Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2006 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA • DATE: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 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 CO1vTMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2006 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application 06-065 MAGGETTI Item 1 16233 Cuvilly Way 2. Application #06-138 PARKER RANCH HOA Item 2 12045 Parker Ranch Road 3. Application #06-139 PARKER RANCH HOA Item 3 12467 Parker Ranch Road SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits. to properties that 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 that may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 8, 2006, 6:00 p.m. Pr~CE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 2, 2006. STUDY SESSION AGENDA DISCUSS LAND USE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES IN PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission. No decisions will be made at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 8, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 11, 2006 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding.Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 2, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 {b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. 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 #06-065 (517-13-032) MAGGETTI, 16233 Cuvilly Way; -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant lot in the Chateaux de Notres Dames Subdivision. The total floor. area of the proposed residence will be 6,003 square feet including garage, with a 996 square foot basement area. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 26 feet. -The net lot size is 44,039 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Lata Vasudevan) 2. APPLICATION #06-138 (366-43-001) PARKER RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 12045 Parker Ranch Road; -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a monument sign identifying a subdivision. The total area of the sign is approximately 23 square feet and the height is 4 ft. 4 inches. (Suzanne Thomas) 3. .APPLICATION #06-139 (366-49-006) PARKER RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 12467 Parker Ranch Road; -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a monument sign identifying a subdivision. The total area of the sign is approximately 23 square feet and the height is 4 ft. 4 inches. (Suzanne Thomas) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@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, Abby.Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 2, 2006 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 F'ruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato~a.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning(r~saratoea.ca.us G~~~ 1~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt and Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of December 14, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of December 14, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 12. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Kundtz and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 5, 2006. 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). • Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 Page 2 APPLICATION #05-172 (397-05-015) AWBREY, 14395 Quito Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence and detached garage and study. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage with study is 4,571 square feet. An existing 1,333 square foot building will be retained as a cabana. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 43,751 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for atwo-story single-family residence with a detached two-car garage and carport on property located on Quito Road. • Explained that there is an existing 1,333 square foot- cottage on the property that is currently serving as the residence for the site. Added that this cottage is larger than is allowed for a secondary living unit. • Said that the applicant is requesting retention of this structure as a cabana. • Reported that this property is over an acre in size and the proposed residence's maximum height would be 26 feet. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 and has an average slope of 11.5 percent and 1 percent at the building site. • Said that there are several accessory buildings in addition to the cottage and that all but the cottage are to be demolished. • Informed that since the maximum size for a secondary living unit is 1,200 square feet under State Law, in order to make this existing 1,333 square foot cottage into a secondary living unit it would have to be reduced in square footage to 1,200 or less. Instead, the owners proposed to remove the kitchen facilities to be able to turn this unit into a cabana. • Described the architectural style as Old Country Tuscan .incorporating rustic stucco.. A material board and site photographs have been provided. • Explained that the main access to this parcel is through an easement driveway as this .parcel is landlocked with no direct frontage from the public street. This easement driveway is from the parcel fronting onto Quito. • Reported that the applicant would continue -use of this driveway and the Conditions of Approval require that the driveway meet any Code requirements imposed. • Stated that there are 40 Ordinance sized trees and the applicant is proposing to relocate one, a small Olive, at the entry of the site. All other trees are to be retained and would not be affected by this project. Said that this is a residential area with custom lots. This proposal is in keeping with the area and the proposed setbacks are greater than required. There are no privacy impacts and significant vegetation along the property lines offers screening. • Stated that the neighbor notification templates have been provided and no concerns were raised. • • • Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 3 • Said that geotechnical clearance was required and conditions have been included. • Reported that the required design review findings can be made in the -affirmative and recommended approval. Commissioner Cappello asked for the limitations on square footage for a cabana. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick explained that State Law limits the square footage for a secondary living unit to 1,200. This existing structure exceeds that size and there are no variance procedures to exceed that 1,200 square foot maximum. The only option is to reduce the square footage to keep it as a living unit or to remove the kitchen to convert it for cabana use. She said that it is easier to remove the permanent kitchen facilities. Chair Nagpal asked if a reduction in the size of the main house would result in allowing this second unit to remain at 1,331 square feet. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no. The absolute maximum for a second living unit is 1,200 square feet. She added that although the proposed carport does have a door, it cannot be enclosed totally as it would result in exceeding the maximum allowable floor area ratio for this site. Director John Livingstone added that there is no limit in size for a cabana but that the State Housing Laws cap a secondary living unit to 1,200 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this cabana would be counted against the FAR. -Director John Livingstone replied yes, all structures are counted in the FAR. An exception is given to the maximum FAR allowed on site allowing a density bonus of 10 percent if a deed restriction is placed on a secondary living unit as a BMR unit. However, the maximum 1,200 square foot size for a second living unit remains the limit. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff for the total FAR.. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied 5,904. Commissioner Schallop asked if the carport is visible from the street. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied not at all. The carport does not have three walls so it is not counted in the FAR. Chair _Nagpal asked about the relocation of the Olive tree as the report reads that this is an Oak tree. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the Arborist has corrected this detail and this tree is an Olive. Commissioner Rodgers asked if anything encroaching on the driveway over the easement is counted in the FAR for this site. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 4 ~~ ~~ Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reported that the access easement is across someone else's property and does not impact FAR for this parcel. That easement must be kept clear for access to this rear property. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Craig Awbrey, Applicant and Property Owner, 14395 Quito Road: • Introduced his wife and young daughter, Autumn, who are with him this evening. • Said that his family has lived on this property for two years now and that he has two other daughters in addition to Autumn. • Stated that they enjoy living in Saratoga. • Asked for approval of their expansion and reported that they have worked on their plans for nearly a year now. • Said that their proposed Tuscan style home is complimentary to the existing landscaping. Their home would be a Tuscan style farmhouse. • Said that they would be adding Italian Cypress to their landscaping. • Described some of the architectural details as including Tuscan columns, rustic stucco, copper gutters and downspouts, a the roof, fenestration details that are set back from the facade and a limestone finish. • Said that he is pleased with this design and has talked to his neighbors and sent out the template to six contiguous neighbors and heard back from all of them with positive comments and no negative comments. • Said he is available for questions as is his architect, Richard Hartman. • Asked for approval of his application. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Craig Awbrey what would replace the removed kitchen in the cottage when it is converted into a cabana. Mr. Craig Awbrey replied that it would be left open. He added that they would have liked to have kept the kitchen in place but that there is no variance available that would allow that to occur. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter said that this proposal is fine. This is a lovely home for this family and fits nicely into this neighborhood. Commissioner Uhl agreed: Commissioner Rodgers said that the emphasis in Saratoga is on unusual architecture. This meets that criteria and meets the Tuscan Farmhouse design. Chair Nagpal said that the materials were shown during the site visit and that she is excited to '~ see this home when it is done. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 5 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-172) to allow the construction of a new two-story, single- family residence and detached garage with study and the retention of an existing 1,333 square foot building as a cabana with the removal of the permanent kitchen facilities, on property located at 14395 Quito Road, by -the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #06-076 (503-27-650) MA, 14360 Paul Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,017.5 square feet with a 382.5 square foot attached garage. A 966 square foot basement is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet, 6 inches. The gross lot size is 5,162 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1-10,000. Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to demolish an existing single-story single-family residence and construct atwo-story 2,017 square foot residence with a 966 square foot basement. • Explained that this project is exempt under CEQA. • Said that geotechnical clearance was required and received for this project. • Stated that the Arborist report states that two Ordinance protected trees may be affected but that may be in error. • .Reported that she met with Arborist Babby on site today. It was determined that the trees in question are not native as they are Baywood Ash. -The Arborist supports removal with the replacement with two 24-inch box or one 36-inch box tree. He also supported-reducing the free protection bond from $1,900 to $1,000. • Said that three neighbors have expressed concern. The applicant has resolved some. of the concerns raised. The issue of line of site into a neighboring pool area has not yet been resolved. • Added that an agreement has been signed between neighbors stating that this property owner agrees not to object in the event that the other owner elects to construct a second story addition to their home in the future. • Pointed out a typographical error in the staff report that reads 9,250 square feet of hardscape when it should be only 757 square feet. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked about tree replacement species. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 6 Planner Therese Schmidt said that Arborist Babby recommends native trees but no specific species has been selected yet. Chair Nagpal pointed out that the basement is not listed in the report as part of the total square footage. Director John Livingstone admitted that this number was inadvertently left out. Planner Therese Schmidt reminded that the proposed basement is 966 square feet. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Rachel Frame, Owner's Representative, 12201-D Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Explained that the Mas have lived on this property for six years now. Their daughter was , born during that time. • Said that they have carefully planned this house and made themselves familiar. with all Zoning Codes including heights, setbacks, FAR and design standards, including the avoidance of privacy impacts. • Reported that this proposal falls under the maximum lot coverage, setbacks and heights. It includes varying rooflines and architectural features to break up the mass. • Said that this proposal is compatible in this neighborhood of one and two-story structures. The two adjacent homes are two-story. • Pointed out that the majority of new homes in the neighborhood are two-story either when remodeled or with new builds. • Said that this proposal offers increased living space for a growing family and avoids views and privacy impacts. • Reported that the neighbors behind the Mas have reached an agreement. ~ Trees will be planted in an alternating pattern, which as they mature will provide screening along the back property line for both homes. • Said that there is not much that blocks the view of the neighbor to the north. • Stated that Dr. Weinmann is here this evening and has concerns about privacy impacts on his pool area. • Said that Window #2 is a bathroom window that would be obscured glass. Window #3 is _. __ ._a bedroom. window that overlooks the front.,. The window from the front bedroom is of most _. - - - - concern to Dr. Weinmann but is only offers the Mas a view of the mountairis and- not his pool. • Pointed out that the Mas are shorter people and Dr. Weinmann wants a site line that takes into account a taller person of perhaps 5 feet, 10 inches. A taller person might have a view of Dr. Weinmann's pool from this window. • Advised that this room is intended to serve as a child's bedroom. It is not the master bedroom to be occupied by adults. • Added that the pool in question is located 72 feet away from this window. The window is five feet, five inches high and offers no downward view at all. • Said that while they prefer their first proposal, a window at a five foot height, they are willing to accept a compromise with the window at the five foot, five inch height. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 7 • Asked for approval of this application saying that the Mas are excited and have met the design criteria for their new home. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the decking along the side would be removed. He asked if the placement of two required replacement trees might be planted along Dr. Weinmann's property. Ms. Rachel Frame said it was possible but pointed out that there is only afive-foot setback there and they need to keep access open for emergency access. Commissioner Kundtz asked where these replacement trees are proposed to be planted. Ms. Rachel Frame replied that they could be planted along the back property. Commissioner Uhl asked if the agreement for the planting of trees along the back property line is included in the conditions. Planner Therese Schmidt said that this requirement needs to be added to the conditions. Dr. Robert Weinmann, 14371 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he has been a resident of Saratoga for 18 years or since 1986. • Said that his home has a yard and pool in back that is often used for sunbathing. This has been a private area. • Reported that he had tried to obtain an Architect to review these house plans but he was unable to get line-of-site drawings done. • ~ Stated that window choice #1 gives a view into his pool area. • Stated that the Mas are good people and he has no complaint about them but he is asking that the bottom half of this proposed window be obscured. That request was considered but rejected by the Mas. • Said that the alternative of a five foot, five inch high window offers the sky view desired by the Mas while retaining the privacy of his pool area. This is a partial answer and enough to satisfy his needs and use of his pool area. Commissioner Hunter asked Dr. Robert Weinmann about trees. Dr. Robert Weinmann said he had thought of that but was unable to get someone in until next month. He said he was not sure if that would satisfy the Mas as he does not want to block their straight out view just the angle view into his pool. Ms. Rachel Frame: • Said that they have worked with Dr. Weinmann and tried to come to an agreement or compromise but have not reached one. • Said that the Mas prefer their first solution, afive-foot high window. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this window is not the only one for this room nor does it serve as an egress window. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 8 Ms. Rachel Frame agreed that there is another window at the front. ;~ Commissioner Uhl asked if the five-foot, five-inch high window does not represent a compromise. Ms. Rachel Frame said that no formal agreement was reached before tonight with Dr. Weinmann. She added that the Mas did not want obscured glass up to -six feet, six inches as that would result in no view at all from this window. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that this is a small property for Saratoga at only 5,000 square feet. • Said that a 25.4-foot two-story house is high for this tiny lot. • Asked if there was any thought by staff to urge these applicants to bring the height down to 22 or 23 feet maximum. • Questioned whether staff is simply fine with 26-foot maximum heights whenever proposed by an applicant since the Ordinance allows it. Director John Livingstone said that staff looks at each design on .a case-by-case basis. Often only a small portion or peak of a house actually hits that maximum proposed height and sometimes that height actually improves the overall design. missioner Hunter said that in her five ears on the Commission efforts have been made Com y in the past to reduce heights on smaller properties. This is a tall house for a small property. Asked if staff makes an effort to lower heights to a total of just 22 or 23 feet. Director John Livingstone said that there has been no direction to look into a change of Ordinance requirements. Chair Nagpal agreed and said that it should be about design. Commissioner Hunter reiterated her belief that 26 feet is high for a small lot and is actually the same height as is allowed for a house on a large lot. Commissioner Schallop said that this issue would have to be discussed further another time. Commissioner Cappello asked if the concerns raised by other neighbors have been resolved. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the neighbors to the west side have been addressed. The story poles have been up for three weeks and no other concerns were raised since. Commissioner Uhl questioned how a house at 26 feet on this small lot can be considered to . have minimized bulk. mmissioner Ca ello ointed out that the nei hbor concerns have not been bulk but rather Co pp p 9 privacy. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page~9 Commissioner Kundtz: • .Said that owners should be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their property maximizing use as long as it is not overly onerous in size and bulk. • Said that this area will take the facade of town home structures and this area will look like row houses eventually. • Added that taking-the height down one to two feet would not make much of a difference. in the impact. Commissioner Uhl said that the economic benefit of a property is in the useable square footage and not the maximum height. Commissioner Schallop • Said- that there is a lot coverage issue without allowing a second floor. • Added that each individual request must be evaluated to make sure designs do not look bulky. • -Said that the facts of this specific request must be considered. Policy issues are worthy of discussion but not during a hearing for a specific request. .Commissioner Hunter said that working from an historic perspective during her time on the Planning Commission over the last five years, she remembered a house on Prospect that had to reduce its height at the direction of the Planning Commission. Chair Na al ointed out that hei ht is not a desi n review finding. gP P 9 9 Commissioner Hunter said that she wants to see this issue discussed at a later date but agrees that this applicant was not warned. She reiterated that a 26-foot high house is tall for a small property. Commissioner Uhl asked how many 26-foot-high houses are in this neighborhood. Commissioner Schallop said that there are a number on Springer. He added that he used to live on Springer. He pointed out that asingle-story home could also be 26 feet tall. Planner Therese Schmidt agreed that there are many such houses in the area. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that two-story homes used to be 22 or 23 feet tall but that 26 feet now appears to be today's standard. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that it is an academic issue to discuss policy and it should be done in the future. • Agreed that this neighborhood would become an area with row houses. • Said that adding space up instead of out leaves homeowners with open space. • Added that protection of rural neighborhoods may not apply in this area. • Stressed the importance of being careful not to interfere with views and privacy. • Said that it is important for Saratoga homeowners to have a view as much as they can. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 ~ Page 10 . • Stated that this neighborhood is getting tight. ,, ,~ • Suggested that placing trees on Dr. Weinmann's property or the applicant's could help shield views between the two parcels. Chair Nagpal pointed out that Plan Sheet #2 shows trees along Dr. Weinmann's property line. Commissioner Rodgers expressed support for Option #1 with trees or Option #2 without. Commissioner Schallop said he would agree with those options. Commissioner Cappello commended the applicant and their neighbors for their work on a compromise that allows awin-win situation at the end. He said that he likes Option #2 which appears to be one both sides can live with and from a design standpoint is compatible with this home. Commissioner Uhl agreed that this is a good compromise. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06-076) to allow the construction of a new two-story, single- family residence with attached garage and basement on property located at 14360 Paul Avenue: • As amended with Option #2 for the bedroom window, • With due consideration of all neighbors' privacy concerns with planting of trees, • Strike #15 of the Arborist's report and add that "the applicant shall receive Arborist clearance for the replacement trees," and • Add a note to be included on the construction and landscape plans to include line-of-site drawing #2; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter and Uhl ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Hunter explained that she has to defend her concerns over 26 foot heights on small lots and that she voted against this project on principle, which she could do tonight without causing the applicant to fail to obtain an approval. Commissioner Uhl said that he voted against due to concerns about excessive bulk and height. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 11 Commissioner Rodgers advised that she resides within noticing range of this next project and must recuse herself. She left the dais and the chambers for the duration of Public Hearing Item No. 3. APPLICATION #06-154 (503-55-040) HAMMER, 21279 Lumbertown Lane: The applicant requests approval of an 800 square foot second story addition to .the existing 3,328 square foot single-story residence located on Lumbertown Lane. The proposed height of the structure is approximately 24.7 feet and the site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(a). Assistant Planner Sweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: • Stated the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow asecond-story addition to an existing single-story residence. • Explained that this area consists of a mixture of one and two-story homes. The Zoning is R-1-40,000 and this parcel is a net of 40,000 square feet. The average slope is 37 percent which reduces the allowable FAR. • Said that this proposed addition allows a new master bedroom and bath. A covered lanai and balcony are not enclosed and therefore are not counted against FAR. • Reported that no trees would be removed and neighbors raised no concerns. • Stated that staff is in support and that this project is Exempt under CEQA. • Said that findings can be made in the affirmative and recommended approval. • Advised that the applicant/owner is here this evening. Commissioner Hunter said that she would have liked to see story poles as this house would be very visible from Bohlman Road. Chair Nagpal expressed agreement that story poles would have been nice for a second story addition. Commissioner Hunter asked staff to consider story poles in the future. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. _.. Mr. Tony Hammer, Applicant/Owner, 21279 Lumbertown Lane, aratoga: • Explained that he hopes to expand his family and they need additional room in their small 2,836 square foot home and that this 800 square foot addition would include a master suite and result in an additional bedroom downstairs for their added family. • Said that he spoke to his neighbors. • Pointed out that his property is sitting on a knoll and is pretty protected from immediate neighbors. • Described views toward the Mountain Winery as including two Eucalyptus trees that block views up to the winery. To the south, toward the White house, Eucalyptus trees blocks pretty well. Toward the valley there is a plethora of trees. Toward Villa Montatvo it is also well screened. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 12 , • Said that they are tucking their addition uphill instead of downhill and provided pictures. • Said that they are trying to minimize bulk using architectural details that fit the building. • Pointed out that this is not that large an addition and said he hopes the Commission will approve his request. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tony Hammer if he would not appreciate notification through story poles if someone were to plan to build across the valley from him. Mr. Tony Hammer: • Advised that he has lived in Saratoga 10 years now. • Reported that when he saw a building going up on the other side he went over and saw that his home was not visible from that side. • Added that it is far enough away that his house becomes a speck that has to be looked for to be seen. • Reminded that the knoll hides it pretty well. • Pointed out that if the addition were placed at the front it would be much more visible. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Tony Hammer that he has a lovely home. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Uhl said that this looks good. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06-154) to allow the construction of an 800 square foot second story addition to an existing single-story residence on property located at 21279 Lumbertown Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Rodgers Commissioner Rodgers returned to the dais. _ - - _ _ *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone: • Reminded that.there is no meeting on January 25, 2006. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Ad Hoc meeting today where they brainstormed on the top five priorities. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 13 Commissioner Uhl asked for more information about use of story poles. Director John Livingstone reported that staff did research in the past and brought information to the Planning Commission. Story poles are very expensive and require a surveyor. The costs can range from $3,000 to $8,000 and at that time the Commission felt it was not quite ready to required them on everything. Staff recommends that applicants use them if possible but does not require -them. Some elect to do so. Others have used balloons to demonstrate heights. Commissioner Hunter said that she had heard that story poles could be done for $1,200. She said that if a home is obvious and on a hillside, story poles would be very helpful. Especially a new-house on a hillside as this affects many people below and the community deserves to know of potential impacts. Director John Livingstone said that requiring story poles can be considered. He cautioned that- story -poles can oftentimes create damage to existing homes when being anchored in place. Commissioner Rodgers supported using story poles on hillside properties since only immediate neighbors receive written notification. Chair Nagpal asked what other means of public notification are used in addition to mail. Director John Livingstone reported that ads are placed in the newspaper and- notices are mailed to property owners within 500 feet radius of a project. He recommended that this issue of a standard requirement for story poles be brought up for discussion during the joint meeting with Council. Commissioner Hunter said she. does not want a standard requirement as she trusts staff to determine when they become necessary. Chair Nagpal said that she has tended to see story poles on those projects where she felt they were necessary and that it looks like we are fine for the most part on this issue. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a copy of the community survey would be available to the _ ..Commission.- _ - _ Director John Livingstone said he would email it to the Commissioners. Commissioner Rodgers asked about preparations for the joint meeting with Council. Chair Nagpal asked when this meeting would occur. Director John Livingstone replied March 1St Chair Nagpal said that there are still two regular Planning Commission meetings in February where topics for discussion can be developed. Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 2006 Page 14 Commissioner Hunter said that she has concerns about x,000 to 7,000 square foot lots and the size of homes currently allowed on them. Chair Nagpal suggested a Study Session on February 8th at 6 p.m. to discuss a master list of issues to cover during the joint meeting with Council. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • Item 1 • i~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Owner/Applicant: Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: 06-065;16233 Cuvilly Way Design Review Maggetti/Kohlsaat Lata Vasudevan AICP, Associate Planner~~ February 8, 2006 517-13-032 Department Head: ~~ John F. Livingstone, AICP 4,cat :a ~~ i~~ `~ - ~~~\ .ice, . ~, ~F t . ' :,: ``~ 1 -! _ ~ ,; i_ r rtaggie ~~. ,~ -~ 200. •~pb_.....80D _..8DD-ff i _- -- -- _, \`~• ! w inmaggie -.. I ~. ;; ~, = ~, _. ~,= __ ~~. ~. ~ ~~i ~~ V~ _ - ~ ~ `~i ~rn`~ .__~ ~ - i I _ ~~ ~ ~-_ /'. ~ . '., I '~" i. a ,, ' ~ ,'' J \i j .: .od. / _'_ ___. __ _. ._ _ _.. ~ ~.. _ ~ ,~ -__ _. -4~r. i y __ ~~ ~tlxncb AEd \ \ _ .~ n ~ ~~,'Wi>Lww~wn A. 16233 Cuvilly Way (Lot 8) 000001 Application No. 06-065,• 16233 Cuvilly Way EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 08/18/05 Application complete: 01/02/06 I~TOtice published: OU25/06 Mailing completed: 01/23/06 Posting completed: 02/20/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new multi-story 6,003 square foot home with a 996 square foot basement. The new home will be 24 feet - 3 inches in height and will be situated on a vacant 44,039 square foot lot in the relatively new Chateaux de Notre Dames Subdivision. The lot is situated in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this design review application. • • • 010002 Application No. 06-065,• 16233 Ctavilly Way r STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 45,564 gross square feet and 44,039 net square feet SLOisE: 8.0 % average site slope GRADING REQUIRED: There will be approximately 1,351 cubic yards of cut and fill. Please note that the applicant has not deducted the cut amount from the 1,351 cubic yards. The cut needed for the basement is not considered as part of the grading amount. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed 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 proposed materials and colors will be clay barrel roofing, ochre-colored smooth stucco, sage green or brown colored wood frame windows, faux limestone trim and shaped wood tails at the eaves. A material board will be presented at the public hearing. • c~~iaoo3 Application No. 06-065,• 16233 Cuvilly Way ' PROJECT DATA I ,~ ;~ , Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 26 % Maximum Allowable 35% Residence, incl. garage 6,021 sq. ft. Driveway, walks 5,921 sq. ft. Lightwells 1~8 sq. ft. TOTAL 12,070 sq. ft. 15,414 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main Floor 5,197 sq. ft. Garage Level ~ 788 sq. ft. , (Basement Level) (996 sq. ft.) TOTAL 6,003 sq. ft. 6,100 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement ' Front Lot Line 95 ft. 30 ft. Rear Lot Line 1St story >100 ft. 50 ft. 2nd Story >100 ft. 60 ft. Side (North) 1St story 28 ft. - 7 in. 20 ft. 2nd story 50 ft. 25 ft. Side (South) 1St story 20 ft. - 0 in. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable 24 ft. - 3 in. 26 ft. Lowest Elevation Pt. 630.89 ft. Highest Elevation Pt. 639.74 ft. Average Elevation Pt. 635.32 ft. Elevation at topmost Pt. 659.58 ft. of Structure PROJECT DISCUSSION ooooo~ Application No. 06-065;16233 Cuvilly Way The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new mulri-story 6,003 square foot home with a 996 square foot basement. The new home will be situated on a vacant 44;039 square foot lot in the Chateaux de Notre Dames Subdivision.- The home will be mostly one- level, with amulti-level portion because of the lot's topography which, slopes toward the northern side. The maximum height of the structure, which is 24 feet - 3 inches, will be mostly visible from the multi-story northern portion of the home. The project site was created as part of the Chateaux de Notre Dame 11-lot subdivision established by the Sobrato Construction Corporation. The Planning Commission has already reviewed and approved 4 design review applications. for new homes in this subdivision over the past 4 years. The conditions of approval of this subdivision require that all. new residences be presented to the Planning Commission for design review approval. Additional design review applications for development on the remaining lots are expected to be presented to the Planning Commission in the future. Staff finds that the proposed home, which is in a Mediterranean style with carefully selected materials and colors, is compatible with the style of the homes that have been recently approved in this subdivision, while still maintaining a unique character. Trees There are 21 trees on this property that are regulated by City Ordinance. Nine trees are in conflict with the design and have been determined by the City Arborist to be suitable for removal due to their condition, species or relatively small-size. In the initial Arborist Report dated September 3, 2005, the City Arborist required some revisions be made to the .site design. Staff forwarded a revised version of the plans to the Arborist, and received another review letter dated November 14, 2005. The revisions requested in this letter from the Arborist have been incorporated in the plans and have been made conditions of project approval. Geotechnical Clearance This application requires geotechnical review because of the proposed construction of a basement. Also, as a condition of subdivision approval, geotechnical review is required for all development. Geotechnical Clearance was granted with conditions, and these conditions have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. 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 project has been designed in a manner that minimises interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The homes that were recently approved by the Planning Commission for the immediately adjacent lots 7 and 9 are skewed in relation to the Q~10005 Application No. 06-065,• 16233 Cuvilly Way proposed home such, that its windows are not directly facing these adjacent homes. Moreover, the two-story component of the home facing north towards lot 9 is situated further from the property line than the single story portion of the home which is closer to the north side property line. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The use of earth-tone stucco and file roofing will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. The applicant will also be required to incorporate measures to preserve the large English Walnut and the Pines in the front yard. The applicant is proposing to remove 9 trees. However, the applicant will plant trees on the property equivalent to the value the trees to be removed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees All Arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. Of the 9 trees proposed for removal, 2 trees - a Douglas Fir and Coast Live Oak -are native species. The Coast Live Oak is in very poor condition and the Douglas Fir is a relatively small sized tree, which in relation to the other trees on the property was not worth preserving. The applicant is required to preserve the other Coast Live Oak (tree #21) and Douglas Fir (tree #14) trees on the property. In addition, the applicant has made modifications to the plans to ensure preservation of the large trees at the front area of the property. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes, arched windows, stone trim, wood frame windows and doors break up building lines to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is set back approximately 95 feet from Guvilly Way. While the immediate area contains primarily vacant lots, the residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to ' the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site, where feasible. (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. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. ~~ ~Q(JO46 Application No. 06-065,• 16233 Cuvilly Way STAFF RECOMMENDATION " w a hcation 06-065 Staff recommends that the Planning Commtssion approve design revie pp .with conditions by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review. 2. Arborist Reports, dated September 3, 2005 and November 14, 2005. 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 4. Neighbor review letters 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • t 0(1000' . Attachment l ~~~OQ~ • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-065 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Maggetti;16233 Cuvilly Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new multi-story 6,003 square foot home with a 996 square foot basement. The new home will be less than 25 feet in height and will be situated on a ~~acant 44,039 square foot lot in the relatively new Chateaux de Notre Dames Subdivision. The lot is situated in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new 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 Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and • WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal. Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has-been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The. homes that were recently approved by the Planning Commission for the immediately adjacent lots 7 and 9 are skewed in relation to the _____ proposed home such that its windows are not directly facing these adjacent homes. -- --- ---- - Moreover, the two-story component of the home facing north towards lot 9 is situated further from the property line than the single story portion of the home which is closer to the north side property line. (b) Preserve Natz~ral Landscape. The use of earth-tone stucco and file roofing will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. The applicant will also be required to incorporate measures to preserve the large English Walnut and the Pines in the front yard. The applicant is proposing to remove 9 trees. However, the applicant will plant trees on the property equivalent to the value the trees to be removed. ~~OOng Application No. 06-065;16233 Cuvilly Way (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. All Arborist report recommendations have ,~ been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. Of the 9 trees proposed for removal, 2 trees - a Douglas Fir and Coast Live Oak -are native species. The Coast Live Oak is in very poor condition and the Douglas Fir is a relatively small sized tree, which in relation to the other trees on the property was not worth preserving. The applicant is required to preserve the other Coast Live Oak (tree #21) and Douglas Fir (tree #14) trees on the property. In addition, the applicant has made modifications to the plans to ensure preservation of the large trees at the front area of the property. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes, arched windows, stone trim, wood frame windows and doors break up building lines to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is set back approximately 95 feet from Cuvilly Way. While the immediate area contains primarily vacant lots, the residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site, where feasible. (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. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 06-065 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The remodel and addition of the existing home shall be- coristructe ass owri on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Reports, dated September 3, 2005 and November 14, 2005 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: ~~ ~~0010 Application No. 06-065;16233 Cuvi]ly Way • Landscape plan shall be designed. with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimise use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. • Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. • Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along- any hardscape area. • Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 4. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 5. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. 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. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. -- - - --- -- 6:--The site-plan-shall contain a-note with the-following language: "Prior--to foundation -- -- - inspection by the Ciry, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. 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. 8. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. ~~)00~1 Application No. 06-065,• 16233 CUViIly Way 9. 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 of $500. CITY ARBORIST 10. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report -dated September 3; 2005 and November 14, 2005 shall be followed. 11. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 12. 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 $55,230 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 13. 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 (if applicable), a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 14. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for the building foundation and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 15. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all - __ --- geotechriical aspects of-the project construction-The"inspections shall include]-but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways; and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to final project approval. 1 Q000~.2 Application No. 06-065,• 16133 Cuvilly Way 16. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 18. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code,-this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 8th day of February 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: . ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susie Nagpal Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned Hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the Ciry Planning Commission. . Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date X00013 • Attachment 2 • ~~C1014 - - ~' ~; ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • • ,, November 14, 2005 Lata Vasudevan Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: REVIEW OF PLANS for the Proposed Residence at the Maggetti Property; 16233 Cuvilly Way (Lot 8), Saratoga; Application #: 06-065 Dear Lata: I have reviewed the revised set of plans for the proposed new residence at the aboye- referenced site. My comments are as follows: The proposed grading design around tree #19 requires additional revision to achieve compliance to the setbacks specified within item #1, page 2, of my original report (dated 9/3/05). The distance from the proposed patio and ~ staircase is adequate; however, the grade changes within the setbacks should be omitted from the design. Tf fill is needed along the section of the eastern section of patio and staircase wall for drainage purposes, it should not exceed three feet from the wall-where within these setbacks. The use of any retaining walls to achieve the grade change should be placed on top of existing soil grade with no footing (such as a drystack stone wall). If a post and beam wall is used, the section of beams between the posts should be established above grade to avoid soil disturbance between the posts. 2. Tree #1 remains highly vulnerable to premature decline through installation of the proposed sewer line. To minimize the damage and increase the chances of its survival, item #2, page 2 of my original report should be implemented. If the angles or cleanouts to route the line would be too numerous or great to fulfill the item, the line should be tunneled by at least three-and-a-half feet below existing grade (i.e. horizontal boring) and the soil above the tunnels not disturbed. Please note Walnut trees are generally intolerant of root loss and damage. As development activities will be occurring around this tree .on the northern neighboring property (16208 Cuvilly - Way) it is essential-that the impacts beneath the tree-on the-subject site-are minimized - ifthe tree is expected to survive with a reasonable assurance. Sincerely, ~~ ~ David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 9440.2 • Email: arborresources ~co~ncast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763. ~OQQ~S ~. • `=~ ~$~ . ARBOR RESOURCES ~ ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting cz Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 16233 CUVILLY WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Mag4etti APPLICATION #: 06-065 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga /fir 1377? Fruitvale Avenue G ~ ~~S' p ~/ Saratoga, CA 95070 SFp ' ~9 e C~jy ~ ~ ~ ,.~.•: ~''~d ~F ~~ ii Sq ~ R ~;,' ~~ ~~~I `~f~ /r/ ~ Prepared by: . David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A September 3, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, Cali~.fornia 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax:- 60.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~000~6 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 3, 2005 _` INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the new residence proposed on a vacant lot at 16233 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets A-2 thru A-7 by Gary Kohlsaat Architect, dated 7/22/05. The trees' locations and numbers are presented on an attached .copy of Sheet A-2 (Site Plan). The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 21 and differ from those presented on the project plans.l For identification purposes, round, metallic tags were attached to the trees' trunks and contain engraved numbers that correspond to those presented within this report. Please note these tags should not be mistaken for the rectangular tags sporadically found on numerous trees. FINDINGS There are 21 trees regulated by City Ordinance that are exposed to potential damage during site development. They include ei t Walnuts (#1, 3-5, 7-10); two Coast Live Oaks (# 18, 21); two Apricots (#2, 6); two Austrian Black Pines (# 16, 17); two Douglas-Fir (# 14, 15); one Colorado -Blue Spruce (#12); one Deodar Cedar (#13); and -three Italian Stone Pines (#11, 19, 20). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. Trees #2-4, 6, 7 and 15-18 are in direct conflict with the proposed design. Given their condition, species and/or relatively small size, I find each is suitable to remove for development purposes. Mitigation should include the installation of new trees equivalent to the combined appraised value of those removed. Trees #1, 8, 19 and 20 would be severely impacted by implementing the proposed grading, driveway and utility design. Consequently, the trees would become exposed to premature decline and potential failure. As these trees are worthy of retention, the setbacks presented within the next section should be incorporated into the design to achieve a reasonably high assurance of their protection: Please note there is one additional tree, #5, .that would also be subject to severe impacts; its removal, however, is planned during - - - -development ofthe-neighboring eastern_lot (lot 9) due to its-poor.-condition..___ _ _ _ The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $55,230.2 1 The numbers presented on the project plans must be modified to reflect those presented within this report. z This value represents the combined value of trees anticipated to be retained and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Maggetti Property, 16233 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ('tOQO~~ . David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 3, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations resented below are intended to serve as guidelines for mitigating P the foreseeable impacts to Ordinance-sized trees on site and adjacent properties. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The proposed driveway, grading and underground- utility/service design must. be revised to achieve the following minimum setbacks from the trees' trunks: 18 feet from tree # 1, 20 feet from trees #8 and 20, and 20 -feet north and west of tree # 19: Please note, unless otherwise specifically .mentioned within this report, these setbacks apply solely towards the direction of the proposed driveway, home and utilities/services from the trees trunks; the setbacks in all other directions should be at least 30 feet from trees #8 and 20 and 35 feet from tree #19. 2. The proposed route of the sewer line .should. be designed in a radial direction from tree #1's trunk until beyond 18 feet from its trunk. 3. Any pathway proposed within the specified setbacks should be designed on top of existing soil grade without requiring trenching or soil cuts (i.e. a no-dig design). Additionally, the surface and subbase materials shall be fully pervious while compaction of the existing soil surface should not occur; .the subbase materials can be but compaction should not exceed 75- to 80-percent. 4. The canopy dimensions of trees situated on neighboring properties should also be shown on the Site Plan and future Landscape Plans, as well as the numbers assigned to each tree within this report. 5. .The table titled "Site Tree Survey" should be removed from Sheet A-2 or be modified. to reflect information presented within this report. Ultimately, this entire report and subsequent letters and maps must be incorporated into the set of final building plans and should be titled Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection Instructions). 6. To improve clarity of the grading design, I recommend all proposed grading contours be in a bold font to allow greater prominence from other features on the plans. 7. __Temporary or permanent_drainage features,_including downspouts, must be designed so _ _ _ _ water is not discharged towards or near the trunks of retained trees. 8. The grading and drainage design must not require trenching, soil cuts or fill beyond two feet from the home's foundation or driveway edge where beneath a tree's canopy. 