ N r~~~i it ~'P 8 I I j T A -• T A mp ~ ~ N O ~ m A $ A / u Ol ` ~ absa O ~ ~ m N ~ ~ 3 N O u O ~ ~° (-' ~b W ~ a v y c~• 2 270 Saratog Pras a-LosGato ad R s Rd. es iden ce Saratoga a 5070 • • I~ ARBOR RESOURCES r.ok„ .al,lten.,r.en.ar cn.,dunz d rrrr en.r TREE INVENTORY TABLE 9 ~ S a a 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ye 8 SS ~~ ~ a y a ~ , ~ y ~ }~ ~ F >]y ,afx } ~ i S ID taffxdlll _ B II I f~.,ly~, ti.r•I 111 l a l 10 I law l 1a11 I or IWevsl l I I ~ I pm I delci wr.Y 11 A A }w l1k ti Ilra.w x I c..1;.a II a 11 171{ 1Af G.1 a x Nlr ~/ uu<oa n n a ml 1sr orr 1 x nsp i 1 BYdIM.ry / 7 r n xnll p11 a.e Iw a rb s a.l;r.a s: p Im 1aw IpM rre / x nl u c.. ar..e u,s 1s u n11 nx carl IbYr x n N ~.a.e..l f b IS n% 1711 /v I.. z a u r +eeN..re u u u nx Iw a 1.. x p N c..ar..+ 1 A ID 1917 7111 6M Yole.k x {I tt Crrxrlr..l r n n nN 1aw or x N,1fo r Yerle9Pie .dr N p a aM 71M r. W s ara n YmbaPYr ~II11, 16 A b 1w 73% fi Iw f NN b 01.4.7 Pir ,.dw b n b 1sx tsx 9. alre.r s pef I -nlr Iwar-p1 Irwr•f su r• ~ ,laar•n Harr-N i 0076re.a~f Y.Y.w.. rrM.lywLLY,.eG I{l ) 411N 1 ~ Arborist Report 02-25-2005 t PROreerrve PeNCme I~P~) ~ `I n ,~ ARBOR RESOURCES r.aJr»mnnl e.bnnr.r„rar ca.,.nal a nrr ca,r TREE INVENTORY TABLE s ~ a e fil a ~ ~~ a a j~ !j~ ~ ~ pg¢ ~~ ~ ; Ee Ae > >~x l0 1vzFxur i a f ~ ~ ~ ~. 6 n cNeurlor 1 n ss law pla a.a I sl i D a.ms..el~ II /f n Ip% 71R OrM Illlli+e 1 11 ar erwelyr u fo n law nfl alr Ilreolr s n i N llsshPr6 nls I6 U 10 NaK IpK Or.r Ilydll / n10 b NorC}pw .e.r. b u Is law law am / x N,mo n c.rll.e..ee 1 n to tw 1a% r. lil.+e / rr 7r tr.ar..r 11.1 a 10 w w ldlD p b aaaliw Ok u ss n 10011 row Ord / x .p b C~rI Nw Oi N a p 1w law OV 1 x 1 rti ih~ladl ~ u.s n u 11N 1911 O.Y Ikeslk x /lr b tr zd.re 1 r n 1s11 bw e. 1.. 1 aloo b fvlelwe0e: 1 r 71 IpM n% Ord 1 it r ONllweOi II n b low nx acre / I •nr Iwr•lo IIRNta Irur•I • MIILIV.U.Ptl rwr•n nrr•n nii4. 1 3tv ian~V av.a4fr1, Irf ~.rlhr 4!~ a.. a.+r ar. n...lrvwcx+l,,,dc1 IY, ware . .. .. '"ardllpt snezvwl.mrlWZwr~ _. --. _. _ ..... ~ ~Ik ~+z.ac...rllw+f.+ae.r / >~ ARBOR RESOURCES PrnJu,~o.vl ,lrbvrir.lroal Cvvrvlrivxd irrr r'a.r TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~~ N0. aFp,yriY1 ~ ~ -~ 2 2 ~ ; SVy ~d ~ ~; by ~ ~ ~ a~ 1 ~i S . ~ j '> RRR N~ I~.Yrnrr) I N I N p i 1ae11I wml I arre INod.rl f I I I I f I orl;rror n 13 n a 19M »x Om1 I x C..u,rat r 10 A N fw 10% 1r f x 31110 IITA[1Nn?1.6•.LLUN •ns arwr•w Illrr•n le wur• n+rr•n n.ar•u r zmf..