9. To mitigate-the loss of trees anticipated for removal (#2-4, 6, 7 .and 15-18), I recommend, per City standard, that new trees equivalent to their .combined, appraised value of $8,430 are installed on site prior to final inspection. Tree replacement values are presented on the bottom of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species- include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus. kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Maggetti Property, 16233 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~00~8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 3, 2005 Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The proposed location and sizes of new trees should be shown on the landscape plans and be at least 15 feet apart and 15 feet outside from the canopy edges of retained trees. If necessary for support, they shall be double=staked with rubber tree ties and supplied with automatic irrigation in the form of a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 10. Upon availability, the future landscape design (planting and irrigation) should be reviewed for tree impacts. 11. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. A four-inch layer of mulch should be planned beneath the canopies of retained ' trees. b. New plant material should be avoided or limited towards the outer portion of the azea beneath the trees' canopies; it should comprise no -more than 20-percent of the canopy azea. Plant material installed beneath the Oak canopies shall be drought- tolerant and compatible with Oaks. c. Irrigation should not spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. d. Any trenching for irrigation, lighting, plumbing lines or drainage should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If irrigation or electrical lines for lighting aze designed inside this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on -top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. e. 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. f. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control. g. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. Protection Measures during Demolition and Construction 12. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any 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 24 ------- -- --- - --:-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. Please note due. to the amount of design revisions required- to achieve an adequate protection of trees being retained, tree protection fencing is not delineated on the attached map but must and will be added to the revised set of plans. 13. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated 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 aze not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, Maggetti Property, 16233 Cuvilly Way, aratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~QO~~ - - G ARBOR KESOLIRCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE .~. , ;., ~ v o 3 o 3 > ~ ~ 3 % 0. ~ .~ _ s ~ >, ° io oo , w io ~o a '~ ~ o a 0 ~ '~ ~ i ~ w 'ai ~ '~ ` ~ b o ~ ~, '^ 3 Q ~ ~~° x b v.. °~ ~ ,~~ 4 a U w~ ' ~ w. w. ... ~ ~ '~ a b w A ~ o i w ~ ~ o . CJ io co G 3 i~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ a ~ ~' b TREE ~ ~ y b ~ o v ,~ o o ° o ~ o a'"i > .~ ~ a~ ooi x n U 'q a~ ~ c o ~ w NO. TREE NAME ~ a [-~ a w a w v~ r 1 o x " 1 . ~ v~ .. O ~ ~ ~ , ,.~ ... a: ~, A 1 ,-a ~ 1 H 1 .i English Walnut I I I I u I ° I I I I I I I 1 (Juglans regia) 24 5 35 40 50% 50% Fair Moderate 1 X $1,080 ~ .I APn~ 2 (Prumts arntertiaca) 9, 9 15 20 25% 0% DYING Low - X $0 i California Black Walnut 3 (Juglans c. hindsii) 30.5 45 65 25% 50% Poor Low - X $480 English Walnut 4 (,)ugj~ r,egia) 20 25 30 50% 50'/o Fair Moderate - X $720 English Walnut 5 (Juglans regio) 12.5 15 20 50% 25% Poor Low n/a n/a X n/a Apncot (Prunes armeniaca) 18.5 10 10 0% 0% DEAD Low - X English Walnut (Juglans regia) 19 30 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate - X $780 English Walnut (Juglans regia) 30 45. 70 100% 25% Fair Moderate 1 - $ English Walnut 9 (Juglans regia) 11 ~ 20 15 75% 25% Fair Low 4 - $220 California Black Walnut 10 (Juglans c. hindsii) 14 25 30 25% 50% Poor Low 4 - $120 Italian Stone Pine 11 (Pines inea) 18 35 45 100% 100% Good High 4 - $5,280 Colorado Blue Spruce 12 -- --- (Picea punngens 'Glauca') 14 _ 35 10 -- 100% -100% - - Good- High -- 4 - $2;570- Deodar Cedar 13 (Cedrus deodara) 30 70 60 50% 75% Fair .Moderate 4 - $9,8~ Douglas-Fir 14 (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 7.5 25 25 100% 50% Good High 4 - $570 Douglas-Fir 15 (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 9.5 35 25 100% 75% Good High - X $1,000 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES lion = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $ Sitt~• 16233 Cttvitty Way, Saratoga ~~ Prepared jor: City oJSarawga Commani[y Development Depart Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA 1 of 2 15,000 9/3/2005 OO~ozO ~ 1-1RBOR ItESUUKC~S c TREE INVENTORY TABLE Austrian Black Pine 16 (Pines nigra) 10.5 55 25 100% 50% Fair Low - X $1,220 Austrian Black Pine 17 (Pines nigra) 21 80 35 100% 25% Fair Low - X $4,230 Coast Live Oak UPR 18 (Quetrus agrifolia) 6 20 10 75% 0% TING Low - X $0 Italian Stone Pine 36, 22, 19 (Pines pines) 12.5 45 75 100% 75% Good High 1 - $21,900 Italian Stone Pine 20 (Pines pines) 29 50 35 100% 75% Good High 1 - $9,800 Coast Live Oak 21 (Querrus agrifolia) 8 15 10 100% 75% Good High 4 - $1,110 ,-. ~ ,-. ~ .. 4. o o .~ ~ a ,~ .r ~ '~ ~ ~ y b g ..,~ a a ~ ~.~. xi U ~ ~ ~ ~"~ a~ O ~ ~ O y " ~ ~+ A ~- y y~ OCA ~~ V ~R ~ ~ A~ " O ~ ~ ~ c0 ~ +~~- o o > ~x O O~ ~ o' OE TREE NAME ~ ° " H a a w v~ ~O x .. ~° v~ ... O ~ v v~ r~ .-~ .. ~ .-~ A $ a E~ • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15-gallon = $120 . 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch tax = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,000 Site: 16233 CttviHy Way, Saratoga Prepared for: City ojSaratoga Commw-ity Development Depart Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 2 oj2 Projessiona[ Arboriculfura! Consulting & Tree are Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care 9/3/20~.0gq5 ®00®~1 • • a. • Attachment 3 1 ~~~O~a3 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) - ~ ~ '_.'1 I, G~ Q.~~t I ~~(' ^ rCl,~ ,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 Ciry of Saratoga Plannin Commission on the ~da of ~~~ L'w~ 2006, .that I g ~-~ Y 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 communicat" i n by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~~- ~--/ ~3igned 1 Q~®~~~ ' 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 a public hearing on the item described below on: Wednesday, the 8th day of February 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The public hearing item is: ~" APPLICATION #06-065 (517-13-032) MAGGETTI, 16233 Cuvilly Way (Lot ` 8); -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new single- - family residence on a vacant lot in the Chateaux de Notre Dames Subdivision. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 6,003 square feet including garage, with a 996 square foot basement area. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 26 feet. The net lot size is 44,039 square-feet and the site is-zoned R-1-40;000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, January 31, 2006. 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- neig ors-wou - -e - - - "- 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 U ~~0~~~ T~ETER AND KAREN MUNRO .r Cun ent Owner 14795 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6305 TEETER JOHN M & NICOLETTE J or Current Owner 14760 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6058 FOX GREGORY T & BONNIE or Current Owner 15175 NORTON AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6334 `rJBRATO DEVELOPMENT CO - ?'OBBI MAZZONE cjr Current Owner 10600 N DE ANZA BL 200 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 YAKOTA or Current Owner 16155 CUVII,LY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 KEMSKY or Current Owner LOT 10 CUVILLY WAY _y_ARATOGA, CA 95070 '~i7WELL CHRISTINE C & DAVID `>~V.TRUSTEE -r Current Owner 20628 VICKERY AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6347 ANDERSEN BARRETT C & WANDA C or Current Owner 20870 JACKS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5711 ~~ CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SO CIETY SARATOGA or Current Owner 20548 LOMITA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6088 FOX BONNIE & GREGORY T' or Current Owner 15175 NORTON AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6334 SOBRATO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION or Current Owner 10600 N DE ANZA BLVD 200 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 MAGGETTI or Current Owner 1814 PATIO WAY SAN JOSE, CA 95125 SOBRATO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION ' or Current Owner 10600 N DE ANZA BLVD 200 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 THURMAN ROBERT L & JOANNA C TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20634 VICKERY AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6320 SARATOGA CEMETERY or Current Owner BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 FOX BONNIE & GREGORY T or Current Owner 15175 NORTON AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6334 John and Abby Sobrato or Current Owner 16000 CUVILLY CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 VALENZUELA or Cun ent Owner . Lot 6 Cuvilly Way SARATOGA, CA 95070 ROBERSON or Current Owner 16208 CUVILLY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 BUTLER JUDITH L & GERALD or Current Owner 20622 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6346 BUTLER JUDITH L & GERALD D or Current Owner 20622 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6346 SO FRANK C & JOANN C TRUSTEE PEARCE DAVID B & SHARON A JASWA RAJEN & KALPANA R _or Current Owner ---- - - - __ . _.. _ __-or Current Owner - __ _...__ .. TRUSTEE 20650 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR 20932 HIDDEN VIEW LN or Current Owner SARATOGA, CA 95070-6364 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6344 20972 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6344 I JASWA RAJEN & KALPANA R TRUSTEE ~r Current Owner :0972 HIDDEN VIEW LN ~~.?RATOGA, CA 95070-6344 PEARCE DAVID B & SHARON A TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20932 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6344 WILLIAMS BRUCE L & KATHRYN JTRUSTEE or Cun-ent Owner 20890 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA; CA 95070-6344 M_%iCMULLIN NYAL D & BETTY M r<USTEE nr Current Owner 20915 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6344 GREG PINK or Current Owner 15906 CUVII.LY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 or Current Owner ~~~®~~ • • Attachment 4 ~~Q~~~ Nei hbor Notification Tem late g P Development Applications Date: ~ " ~ 1' ~ " .,,; -L~ PROJECT ADDRESS:_~_ ~:~ ~ S Vii; v :: l ~ Applicant Name: ~-'r°~L t ~ ~~~ (r.~~^~-- (t t Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issaces 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 beloH; 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 i/ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed 1VIy concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: -1~ ~ i GIs z~ w~? ~3~ ~- T C4~ Signature: S~~dn _ - -..-. -- Cuv ~. - ct5 C ? D Neighbor Phone #: v~ 3 `~ 9 ' 6 / E ~ Printed: j; (' ` ,~ City of Saratoga Planning Departn:e~at ~~~~~~ ~ei hbor Notification Tem lat g p e f~ _ Development Applications Date: ~-' 1 C~i ~- ~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: C ^~ ~~ f ~ I Applicant Name:~~>~1 i ~ ~~h45 C E~ ~ t -Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants. to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ r Q y ~I~~ct+'~-f ~ ~~ ~rSDIV Neighbor Address: -_ _ -- - Neighbor Phone #: ~ g ~ ~ 6 2 ~-~ Signature: ~ Printed: Cary of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~Q~4. Ploy 28 05 01:18p Gary Kohlsaat, Rrchitect '408 395-4949 p.l Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~-? Q ° C;~ "' . PROJECT ADDRESS: i C~~3~ (~'~yi~~--i 1~3A~ Applicant Name: ~~+.~~~~~ ~ ~, ~-~.~ 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 i sues 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 oJall residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a laser date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scoce 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 signatwe below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): /© ~~S ~' ~~ ~ ~P, Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: l Sgo6 Cu ~~ 1 ~ ' ~~~ °~ C~ _ go~ Zs z - ~ r 3 ~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~Qr~Da~® f`tov 28 05 01:18p Gary'Kohlsaat, Architect 408 395-4949 p.l NeighborName: c./ `~ ~ ~'~ ~~~~~ NeighborAddress: ~~~/l/ " - ~ l ~ ' ~`" '` Neiohbor Phone #: `l/ ~ ~U 7` ~~~Z Printed: The Saratoga Planning Commissi address issues and concerns rega the public hearing on the propose favorably upon neighbors who fai applicants prior to the public hea neighbors take this opporunity to to the applicant. Please ensure th reside-us: residing orc your proper nay reserve the right to amend yo City of Saratoga. Neighbor NoSfication Template for .Development Applications Date:31- 2-~3 ' C5' PROJECT ADDRESS:1b~.~`3 ~ LyVi1 i ~ ~i ~r~ T ~° Applicant Name: ~ .~ ~ ~~,cs;.ra ~, Application Number. ~~ -n requires applicants to work with their neighbors to ding develop-nent applications prior to the evening of project. The Planning Commission does not look to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by ing. Sta,~'and the Planning`Commission prefer that :xpress-any concerns or issues they may have directly r signature on this document is representative of all ~. 1'rrespective of the opinion expressed below. you rr opinion at a later date and communicate it to the My signature below ceatifes the following: I have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scone of work; and~I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need m be address by the appfic~uit prior to the qty's public hearing on the proposed project. s My signature below cettifies the following. i have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scone of wprk; and I have issues or rnncerns, which after discussion with-the applicant, Gave root been addressed My concerns are the following {please attach additional sheets if necessary): Planning Departmera ~Q~®®3~. City of Saratoga Attachment 5 • ~®4032 z ~ 4 ~ sss'[ssc ~eoN . aose .'n'soty~sot •.•u anv.wsmntai is ~'~'x ~6~ ~ ~ ~ ~' *~ t~~ `dooid ds ~vm ~zZinno `s ioZ a~NaQisax ~~~nn~ ~~~ .•~~.~~, ~ ~. ~w~~~ s = y ~ 1~ ~ ~~eo ~a~Naais~xwoisn~nnaxd •.ar~~f Mu~aw~w.~. ~ ~ D ~ Z m Q ~"1 ~~ O ~ O N = u ~ •, u ep 0 0® ~oO~ g ° o o~ ^ o ° ~ i' ° cQ° ~m ~p~ p °~ o 0 oo a ~ X W I~yl z Ci? '`' ` ~ W a `'~ ~ a~ zg ~ ~ }' O p ~ ° d ° ~ O O 6 ~ ~ ° O ~ ~ aO n ~ U- g~- ~ o oq~ 0 0 o p o ti; ~ ^ ~o 0 ~ 0 ~ ° ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 00o O o O° O ° ~; 0 0 / ~ d ~ a a ~ ~~, ~,4~z~ z ~- ~~~~~z~ $d ~ ~ 00 ~ o00 oo a ~ c o° - V ,~~~ ~ °°~ ~ ~ c o p o o~~ 1 _ ~ ~ o~~~~~~ W °ug~.~~~~~~'rc O ~`tJ'$c~o 0 O~ o o boa ~^ o ~~ ~o ~ a -A~ o Q 0 y„ C3 ~0 i ~ / ~ ~ - n, ,` ® ~~O oO ~ ~ ~e ~~ - Wc~_mv~`~rW ~UQ15Q44Q~~ oV ~ 0 ~~> ° ~~~ o° o -`s~ av ~ ~~(~ ~ ~ ~i/ IE• _ _ - ~ ~_ 0 ~ ~ °0 0 0~ 0~° ~_ ~lc~jli I ~ I O~ ~ oo ~ ° R q, "(ybc- D,~.o ° ~° d'~_ °c /~~'V° 0 °p ~ I k ~a 4G as vas'p B ~0 ~~~5`~1 p`Q j _ - . ~~ ~~ ~ ~ GAO ,~Bn'~`aa D o ,o ~-00~ °~~~~D~=o~i ~v pOi~~ ~ X10 - a vo i ~-~ ~ o`~-{%_ S o0 ~ c p B ~ _ I - ~~a - `mac 9 ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q, ~2S ~ 8E8 1E888LE ~r~ ?y ~ $ $ ~su $S ~ ~#~~~^°~ ~ ~ ~°F~~7 ~$~~ 9$ ~ > ~' 7 o a ~~ S ~p~0 °Q ~16 Q i3 ~ { - - - ~ ~ ~ pp y~D'~a~~$D~ 4 Ow ~$Or_e°~ap DO80 1 - - _ ` p~ W'~ s v 6 Dva p _ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ W ° ° I y I.C-..1 W _ ~ W a ~ v" e B ~ p .D p~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ E"' ti 8 g ~~ ~ ~i ~?n~ ~ ~ a ~~°_ _ ~~ o jD O 99 r ~ W~ : ~ aaS ~ ~ ~~ ~I. I~ ~v 3 - ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 " v ~(~ ~ _ ~ a~ ~ ~ H ps~~~ 'x Mob i` N:, )' C1 '~ .T a ap ~~o ~1 > - ~~ a ~ ~_ ~, a ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 0 ~~~ ~ ~ I ~?' ~~ i; / r~ i ~k _ _ I~ ~~ a ~ D ° 4~ ~ ~p' 0~ ~ as ° o~ , v ~ r «, v xl ~. ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; , ~~u a ' ~,~ ~ o ' p o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ F.~ ~ ~ - .~..- , . ~ ~ o ® G c ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~. 8p ~w ~°~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ I D p ~ ~ ~ ®~ ~~ ~ o~ 0~4 ` o I -~°a° ~ ~a ~ DpQ ~a~ ~ - ::~ -~ .~ ~ ~ - - -- - ~ ~~ o~ a D ~ °\ • ~' ~~ oo a Jp ~~~Q a \J ~ ~ ~ p a ~~ i I p ~..t..:.. . - ~ ~ •7 ,, ~ ~ z ~~ , ~ ~ ~° D v o~e~S~a~~ ~ID ' ~ a ~~~ a ~~o ~ ~~~ p ~ ~ ° ° ~ 1 ~ ~IF~~ o~ ~~.~ a ~~a ~ D~ ~ 1~1 ~ ~~ pQ Q4 D ,~ ~~~~~~~~~~a ~~/~~D~ ~ ~~ p 4 D~ D ~ I ~' ~ ~. b' ~ D ~ a ~ ~~a~P D ~ ¢ ~ o D ~ ~ ~ .. F ~~~ ~ m ~PCa '^ '~' z p F av O~~ i a a~ N~~ ..~~~ ~3 ,y\ U ~ z~f3~ rm~~ ~~~~~5 y ~a ~ Q l ~ ~ il 4 D ~ l ~ ,o ~ i a ~ ~ p~ I ~ ~ -~ ~ tea. i I z° g ~ ~ T ~~ s x s a s y~E 5 _ __I 1695-LZL(806)XV~ 6SOS6 otwo;IloO '0010 oluos VIN210~I1tl0 VOOlVNVS 5999-LZL(904) ZZ 6uipling 'p~onaino8 11o~S OSEQ 8 ~ ~ Q '~NI 'Sa0A3Aaf1S '8 S2133N[9N3 II~I~ M 0~~6 l~b'~l - 8 10~ x ~e soa„o ~d~~ 1H~I~IM ~8 2~31~ ~ Jl3naflS ~addNf109 '8 ~IHddaJOd01 ~ ~ ~ ~ amts[ cea~•aas.v~•snwo sm •.v.avmww.ws~N is ~+~~o .~ ~ ~ g ~ ~,_~, VO `dJO.LdiI~'$ AdM A'I'IIAf10 `8 .LO'I ~,~,M.;,w S F N 4 ~ ~ a~uaQis~x ~z~nn~ .~~~~~~~ ~ ~ d 6~,L'hava~'~ ~~~I1~~S~2I Y1IO.LSf1J M31d d :~.~:F ~ ~ ~ ~ $ y~ o Q ~ I J^ ~ ~ ^.. O ~ ~ O ~ I-~ ' ~~ I ~ ~ ~ S 74431'38" W 145.52' ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~I ~ I jl~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~I \ ~O I~/I ~ ~, I \\ ~ i ~, Q ~ ' I I o j ~i j `3~ age I~ j ~o r' i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~' ~ ~ ,~ ~ i ~~ I ~ ~ I o l~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ '~ ~ o~ I ~ a U I~ I 1 O / x~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ mo I 'O 1 I- ~ U ' ' ~ /~ ' r ~i / ~ / / / / I / ~ ~- / ~~ ~ ~ \\ / / ~ y ~~ ; ~~~ ~~\~ ~~ ,n rm m m ~o ~s ~f~~ o a. ~Q~'~" f~ ~~ \\ \~ !.. C>o a O ~ ~ oQ ~~ Z ~~ -I z ~ ~ \ ~ • ~~ i , ~ :, , 6 `~ ` ~~O ~ °°• O g S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iii ~ ~~ y ~ N O ~~ c ~ \ °„o "'~~ ~ ~ ~u d ~4~ ,~ \ \ ~__L ~ LL t a \I\ i m YYY Z W C \ - Z~.- -~ i ~ _ K ~ ~ \ ~,~ /! ~ / \ W , ~~ fir: '~ ~ ~ \\, W . ~, / V \ /~ t' ~ ~ g ~/ ~ d y ` .~ c, = ~ r ~ \ ~ j ~\ ~\ ~, `~`~` a ~D 1 ~ ~~ ~ --- - ~~\; ~ , , , ~ \ ~ , \ o ~ ~ \ '~/ ~., - - \\ _ / / / , Q ~O `" ~ i ~"d O ~ ~ ' ' a __ .~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ p9 ~ , Og00 qp a a ` . 'H \ ,.~ ; i ' ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ U ,/ i i i i ~ i fis<-f5f (501 • MM6 •'YO'SOtY050'1 •.Y.31YZ'1ib YlNY5 :Y 1lr ~ S tl~~ ~`~~ d~ `t1'JO.Lt~IHS At1'AA A"I'IIAf1~ `s .LO~I ,~ ~..w z ~ o ~ ;Y o~~ ~ a~uaQis~x ~z~nn~ ..~~~~ ~:. ~ ~ ~L~.'~~ ~aoNa~s~x ~oisno nn~nt d ~:~.~~ ~ ~ ~ a y o Q J Zd Q ,\ ~ 'iya~\\ ~ 1 \ }~ / \ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 1 I I 1 I I ~~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 I I~ \ \, ~ / ~ I ~~ ~~ I ~ 1 i f I \L I I ~ I ~ I ~ e~I 1 ~ i \ 91~ m I \]]5311112 ~I ~ ----- 1 r I I I . I II II 11 II II - I 1 II 11 it II 11 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 y~ I I II II II II I I I ~j~50 ~---- ; ~ I I I I I 11 11 I 52I'LErlll I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I II O II I , II II II II II ;~HYy I , I I I I I I I I I I I I ~{ ~~ I , II II II II II II $ ~-- -- ____-- I ,,, I I I I I I I I I I - _ I I I I I I I I I I I I - L____J I I I I I I ~ I I 11 I 11 I I I I I I I I I II II II II II II _ II II II II II I 1 I II II 11 II 11 -I I I - LI__LI_ O I I` ~I }~ xRx ~ 1 1 /~' I Y 8 ~ I I I I I }Q1p II I3 I I I 1 / ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I r I _ I I I I '~ ' 21 . I I I I 1 .D ((~)7 1~1 ~ ~ r ~J I I O _ I I O ~ ,~ - ~---------------~ I I ~ ~ x~ e= W I y I I Q]g ' I I 1 ~ ~ a I I I I I I ~ 1 ~ y I I ; I - I 1 I I ~----------------~ I 1( ,~' ~ i _, rn C~ I ~ , I , I ~~ I .\ _ I I ~ ." ~~ ~ ~. o ~ ~~' ~~. ~ ~ ,~~ ~~. I ~ \. ~ ~ I 24 9 SSSL~f6i l4UH •05056 •'YJ'SQLYO III'1 •..Y_81Y 3.11DVLWS'N 105 j~N~ jp o ~ 14 ~ oa"~~'. t~~ `t~!~J7O.L~dT2r~IdST~v!7~\dAAT~A7ZrZ~IAAI(1''~ `8 ,LOZ 9 ~ 1 ~d~`3+n"' ~~ .Z~1~L.ZQ1J:1 Q A 1 11L 11 l~ Yam ~~~Haais3x woisno ~~x d ~~ p~ ~ c.no~w~m 'S~ V ~ ~ O .ar.~wu~wo.n~.,,,,~,.,~.,. ~rw w•.ar~M ~ ~ O m 1 N ~ ~~ ~ ~ o A a til I I I I I I I I r---~ W~ W ~~ ~A WQ ~~ Q V Q V Q 04 0 Q 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m z d 3< ~ ~ p m - ~ ~i N m N m ~i ~i N ~ °' I I I ~ m _ ~ ~ m V ~ ~ =° ~^ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § a ~ C `P ~ $ ~ ' K v X y $ K S $ ~S~C Q~( ~ ~ kb~ ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ S ~' m m p ~ g ~ ;~ ~' 4 4 ~ ~ ~ k~ ~ a m ~ c v~ w c~ x - ~ m a ~ z o n• a a y ~ g C{11ffY CLP WIN V7 CORR09L�N REd5T4M_� UfEF 6PARK 4RRE9TGTO R ELEV,656A& L YBARREL ROOF LON fm=K RETMRIC Ul.0 W 6TONE VEIJFBt ELEV.� LAST STOIE - ' -� % - -` -. � �. � ELEV. • 65607 will • P-M P-_ OEM =ti �z=i� �ti.�`" �► �.. � cal =4� . _ -q� _:_- �.. ate c _•��v� 4�° -._ OED. BE MU - C`c �il� ■I FCCF�. c'" WA mini is i��i �iiu I �I Iirl _ %IT V �N'-- Van— -� 1� -.��.. _ �... �.._:'.1II 111111■ I_ el'n°.iiiiSY!3i I ELEV. - 63125 FRONT ELEVATION SC 41S 114*-a L YBARREL ROOF LON fm=K RETMRIC Ul.0 W 6TONE VEIJFBt ELEV.� LAST STOIE - ' -� % - -` -. � �. � ELEV. • 65607 VIEW of - 0 ELEV.-656.4& FMI n 11 LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATION 5 CART STUCCO RMSIONS 10/5/05 IVYVO5 A s� q$ R x� x0x 7 R Q U W �I wW O �A RP �' 3 a� U F O .a )ATE: IM /05 W,UE' A58N0U" OE NO. SHEET A -5 m • OEM �► �il� ■I WA mini is i��i �iiu I �I Iirl _ %IT V �N'-- Van— -� 1� -.��.. _ �... �.._:'.1II 111111■ I_ el'n°.iiiiSY!3i VIEW of - 0 ELEV.-656.4& FMI n 11 LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATION 5 CART STUCCO RMSIONS 10/5/05 IVYVO5 A s� q$ R x� x0x 7 R Q U W �I wW O �A RP �' 3 a� U F O .a )ATE: IM /05 W,UE' A58N0U" OE NO. SHEET A -5 m ,� ELEY..66�37 i c.aygY car mn6 coRROeia+RE50TA TAM A rESU^XARK TFBER TRU58E9. — A�TOR ELE14•656.07 - - - COVERED POROH ELE14-48, �- G��N� _ MEN 0 ■■ ' ■0 ■■ ■ii 01 No! I -- �� 11 pi P . ` � Ra Ra Ra : i � fit• CLAY BARREL ILE ROOF ' GRADE AT EDGE OF CONC. BLOCK .. �TNY GRADE AT PE ANW WALL FRONT OF RFAR FACE ' W/9TONE VETEII2 OF RE3mETIGE -_ 668V.. 639.16' ELI 6-1-11 Y 1JiW RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATION scaL.E I 14V-a ------------------------------ ELEVV..624t5 ' 3 n G �d REVISIONS 10AWoS nrzvcn 3 tf p7O Ef V < R Q U w O W LZ H �A F a d V� E- 0 a 1, W, ;v a 11 DATE- T2VO5 SCMZ Aa %40 UN JOE NO. SHEET A -6 poll' ELF/. •66137 EXOTNG GRADE NEW GRADE j ELEV..66L97 I SECTION B -B SCALE 114 '-1'-a ELEV. -6.-1 M � ' SECTION C -C SCALE 1/4W-C� i SECTION D -D SCALE: 114 '-t-0' 4 ELEV.-624M JG GRADE RRVER(NS 1ons�os nrlvo5 U w O z2 wW �A F d y `3 U� a W � U� 0 a Y I #$ . fill ��ii76 9� )ATE: V22105 ;CAU- AS %40M OB NO. SHEET A -7 m i tv z Si stsz~sx tYaH•aac .vi'smvo sm •.i.~mxusxtvvnm j~y~io ~',al„„~`~, d~ `~'JO.Lb'2IdS 1it~M ~C'I'IIAIl~ `8 .LO'I ,~ pM ~ ~ ~ F pp g ~~ 4 ~~~ ~~N~QIS~ 1~"I"IIAfI~ .~A,.~~ ~ s ~ ~ i Y°'~"~~ '~~AI~QIS~I I~IO.LSf1J M3NI t+ ~~' :' •~:~." o 0 s~ ~~~ '' r ~ J T , ` ~ ~ ~'~, ~ ~ ~ J ~ w I / L~ ~ `U\ ~ ~ / \ , ~ , / I / ~ ` ` ~ ~ , ~~_ - Q `~`~~ ~ , CI:G w ` (U\ C,:G , __ d' `lY - ~~_ ~~_ - LI:G --r~--- - - - -- ~, I ri:G i Q r~ ~ n i IVS ^MM ~ v I ~ / /~~ as ~n CI:G ~ I tl CY5 ~ ~ ~ I ~7 ~ , / R ~ l ` ~ ~ , I r ai r ~ _ i ~~ f~ Cap nb I ~'~- _ ' ~ ,_ Jv` I ' I `n, I I ~~ 1 -- I I 1 I I I ~~ I ~ n I I U I 1 I I Cl G I r r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T I I ~ ~ I r J I ~ I I I I I ^ 1 ^ ~ r . 5u~ ELI? J J r-- - I L4G - i Cli ~ I L J 1 I I G I I I p I I I di I I I I I I Cl'S I `JCCI'7L]S I r 1 ' I I V L - `J __ »_- _. _~- -I- - - I J L ~ I I I I 1 , : ~ ~ I L_ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ~' I I JCnI'LG I I S~ V I Y I an ~~~ I I I ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ x~ I I I 9~ I n I I I I - ...... . . . ..... . . 1 I I I I I I I Lri I ~~ Cl'i I I I ~7 7~ I ~ o W ~ I I I CI:G Ll'Si I yT ~ i ~ ~ n i ~ ~ lea ~ I JVL ~~ I a I ~ I I ~ I I I I , O CI:G I _ O I I a I 1 ftti~f6f 191M1 • OFO[6 •'VJ'fDLVD fOI •.Y.'3AYbllp YJNVS N IOf - •- - ~ ~ ~ -- - - j1 - - o s s ~f ";~~ ~~ `d~o.idxds ~dnn ~-~-~inn~ `s ion _ ~ - - ' • d ~.A~ _ ~ ~ o ~ ~~~04~1~1 ~~I~I~QIS~2I~'I'IIA11~ ~ _ :.~~~~~~: s ~ _ !~ ~a~Haatsax l~oisn~ nnan~ d ~" =~ ~~~ a, ~ ~ o " . ~ ~ I .-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ , a ~ ~~ S 74Q31'38" W 195.52' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ I~ ~ ~ I d I I I II I I - - --- I~ -•- I-- ~ ~ i Q I ~ I I O® I I © i II ~ 3~ Aga I I II I ° O N I a I I_ I ~ j ~ I Ij I ~ I I I ~ ~I j ~ \\ I I ~ ~ \\ I ~ I q II Y ' ` ~ BY / 19~~ I ~ ~I ' ~ \ ~ ~ ~ a 8~~ \ \ I 'I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / - !: • ~/ - ~ ~~ / / ~ \ ~' ~ ~ u ¢. / ~ ~~~ / ' 4pr ; ~ ~ ... \ Y _ ' ~I \ ~ ~ l ~ ~\~ x \ \ 6. ,~ 6 ' \~ \\ i 3~ hYyy ~~ (y^/j ~~ _ ` _~~ r~ \ e ~'° ~` o e `~ \ *~~ ~~e ~ . © ~ \o a. ~ s ~~ ~ Q 'a \ a ®O ~~ Oo ~a .tea J J - <~_~ H L W u ~ v U ZN o~ Z --.I ~, - .~ I I ~3 W~ 3 N o®~ ~ x \ i Y~ 01 ' , ~ ~:~~ H 1 ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ `° a W ~ ~ ~ l m~~ O ry ' ~` ~ K i r h"~ T O ~ ~ S Z 0 i ~ Q~ ~. _ ~ .i ~~ rc ~ ~- _ k ~- ~ ~% v~ W U_ ~ Q ~ ~ ~• ~ ,/ ~ _ ~~ - -- ., , . ~ ,;. 'e r , ~ / 1 ~~ `~ /~- 7 ` / d i ~ \ O ~ • ` ~.~ _ ; 1 m ~ ~ 1 1 _ .n x .D ~~ N y ~ \ ' ~ C ~ 1 / . ~ \ ~ \ ~ ': ~ ~ ~ a s M° _ 1- r _ 0 s p9 A~ Ay ~~ o f ~ 'J ~, ~ ~ \ 0 a ` ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 'H , ~ ~ I o ~v i ~ , ~, ~ i I ' ~ I I _- 4-. 1 ~' '`~~~ i• b • Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: APN: Department Head: App # 06-138/ 12045 Parker Ranch Road The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planners Monument Sign February 8, 2006 366-43-001 John F. Livingstone, AICP ~~~ oo~oo~ 12045 Parker Ranch Road Application No. 06-138;12O45Parker Ranch Road "~~~''f ,. • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 10/11/05 Application complete: OU12/06 Notice published: Oll25/06 Mailing completed: 01/24/06 Posting completed: 02/02/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests sign approval to construct a brick and stone veneer freestanding subdivision identification sign at one of the entrances to the Parker Ranch subdivision. This sign will be identical to a sign that was previously approved (S-92-002), which is located at 12906 Chiquita Court, and will replace an 11-foot sign that has been in place for approximately twenty-five years. The proposed sign is approximately 23 square feet in area and measures 4 ft. 4 inches in height. "PARKER RANCH" will be spelled out in 8-inch tall brass letters. The sign will be located on the southwest corner of Prospect Road and Parker Ranch Road, outside of the fifty-foot sight triangle. The lot is zoned HR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for sign approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ., ~~~Q2~. , Application No. 06-138;1204SParker Ranch Road • STAFF ANALYSIS • • ZONING: HR (Hillside Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside Conservation Single Family) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.0 acre ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed 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 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory (appurtenant) structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Brick and stone veneer with brass lettering LENGTH OF STRUCTURE: 12 feet 6 inches PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS~MAX SIZE SIZE OF LETTERING: 8 inches 18 inches AREA of SIGN: 23 square feet 24 square feet HEIGHT OF SIGN: 4 feet 4 inches 10 feet (outside of SO-foot triangle of visibility) ~~~~~ Application No. 06-138;12045ParkerRanch Road • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BackgroUnd.