~w•u.e4aw., e9.~1/e` A ya.~w a~ n.M hw 9w..lkwtaey,cl ,ya ylyla !~ I~.~wV.ll.lil.,wr.MYrw. M ~ 1••' f•n tAYiml • ^r.r.G • roe 11rlrri,gl • Yl.r~~ Notes: n 0 U m Q ++ L ~ ~ U N C N N rn t0 a-, L ~ a 0 ca rn 0 +, R to O t` N O N Rockwood Desig 14554 Big Basin Way Saratoga G 95070 408/741-0189 Fa: 408/141-5085 Date:03-18-05 Drawn By: lnrNr Perez L4 • ~ • Ij ~. '.~ ~1 0 U {ti7 1 n ~_ cD SARAT'DGA LAS GATOS ROAD ~ `' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ToPGRAPHrc MBE DENCE OF MR. & MRS. PA S - ~" ] ~ °' °' APN: 517-11-006 20270 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD. g ~ gg~~~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ,ti • • EARTHWORK TABLE CUT (CY) FILL (CY) IMPORT (CY) EXPORT (CY) GaRAGE to 0 - _ (N.) HOUSE- 1 0 14 - _ (N.) HOUSE- 2 0 81 - _ GRADING 0 188 269 0 NOTES: I. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ON THIS TABLE_ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY, CONTRACTORS ARE TO PERFORM THEIR OWN QUANTITY TAKE OFFS. 1'• I ~~ .- I _- 027 '~ PRO¢cnAV FITId . ~: ALL PHASES ~ - e OlE - ) ~p~ts { --- tc n w P rz CB a GB FC c a CYB cPP ABBREVIATIONS TGP aF awe ROW U[ 1/GH PaNr PAVEI[NT FN6N iLDOR GTCX B15W1 1PCA DNNN CRAOC BRFIA F11a5N GRADE GWrDF MIEAi GWN Drw CONLNETE YASONRi BLOLN CORRDp1E0 PUSiIC PwC r. Ga+GRnE f5 TOP Of SLOPE iG IdP Of GRAZE A. B. AGGREGTE BASE AG ASPIW.i CONCRETE PDE PORn,NtD auENT cottcRnE P PATH) Gf fMISN GRADE AI FRONT a GARAGE R FINISH BOOR ITOP Of PLYWOOD) 65e SDE SEI6ACN S.C YW D. SWU CTNU VALLEY WATER DISTRICT -G ® AV ~ SSCO 0 ~- ®~ .--14211 EAISIING _ 5_ PROPOSED -~107~ -SD- - SS- off {Tlv DESCP.IPTION PROPCR7Y LwE CCWTOUR WATER LW[ STORY GRAM LRIE SNWTNtf SEWER ONE O1fRHU0 UlAl1IE5 WTH P011 -r J:"::• a§§~ 5y 6 Y FLNCWIG I- [OVSiMaTMM ~ . -_ j_ F{a I ~T d ~ r Q pp. F... ii WWM~i SPOT. NPR r ~- ~~ L ~ _ _ _ ~ A yy IM~Ofi OD -~ Re~P tNwMn TAW Wtlt c ~ L 2f - %ar ~ ~~ r i ' +' ca mw I I ~•, ~ I _ IaWN SPOrs ~d P j3 ; ~, f r ' ~ r. ~\~ I c I ,~~ ~ ~ , ~~ I Y~ ~ II 020.51 N{Sl~J,9.D~ O 9 ! ~ I A. ,, '~ .'. ~. - ~- I (£) SEWER LATERAL ~ ~. r ,~, l i I I I ~ ' \ a r~~7j , ~ ~ 1 ] _ ,'. 1 ~IW!..N[ ~ M ~ ~'S~~' J ~ ~ \ Y MELT ~ ~~ y ]- _~. ''~~ AAA •.