• There are currently two freestanding subdivision signs for Parker Ranch. One is located at 12906 Chiquita Court near Comer Drive and the other is at the corner of Parker Ranch Road and Prospect Road, near Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. This second sign has been in place for approximately twenty-five years. The applicant proposes replacing it with one that is identical to the Parker Ranch subdivision sign on Chiquita Court, which was previously approved by the Planning Commission (S-92=002). At the time of the Chiquita Court application, menrion was made of replacing this original sign on Parker Ranch Road with the new stone and brick model once the easement was deeded to the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association. That event -has now taken place and the applicant seeks to replace the original subdivision sign with the newer model. Project Analysis: The project site is located on the west side of Parker Ranch Road just south of Prospect Road. On June 28, 2005, a grant deed was submitted for recording with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office. This deed dedicates an easement to the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association for the purpose of installing and maintaining a subdivision entrance sign (Attachment 3). The proposed freestanding sign will be constructed of brick (foundation, cap, and columns) surrounding a stone facade. "PARKER RANCH" will be spelled out in 8-inch tall brass letters. The sign will be 4 feet 4 inches tall, well below the ten-foot height allowed for freestanding signs. Because it is located near an intersection, it has been set back from the corner, placing it outside of the 50-foot triangle of visibility in order to prevent any visual obstruction. The new sign will be placed in the same location as the existing sign and will be comparable in length (12 feet 6 inches rather than 11 feet) and height (4 feet 4 inches rather than 3 feet 6 inches). Although all neighbors within 500 feet of the parcel. were notified about the project, Staff has received no response to the letters. The applicant submitted notification forms from two neighbors, and neither one had concerns about the project (Attachment 4). No additional landscaping is proposed at this time. The existing easement is not landscaped, but the surrounding parcel is landscaped with shrubs and trees (Attachment 5). Therefore, staff has not incorporated landscaping of the easement as a condition of approval in the resolution. The Homeowners Association will maintain weed control around the proposed sign. Staff finds the proposed sign to be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood and does not feel that it will adversely affect the quality of the residential 000004 Application No. 06-138; I2045ParkerRanch Road area. The-sign conforms to all of the standards and require4hents of Article 15-30 of the City code. STAFFRECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for Sign permit with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval with conditions. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. ' 3. Deed granting sign easement to Parker Ranch Homeowners Association. 4. Letters from neighbors. 5. Photos showing existing site and proposed sign. 6. Location of sign outside 50-foot triangle of visibility. 7. Signed Resolution S-92-002 approving identical sign at 12906 Chiquita Court. 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." ~~~~~~~ Attachment 1 • • 44()406 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 06-138 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association; 12045 Parker Ranch Road • WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planni sign permit approval to construct a brick a adjacent to one of the entrances to the Parker Ranch Road; -and ig Commission has received an application for id stone veneer freestanding subdivision sign Ranch subdivision and located at 12045 Parker 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 the construction of a new sign is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory (appurtenant) structures; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Sign Permit Approval, and the following findings have been determined: The sign complies with the regulation of Article 15-30 of the Municipal Code and the regulations of the district in which it is located in that the sign height is 4 foot 4 inches where 10 feet is permitted, the sign area is 23 square feet where 24 square feet is allowed, and the lettering is 8 inches where 18 inches is allowed. The natural materials are compatible with the neighborhood, and the placement of a permanent subdivision sign is permitted within the HR zone 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 sign approval has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 44(140'7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,, 1. The sign shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. The letters will be 8 inches tall. 2. The height of the structure shall not exceed 4 feet 4 inches,. excluding the uprights. 3. The total sign area shall not exceed 24 square feet. 4. The sign will be located outside of the fifty-foot triangle of visibility. 5. The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintaining the subdivision sign within the area of the dedicated easement per the grant deed that was submitted to the Santa Clara County Recorders office on June 28, 2005 by John Heindel.. 6. The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association will provide a copy of the recorded sign easement. 7. All future landscaping shall be native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the Ciry's xeriscape standards. 8. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into any future landscape plans to the maximum extent possible. CITY ATTORNEY 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. r~ ~QQ~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8`h day of February 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susie V. Nagpal Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This ermit is hereb acce ted u on the e ress terms and conditions Hereof, and shall have no P Y P p XP force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 04~J(J09 ,, • Attachment 2 • 000010 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) I, Suzanne Thomas ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 yeazs; that acting for the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 24th day of anuar~ , 2006, 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 aze entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga in-that said persons and their addresses aze 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 regulaz communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~J~ Signed • ooo~~. Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ^~ www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit 5160® ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY DING JING AND XU YUAN OR MANTRIPRAGADA SRINIVAS AND CURRENT OWNER SEETHEPALLI ANUR OR CURRENT 11842 SHASTA SPRING CT OWNER CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 11853 SHASTA SPRING CT APN #36655019 CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 APN #36655029 SINGH AJAY AND SUSMITA OR CURRENT OWNER 11912 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5102 APN #36655009 LU LING OR CURRENT OWNER 11921 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655010 `TALL MICHAEL AND MARIA OR .CURRENT OWNER 12459 PALM AV LUPERTINO CA; 95014-2711 APN #36655003 PIESKER HANS H AND PEISKER URSULA M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12148 FARR RANCH RD SARATOGA CA, 95070-6552 APN #36643014 KOELTL RICHARD J AND MAUREEN F OR CURRENT OWNER 21150 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA, 95070--6532 APN #36621016 '9GUYEN TUAN AND NATALIE OR ~URRENT OWNER ;`2051 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA CA, 95070-6515 APN #36605025 WU TSUNG-CHING AND CHEN YUH- NING OR CURRENT OWNER 12161 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA, 95070-6536 APN #36643007 VLAHOPOULIOTIS BOB AND KATERINA OR CURRENT OWNER 21166 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA, 95070-6532 APN #36621015 ~:EE RICHARD E AND PAULINE TRUSTEE & ET AL OR CURRENT ~~aVNER 21151 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA, 95070-6532 APN #36621002 LEE, DANNY C & BELINDA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 10079 SAICH WY ;~UPERTINO, CA 95014-2124 i;PN #36621015 LO JUI HSIANG AND CHIN CHU MONG OR CURRENT OWNER 11861 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655016 SINSLEY GROVER C AND BETTY R TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12048 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA, 95070-6533 APN #36643018 WILLS RICHARD AND DONNA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12091 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA, 95070-6534 APN #36643020 EAST PAMELA M TRUSTEE & ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 12147 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA, 95070-6536 APN #36643006 DURINI ROMANO AND ZLATKA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12132 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA, 95070-6535 APN #36643011 DUNKELBERGER LESLEY L ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 12057 PARKER RANCH SARATOGA CA, 95070-6534 APN #36643019 S C V W D OR CURRENT OWNER 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686APN #36609038, 36609039, 36609040, 36609041 ~~, A~/ERY® 5160® CHAO CHEN Y AND MIN M OR CURRENT OWNER 11862 SHASTA SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 APN #36655021 HUI RAYMOND AND ANNE M OR CURRENT OWNER 11852 SHASTA SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 APN-#36655020 CHEN HONG AND LN LYNN Y OR CURRENT OWNER :12156 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA, 95070-6535 APN #366430L0 VU M[.TYJ AND LE VAN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11995 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA CA, 95070-6515 'APN #36605023 YEN JAMES C AND CHIHI-iAN OR . CURRENT OWNER P.O.-BOX 2018 CUPERTINO CA, 95015-2018 APN #36605026 CHANG CHI AND SHEN WEI W OR CURRENT OWNER 11996 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA CA, 95070-6514 APN #36605078 DAS SITYAM C AND NILIMA OR CURRENT OWNER 12023 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA CA, 95070-6515 APN #36605024 NICHOLS MICHAEL A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12022 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA CA, 95070-6514 APN #36605077 MARIA LANE MUTUAL WATER CO OR CURRENT OWNER 21151 MARIA LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6532 APN #36621001 JALAN, RAJKUMAR R & POONAM OR VU, MUU & VAN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER CURRENT OWNER 12045 PARKER RANCH RD 11995 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6534 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6515 APN #36643001 OOUO12APN #36605023 • fEYASEELAN MUTHIAH AND JAYA L ~R CURRENT OWNER 2 PLACER SPRINGS CT ERTINO CA, 95014-5102 #36655008 KURUMA DENNIS K AND MARGARET Y TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11228 STAUFFER LN ~UPERTINO CA, 95014-5150 APN #36609045 KONG SAMUEL K AND SARAH A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11873 SHASTA SPRING CT ~UPERTINO CA; 95014-5107 AP1V #36655027 SITYAMSUNDAR CHAKRAVARTHI R AND VASUDEVAN SA OR CURRENT OWNER 11843 SHASTA- SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA; 95014-5107 APN #36655030 DICKINSON PHILIP H AND ZHANG TAO TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11872 PLACER SPRINGS CT ERTINO CA, 95014-5102 _#36655005 VARR ANTHONY J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11505 SUNSET SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5134 APN #36609044 CHEN SHO-MO AND L1U ROSARY J OR CURRENT OWNER 11229 STAUFFER LN CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5150 APN #36609050 YAO XIANGYANG AND LIU CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 11883 SHASTA SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 APN #36655026 YU RAYMOND TRUSTEE & ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 11882 SHASTA SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 APN #36655023 ~IOLA ANNA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11911 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655011 