-~. Y. _ TC 105.00 Y ,~..S fN) Cn5 k ` ~ ' 0•'1' IOT.00 ] ~r- O CIMC g ~ -, `~ ` ~' ] I L ,I (E) SEWER LIFTERAL ~, F 11222 ~ `o. ~ ~ y] ~~1t I ~ I _ ~ ., ~• .M'D emu. 14 . ~ '~ PROIECntf y ~ I I~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~. ~ ~1~ ~~. 1nNd'n S`Y'. __\ l~r('T~-. ~ ~F J ^ ALL MUMS ~Y )SEWER LA1~A1 I; g I ~'. 111 ~~- tY111~- ~ i.l PAnO vA~!P A PA OT / ~ ~ .Ic IWE FN\n~~ , ~ jRw 'IN) Ni 1RENCFI ~~' _ II 8 I. jain-lil:b I ~ .'~~,_ ~:. ~s;fiYl~ 112{ j ~ , ~ 'y. ~S I.J+IJ PAnO ` _ N--r~yE~ w~ i ~ -..- --i - - _-., n I T ! •~ ~ I E ao -tI1. v I - s Y .~~ fRONT {' CCP FRgA .: 32 95GfT,,, .___. I v~np 1 -1 „ ' L._ 1_~I a ... , .. AD-ib8: ] {E) sEr~R LAi1RAL.-~ i ~ 1_ _ PAnO DOWN SPRiS 1 `1 ., _ - - `(x _ I i SP ,~, POOL ~ F ~ ,. 6 ~ .i ,. I - a 'v ~ .. 1 xf ') ~ '~ y o~ II~ - '(.-).-t (,~' ! M ~~I ~,c°, ~ t4oswylE b s-pa RIN_.,I... ] ~~ - ('`> ~, ~~ ~ T iT wv lOriso a.0 ~~ i A ! Y~ l 1 _ E•..-- - ~- .. ~ ~, ~ r ) ~ ~ (~~_i r, ice. _ _ ~ ,A ~., I i~ r1 - ~ _ r +. _ ~' - - e26 ~ - _ ~f +Y TatO].]0 l y '32 r ,~ -~ r` wv.la.]R a le.o lax) .~~q Y 33d. 52b.51 N45131VaE !. ` ;~' 1 I I . ~ ~ LOT 75 ~ ~>, - ' s 'y' LOT 73 ~r L` L 1. ~ y, , r.. LOT 72 _n. , ILL PHASES SEWER NOTES: ~_ ~I ~R: THERE ARE FOUR SEWER LATERAL CONNECTED TO THE PROPERTY, CONTRACTOR SHOULD CAMERA CHECK THE LINE BEFORE CONNECTI NG THE NEW LINE. ]-Non tntertoding Pavers RedNOOd // Header Board t/ ' ,_ .. flood Stakes P 5' 0 C ,.._ .. .. ... ._., _ 'k ~_ .. , . - ~ ~ - ~~Lghtly Lonpncted Gravel ~- N0n-Conpn[Led Soll ~yp~cal Urlve SectlOn @ Non- fnterlocking Pavers N.T.S, I WMes Y UTILITY NOTES: ~~: mA ~~°n +:' 'm ~,,,,,, ~ ~ T. CONTRACTOR SHALL YFAIFY THE LOGITION OF PLL UTILIRES PRIOR TO -_ ...._ _ µ_. a,.__...___-_-__ -_-_____ CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONNECT SANITARI' SEWER AND WATER UNES TO EKISTMG STREET UTERN.S. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS 3. PEenac~ casµ D~r~ECmlc UNES m ExlsnNC sTREEr uTERALS, CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY U.S.A. (UNDERGROUND /. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ANY DISRUPTIONS TO EXISONG SERVICE ALERT) AT 800- 227-2600 A MINIMUM anon sERUIC£s WITH ADJACENr PROPERn owNERS. OF 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE BEGINNING UNDER- 5. ALL ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CAS E10ENSIONS INCLUDING SERVICE GROUND WORK FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATION L1NE5 5Nµ1 BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE APPROPRgTE UnLln COYPANI' AND DEPTH OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SPECIFN,ATgNS. ALL llnUn DSCONNECIWNS SFIALL BE COORDINATED . WffH THE DESIGNATED TRILBY COMPANIES. _ _ _ 6. PRN)R TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF OR CONNECTION TO ANY STgLY ORNN, SINRARY SEWER, WATER YNN OR ANY OF 7HE OFtY UTILRIES, THE CONTRACTgT SHAL EAGYATE, VERIFY ANO CALCULATE All PgNTS OF CONNECnON ANO ALL UTAnY CROSSING ANO 01FOR4 THE OWNER/ DETIELOPER OF IVY CDNFI1Ci DR REWIRED DEYMTIONS FROM THE PIANS. GAS L1XE STREET L4'Ni VNA1 SAMARY SEVER CLEANOIR YNWta1 CONCRETE YGAWENT M WELL EIFCTAgJER WATER YETER 1REE WiTX TRUNK B' WOODEN FENCE SPOT C11YA1pN FARTN $WAtE, lx YIN. AROUND HOUSE AREA DRNN ORANVDE RFIFASE PAM CRAOC i0 DRAIN, 2x YIN. ANAY FR011 HWSE 1; YIN. FROY PROPERn i1NE TO SWALE I-&p-127- . foRE y L gg.,~~ a yO"NwA/ L~~ GRAPHIC ~~ (MN[T) TNpI. tMR SMP C O M P A N Y CIVIL ENGINEERS ISDA GROG IANE Las AlTpS a RwO+ m: Iwe n{-{eoR FAk (ASO( 9At-R]55 E-YAA: S1NTlGINE[RSe YAHOO CON OPAWR: COPYM011 C IW5 SHIP AN Y OVR EWONEIRS ~ ~ y Y. ~ 4 J W ~ ~ a 0 W ~ Q W ~ Z O O W 0 ~ ~ U Z Q O Q 4 ~ 0 _Z ~ LL a ~ fi o '' nn V N O N RNwu Duly APRIL 7, 2005 xd.: I/T 6' ~ r-o' 0u.quua RY S.R. ao.~ eY Y.A. Am 2036 sn«c C-1 U • ~~ a ; _._ ';' r~ c_ i ~ o ~ i =I I o ~ 'f0~ ~ I ~ ' ~: rn ~.. ~ i i !, k L f9 i ~ ~ _ ~i-i U ~~ R ~ ~; ilk -- --. - -- - - ~ I ; ---~ I i I ~ ' i~ I~ '; o I - ~ L---- _:_-- I -.:-- Fa N a I p 9 ~ ~ ~ V N - Total Floor Area Combined :5,444 Sq.Ft. ~ Including Accessory Structure °~ ~ 0 --.-- i ~ First Floor v •- "' g 8 I ~ ~ ~I ~ I I A 17'-3" X 19'-3"(x2) = 664'-0" N ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ , ~ j ~ ~ B 16'-8" x 13'3" = 220'-0" ~ ~ i ,~ ~_ ,~ _ ._ ,. C 19 -3 x 78 3 -1,506 0 'o ~~ I J I~ D 4'-8" x 1 T-6" = 82'-0" ~ ~ ~ __ ,~ E 8'-9" x 14'-10" =129'-0" '" o ~ + , j ! s ~' ; j ~' ~ III !_ ~ F 11'-3" x 2'-4" = 26'-0" Total: 2,627' Sq.Ft. ~ '~ w a ~ ~ i ' 00 -----~ -, i sA i ~ I , r- -~ ~ O ~ ~ I ; I , { i ~ ~ I ~-_ -~---- ~ - ~ __ ___ .- it I I i i ~ I~ ~~ li ~ i ~ ~- Q N __-___.~__ i _.-___._--.-~ I i -___. ..___: I J v, I i __ ~ ----- -- ~~ - ~ ~ i ~ ' II th ,. it L N ' i; t ~ i O ~ _ Ind -- -------- 1~ ~- i _--_ . -- n N ~ O N i - _ ,~<<-,ez ~~ol-,tit ,.z-,sl. „~-,s~ Rockwood Design • ~ 14554 Blp Basin Wry Saratoga G 95070 408!741-0189 FK: 408/741.5085 pale: 03-i8d005 Drawn By Loran Pore 1 First Floor 3/16"•,~-0" Al • • s Total Floor Area Combined : 5,444 Sq.Ft. Including Accessory Structure ; Second Floor ~ r T A 1T-11" x 13'-3" = 236'-0" - ul ~ ~~ I I ~, g.,'~,""~ ~ia ~~i q ~~i ' ~I ~ ~~;~ I r o 6 19'-3" x 70'-0" = 1,348'-0° ~ ~ I I ~ III, ~C , I Jai ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ '~ ' ~ i ~ ~~ ~' :~Ir ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ I I ,Ipl I' ~j' i~ ~~~~ ~ ~ C 4'-8" x 17'6" = 82'-0.. i ~ ~ ~ ~t ~~,, ~ ~i ~ ~~ ~i ; 9 ' ' r ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ I 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~, ~~ ~ r , I , I ~ ,{ alh i , 4; ,NCI ~i fi Sri y ''' I ~ ",~ i'~i~~ ~ D 11'-3" x 2'-4" = 26'-0" ~ ~ , °~ ~I I ~~I. I i ~ ' u I X11 ~k~l ,, l i~ ~ i i ~~ ~ r ;~I ~~'~! I ~ .;~u~'i~l'i.'~~, I ^' ~i'~i~; Il Ih'F:,~'1 ~~yu,,u• ~I~"I . Total: 1,692 Sq.Ft. ' ' ~f ~ °~ U Accessory Structure 1,125 Sq.Ft. .. I> - ~ _ ~~ ~ a~ 0 ~ io U ~ C C) "~ N ,.8-.81 ,.9-.L l .,Ol-.££ „ -,Z, 24'-2" ~ a ~ ~ I I v - - -~- - ; ~ Q ~~l I oo i j m I IY ~~ a ~ l Q _ +~ J I ~, I ~ so ~ ~ M Qt i ~ k K i i ~ ____ ___ O E ~ c I+1 ~ i I I N 0 I 11'-~ I J I _ I ~ i I A ~ ~ ~ `--- I I ~ _ ~ , ~ m I I ~ ~ ro i i I 3~ i i I ~ I m I i ~ t0 t` ~ ~ I ~ ~ N - - --+ O ~ N Rockwood Design 14554 Big Basin Way • Saratoga Ca 95070 408/741-0189 Fa: 408/741-5085 Date: 034 &2f303 Dawn By: Larena Perz: 1 Second Floor ins°.,'-0• ~ Accessory Structure 3ne°-r-0„ A2 • ~ • 0 0 - ~ ----- ------.....i -- __ -- t-- r__ r'- i i --~- ~ ~ , . _ , I I ~ r~ ~ ~_iF.~ _i.- _' ,: ~ i ; n ra I i ~~ I ~L_._ I~ ,i I i . ;~ ~~ ;; ; , ~ ~ -~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ '~ , 1 ~ , I ~ 11 1 ~1 11 ~ i _ _ ' _ -__ \ \ __ _ _ _ _ C, _ __ i Skylight L.. .. .1.: ~ _~ ... ~„ ~ , i pi iii ~a ' i ,l / r' ~.l -- ~,'a ~ W Ot a K ,o~N~ m a $ Q;l 0~ ~ A /~ b~ m C ~ m b C tp p y ~~ ~W D ~g O N O Y O a v N rasad R sidence ~ (~ ~ c~ 20270 Saratoga-LosGatos Rd. Sa ratoga Ca 9 5070 • • Notes: - A.FF. Above Finish Floor - 0.F.G. Above Finish Grade - A.N.G. Above Nat. Grade ~ -_..__._--_-._ _- _- 23'-7' Mu. high A.rF. uw•. ar.s 23'-e'. AHG. -Exterior Materials O 3 Coat hand troweled -.- ---- ---- ---- - -. --_-- _ __--- ~ zr-s' smooth stucco w! to 6" Horiz. cedar siding ~ ~,~ w/ nat. stain Trim/ Wood Accent . •1 ../ cedar w/ nat. stain • Tapered wlumr~s w/ ~ concrete block U U ~ -Roof Material AsphaRk shingles ---~ t_ ~~ . -- -- - --------- -- r ' sKana r.:a~ near --- s' raencwy dark gray ip Pitch 3/12 ~ ' • ~ ® Painted Metal Gutters O -Window/ Doors Treatment rJ Mard. Marvin tp I t I Clad exterior w/ L I ~ - stain inteda ~~ j- - _ ______ r - ___ n,d,nm, ~ -Trellis V N Cedarw/natstam C _ ---Hannl.Gnde =_.. ---- r:r:hs'aee , - ~ ---- -------------- ~--------- I- ~_--_- I --IL----------------~---- -------- --------------- --__~- ---I- _ -,____ I -_-_ -- ~. ill m - -- 1 North (Front) Elevation ,/a".r-oe Key Plan N " 0 m L a N 0 J ~~~_- r z3'-r. Ar.r; 23'-11'AlIG. .i ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ IE~~IE~~q~~q''''~~' • ~ I L ~ _ LJLJ . I I ~ ~ ~ a a 1 ~ ~ h ~ N I i I l ~1 !J - ' ~ N ---- --- _____ ________ ~ I -y__________________i _ _ ' - - - - - ~ - - _ _ `---_ _ _--^~-- - - - - I __ - ------------------------ ____ ----- `- F c _ ._. ._.._ ! ~ --~ - ~ Rockwood Design 14554 Big Basin Way Saratoga G 95070 408/741-0189 F9: 408/741-SOBS Data 03-IB-2005 Drawn By. Laeru Perez 2 East(Left) Elevation ,/4°=1~-0° Key Plan A4 • • n Notes: -A.F.F. Above Finish Fbar -A.F.G. Above Finish Grade ~ - A.N.G. Above Nat. Grade -Exterior Naterials ~ 3 Coat hand troweled _-- - _____ _ _. _ m•ia• smooth stucco w! to -~ 6" Horn. cedar siding ~ w/ nat scam Trim/ Wood Accent ' i l 1 --- - - - j -_ --- ---~-is`ir cedar w/ nat stain to Tapered columns w/ I _ concrete Dock (~ ` ~ ~~ ~ - Aoof Material I ' , I I ~ ' i Aspllahic shingles dark gray R ~ ~ ~ -- _ __~ U j _ ___ i ~i - I ~ I ~ ~ Rtch 3/12 ~ Painted Metal Gutters O -Window/ Door Treatment +~ Manf Marvin I I i . tp i i qad exterior w/ ~ i ~ I ~ i l stain iMerar ~ ~ '-------°-- ______ --- ---- -------------------- --- -- - - t~ -- - ' --- I------ -~ nrnnoor -Tr~ V N ~ i ------------- -- ------ -- -- i ----------- ,~_rmar„y r w/ nat.stain C ~ i i i i --- i --- ----II--- ------------------1~------- --]--------- -------------------~ .: ~ N ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ South {Rear) Elevation ,/4"-,'-0„ Key Plan N N 0 r ~ L a c~ N O J t0 O - -- ~, to L_~ f0 i ~ to O Jr, I __ ~ ~ I ~ n N O I I ~~ N -- --- - --- Rockwood Design ___ _____-________________________~_ ~ 14554 Big Basin Way ____ _ --_ _- _ ------------- -- -- -- -------------- _ - - -- -------------------------~ j _ _ _ _ _ _ ---- ------------ I _ _ _ _ _ _ -------- ------- --- -- --------I-----------------' _ ----------- ------------ ~ ~ ~ Saratoga G 95070 408841-0IB9 F z: 408/741-SOBS Date: 03.1&2005 prawn By: Lorena Perez 2 West (Right) Elevation ,/4°-~'-0" Key Plan A5 • • • Notes: - A.F.F. Above Finish Floor -A.F.G. Above Finish Grade • AN.G. Atwve Nat. Grade ~ AF.G ___ ~ 9 ~~ __T_1i Af.G. !'A' AN.G. -Exterior Materials O 3 Coat hand troweled srtaoth stucco w! u7 ~~ l ~ ~ -Trim/ Wood Accent ~ cedar w/ nat. stain . -Hoof Material ' ~ ---- --- ~ --wvycw. ~_ _. Asphaltic shingles ~ --- --___-_ - -FmnGM darkgfay V ------------------ --- Pitch 3/12 Painted Metal Gutters -Window/Door Treatment ct] i ~- Manf. Marv m Chad exterior w/ ~ Accessory Structure (Right) Elevation ,/4°-1'-0° Key Plan stain interior ° L f) ~ 'O I " 2 Accessory Structure (Front) Elevation ,/4°-1'-0• Key Plan l0 " " o L a c7 " 0 __~~~ ~~ ~"-~__ J 1 ,~ ~ ~ O +~ L 3 Accessory Structure (Left) Elevation 1/4°-1'-0° Key Plan o N O ~,„. N ~ _ ~ Rockwood Design 14554 Big Basin Way ~ Saratoga La 95070 408/741-0189 i i ; _ ... _. _._~ Fx: 408/741-5085 `~-" ~---"! Date: 031&2005 Drawn By: tneru Pere: 4 Accessory Sructure(Rear) Elevation ,/a°-1'-0° Key Plan A6 - - • • • 0 0 ~ ~ ~~~ ~- ~ , ' I ~~ ~~ ~ ~_ V / p ~I r~ -- i l -- ~ i --- rn ;~ ~ ~ ~ I -i ~ ( L ~ ~ ~ ; ;~, ~ ~ ~ ii L ~ I ___ ` __ _ __ ~~ r . I ~ 1 a~ II ~I a ~ -~ I ' ~. I ~ I ~~ ~,il I ~ ~3 --- --- ----- --- ------- ._ i _ ._ t N ~ ~ . ~~ ~" - . ~ ~ ~ Croos Section ,~4°-~~-0° Key Plan N o L f0 a c~ N O ~3L Nu1g7d.EE~ 25'-0'AF.G IS'A'AHG ~ J t ~~ I it a .r ~ ~ I ~ u ~ J I - ~~ ~ I ~ i~ ~ ~ - --- '~ ;, j114'j •,ti ~, i ~~ tv ° .~ `° I~~J ~ U U J I_ f0 ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ I F ~ ~:~ ~~ I , ~! ~ ^~ n ~ ~ ~- ~ i N ~ ~ i ~ I~ !~ : ' L ~,' I _. _ i - ! r i I ~_ __ ~ I ~ ~~ __ ~ ~ i - l_ I ~ ~ ~ ~ __ J . __. O N _____ ~ _ ___ ~l ________________ __ . ~. 0.-_ ___- I. _. ~. iNrh ------ -- __ ___ "-------- ___________ . - _''~ ~ ~~ Rockwood Design ' -;, ,' 'I, 14954 Bg Bain Way Saratoga Ca 99070 408n41-0189 f i i Px 4oen+1-sons i~ ~~~ ~ .._ ate: 03~1Bd009 Otaxn By. lama Pere: 2 Long Section I/4°-1'-0" Key Plan A7