MONAHAN KEVIN M OR CURRENT OWNER ^~ 11877 WOODHILL CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5149 APN #36604067 -GEE LUBIN AND ESTHER S OR CURRENT OWNER 11887 WOODHILL CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5149 , APN #36604068 PALMINTERE PHILIP A AND NANCI S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11219 STAUFFER LN CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5150 APN #36609049 MATSUMOTO KEITH OR CURRENT OWNER 11862 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5102 APN #36655004 KOH KYUNG H OR CURRENT OWNER ,11871 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655015 FUNG VINCENT J AND VERDI KRISTEN M OR CURRENT OWNER 11897 WOODHILL CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5149 APN #36604069 SUBRAMANIAM RAM AND GOMATHI OR CURRENT OWNER 11892 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5102 APN #36655007 MUI MANCHUN AND LUK LOUISA OR CURRENT OWNER 11881 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655014 WANG KEVIN K AND SUE-PEI OR CURRENT OWNER 11867 WOODHILL CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5149 APN #36604066 MATSUBARA M AND TOMOKO OR CURRENT OWNER 11901 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655012 HALLER IRMGARD E ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 11902 SHASTA SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 APN #36655025 ROOHPARVAR SHERVIN OR CURRENT OWNER 11907 WOODHILL CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5149 APN #36604070 S~~ ~- KENISON KAREN S OR CURRENT OWNER 11891 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655013 LIN JAMES C AND KAREN C Y OR CURRENT OWNER 11892 SHASTA SPRING CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5107 APN #36655024 LANCE DANNY B AND JACOBSEN EVA M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER , 11863 SHASTA SPRING CT CUPERTINO. CA, 95014-5107 APN #36655028 HSIEH BILLY S AND WONG-HSIEH NANCY B OR CURRENT OWNER 1072 S DE ANZA UNIT A107-388 SAN JOSE CA, 95129 APN #36655022 SEVEN SPRINGS OWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O GREGORY GROUP OR CURRENT OWNER 220 TWIN DOLPHIN DR STE C REDWOOD CITY CA, 94065-1402 . APN #36609051 CHAN RAY P KWAN AND MUI IRIS S OR CURRENT OWNER 11851 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5103 APN #36655017 SAKAMOTO RONALD K AND PAULINE T OR CURRENT OWNER 11882 PLACER SPRINGS CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5102 APN #36655006 BANTHIA PRAKASH C AND RITA OR CURRENT OWNER 11917 WOODHILL CT CUPERTINO CA, 95014-5149 APN #36604071 400413 ~;' ;~ 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 8t~ day of February 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue: The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are .available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #06-138 -12045 Parker Ranch Road APPLICANT: The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association APN: 366-43-001 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a stone and brick monument sign identifying a subdivision. The total area of the sign is approximately 23 square feet and the height is 4 ft. 4 inches. The sign will take the place of the existing subdivision sign on this parcel and will be identical to the Parker Ranch subdivision sign located on Comer Drive near Diamond Oaks Court. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, January 31, 2006. 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. Thomas Suzanne Assistant Planner 408-868-1212 ' OUi.~014 • • Attachment 3 • OOU415 R:CORDING REQUESTED BY A,\D IVHEt R'cCCRDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, U`.LEcc OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX ~'~~_..ENTSTC: The Parker Ranch Homeowners ~ Association P. 0. Box 3077 Saratoga, CA 95070-1077 ~~ i ESCROW NO. TITLE ORDER NO., • SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRA~1~' D~ED The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): 366-43-001 Documentary transfer tax is S A.P.N. ( ) comluted on full Jalue of property conveyed, or ( )computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ( - . j-Unincorliorated area: (X )City of aratoga, California ~ , aitd By this instrument dated ., , foi• a' valuable consideratiotr June 2~, 2005 Leslie K. Kornblum and Roberta M. Friedman hcie.by GRANTS to The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association, a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation organized under the \~onprofit ylutualBenefit Corporation Law, the followins described real property in the ~ittv8~'Saiatoga County of ~ , SFe e Santa Clara California: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. k .k~, Leslie K. Kornblum Roberta'~f. Friedman STATE OF CALIFO IA, COUNTY OF ~9Gt1~L~ GAG\~ ~ SS. On i,tN~ .~-i'~ O before me, ~~i~ H~ Ktt~ N~ ~~y Pubi~~ personally appeared L~j L(c ~:. {,C i2Ai~ i_ U tvl And fZoBEItTA M . FKI'E1~Ml~nl personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) iubscribed [o the within instrument and acknowledged :o me that he sh executed the same in hislhet~e~ ac;herizrd :apa:m ":es~, ar~ thx: b} hu'ter.~ ei/s:gnamre(s) an the instru- ment the pen^n's) er t.`.e entip~ upon lxha!( of a'`i:h the rerson(s) acted. t- v ,:~ ~ i -.~:. - ___ _ .. PO/NT D,C" ,BEG//VN/NG P~4 sP~C T ,i A/ `~ 6 ~. o ~ 10~i~a ~ ~, ~o S Sl 1 .a ~ ~o ~, ~, o "o • o N~s v~ ~~ A = o v` \ ~ ScA~E /" = /O~ ROA D 0 ~ ~ ~I b ~ ~.: I I -- ~ >`~~~p j E 2S.oo f ~, ~ ~i ~~~ ,~ _ : % : ~ ~ `` Tl~UE f'O/N T alt (r ' ~ PLAT ~ ACC_G~A~l~ANY' f E"GAL aFrcl~/PT/oN S'/GN _EASE'MEN ~ i• 00019 `~ JAN-06-2006 10 47 P.01i01 ~, Cxty off' Ssaratoga N~igLbnr NotiticAtfon Foraan .AppI Sta,,/f or iss repro reser prrit~r~ l~Y ~~, the C~ pMy M 29, 2005 ADDRPSS: 12045 Panheti Banc i ant Nartse: P a n h e~c R a n c h i lion N~ber. ~ 6 ' /3 S nd tXe planning Co-n»rissioa prefer that neighbors take tlslar opportunity to txpress any concerns ~ t>~y may hQVe diraetly to the applicant, Placu~ ~nsun rho sfgnadrre on this docunant is rntatrh-e of all residents residi~ig on yarrrpraperty, Regardless of t1~e opplion pxpruseJ brluw, ynrr the right ro mend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal ignature below certi5es the fQ~lowing: I have reviewed tha project plans; and T do NOT b:ve say concerns or Issues which +need to ~be sddresz by t6t applicant pear to ty's public hearing oa the proposed project. ;iga~twre below certifies the following: X have reviewed the project plarss; ~d Y hsva lesuas ar oeaterbe, which attar di~ceusxien ~vitb the applicant, hive mot bolt seed. My conacrrs are the following (please otrach additional sbeots if ueae6sary): ' Name: _lreb.l'.i.e Konn6.trum Er Roben~ta Fn.i.edman Address: 12045 Paxfzea Ranch Road N 5a7a~toga, 'CA 95070 Phone Numbtt; ~~ ~'"~'~'~-~ ~'a.s arc: Printed: • ' . ~t~~ ~ wtia,-h ~c ~ 1 Qb ~-~. ~ ~~ n s er 6 vO~Q2Q TOTAL P.01 • DEC-31-2005 15 17 I. 1 . • Cit~- o~ Saratoga Ne9gL~or Nct~ficat~on ~`orm P.03i03 Dnu; Dec2mbea 29, 2005. PRO ADI7RFS5: 12045 P~a~.hen -Ranch -Road Appli ant Name: Pa.~ ,$a .e .~ Appli flan Number. 0 6 ' !- 3 8 Sto, f~' nd tAe Planning Co~xratsfioH prefer tltot ~elghbors rake this opporrrtnily to upr~ess axy contert+s or iss es they may Rave directly tv tJke applicant. Plaase Gnswre tlfC slgriadrre on dais dotu»teat it rcpt .errtat3ve of all.reside~ts residing as your property. Regardless oftlle opinion exprraaeri brluw, you res the right to amend your opi>rton at a later date during t]ie actual pubtte review and appeal , prri ignatw~e belcav ccrti~es the fo)lowing: I heva reviewed the project plans; Lindrrste~td *~~tng~ of ~nrY; aAd Y do NO?have nay cone*ras or issues whiels need to ~be s~ddress by the applicant prig to the t~s public hewing oa the proposed projact pMy igx~attu a below caRifies the fo~Iowing. X have reviewed the project plans; 1 t~ndrrctar thr ua;*w of and Y 6avr lasu~r or coeaerat,.vhieh attar dixeussioa+ with the applicant, have aof been adds seed. My concerns-axe the 1'oltowiag (please attach additional sheets if Accessary): .. • A r , ,berNxme: Mn. and Mne:, Gnov~~t S.i.ne.~ey bar Address: 12048• ~Pa~.lzen Ranch Raad ~ ~ ~ •• •• . . ~ - _ ,Sana~o_aa, C.R 95070 rot Phone Number: Ss tore: Printed: 6ot6 QQU~~~~ TOTAL P.03 • Attachment 5 • OOU422 • EXISTING SIGN • REPLACEMENT SIGN oooo~ _ ,~,. - v..4 ti ~G.-. • Attachment 6 • • OOU024 ~ 1\ ~ ~ FACE OF CURB • PROPERTY LINE ' NO FENCES, SHRUBS, OR OTHER SUAL OBSTRUCTIONS EXCEEDING FEET IN HEIGHT IN THIS AREA- ~• Start with a triangle having sides fifty -feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curfi lints or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists. It shall not ezcttd three feet in bright about the- established grade of the adjoining street. ,. -v O 'v rn -~ r SIGHT DISTANCE ON A STREET CORNEA oooozs n rn O -n n C CA \ ~~ c... ~. ~~ `° -~- ~1 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,.3 ---~ ~~~~ ~ L;. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~•ll ~ ~. !d ~ ~ r A ~ ~ ,o /, iY ~. osa-ozs • • • • Attachment 7 i~ QOU02'7 • • ~, • s • RE80LOTION N0. 8-92-002 CITY OP~BARATOGA PLAZiNING COHHI33ION ' 'STATE -0P.-CALIFORNIA ROHLE81`12906 CBIQIIZTA COORT ABEREAB, the City of;Saratoga Planning Commission has received• an application for sign permit approval to replace the existing ' wood, free-standing Parker'Ranch subdivision entrance sign with a new brick and stone veneer Eras-standing entrance sign; and 1PHEREA3, the Planning Commission held.a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties wars given a full opportunity to ba heard. and_to present evidence; and- 1PHEREAB, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the fol_owing findings- have -been determined: • The sign complies with the regulations of Article 15-30, of the City Code-and the regulations of the district in which it will be located in that the sign height is 4 ft. 4 ins. where 10 ft. is permitted, the sign area is 23 sq. ft. where 24 sq. !t. is allowed and the lettering is 9 ins. where 18 ins. is allowed. The size, shape, color, illumination placement and materials of the sign are compatible with the visual characteristics of the neighborhood. The location and design of the sign do not adversely af~ect the quality or character of the residential. area in which it is located. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Robles for sign approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Height of structure shall not exceed 4 ft. 4 inches. 4. Total sign area shall-not exceed. 24 sq. feet. 5. The Parker Ranch Homeowners association will be responsible 44UQ2~ I • File 6. 7. 8. • ~~ ~ • ._ .K..- .a-w~, ~ :..... No. 8-92-002= 12906 Chi~quita`Court , for maintaining the subdivision sign and'any related landscap- ing improvements within;;the'= area: of the .dedicated easement per the grant deed recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorders office on June 19,=.199.2 ,_s f All future landscaping shall~be native and drought tolerant species in conforriance with-"the~City's xeriscape standards. Applicant agrees to hold._City harmless-from all costs and expenses, including attorneys 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. Noncompliance with`any.of_the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of-.the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of 5250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. ' section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. .Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this to each set of construction plans which will be submitt Building Division when applying for a building permit. section 6. Unless appeale3 pursuant to the requirements n Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolu`cion shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. ~ PA98ED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion,-State of California, this 23rd day of September 1992 by the foliowinq roll call vote: 000029 t '~`~~ ~~ Q.u~~ of ~:. ~ , ~ '• s,~.~~..,}~ - ;~~ s ~ ~.. ~.~~; i ~ ~'.' . ~~ ~~~ r ~ f"Y 3 ~ ~'~~ ~ .,`; ~t ~ ~' j ~~~ ~~~ .`~ , ~ ~/ File No. 8-92 0027~12906TChiquita Court ~- ~ ;_'; ,., AYEBs Commissioners`Caldwell, Bogosian, Moran, Asfour ~ Murakami 40003 ~. S, 1 .S ~. d_ ~a ~~ U J ~:zN u - o _~ o JS dS ~. U uQ _ d. ~ u, l1 - _ o °~ N~ -J `C J U~ s' C~ ~~ ~ Z - 0 V i ~ ~ N ul u 10 z zw A~ ~ ~ ~J 1- L L~ ~~ u N ~ O Q W ~I J N W ~ .. N W J L~ ~ Q ~ N ~~ ~ U ~~ w~ n~ N3 1 ~~ N W r~• t- ul J N N Q O O C w= w ~I N ~"' \ .Z ~ O ~ ~ ~ f - = s = ~ aC ,, ~ v o 9 C 9 (Ky •Y V E V ~ 9 o w I{ i' Q e" ~ = i s ~ 5 2, (~ M I ° U u a u > o ~ ~ ~ $ 3 sw .o ~ E ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y ~ ` ~ s € .A6 ~ ~ 3 Qa ' ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ° E ~ Q ~F~ S ~ Y ~itl ~ 4 n qq ~ n E t o ~ F o $ f ~ . n 4 V o o n~ E o .___ ~` ~~ 2 ... t i 'c ~ \` a' E g _ ~ ~ ~ ~ i _~ r:.9 i oU w u ~ j~ N0~ ~_ 8 m ~ ~. 3~0 w~ >~ N _~ _7 Q w J J ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ .o' ~-.ti ~ ~w)~ . - - - - - -- ----~-- N ~ ~ o: ..;-.; c ~ i.:-r d'~~° ~ ~'- 0O003i ~_ X u m ~-- 2 ,,; 6 ~ g ' J r~ ~ ~ V Z Q W ~I lJ • • Attachment 8 ~ • 000032 • • • ,, Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application IVo./Location: App # 06-139/ 12467 Parker Ranch Road Applicant/Owner: The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner ST Type of Application: Monument Sign Date: February 8,'2006 APN: 366-49-006 Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP ~~~ f i i - Q 500 ft. buffer around 12467 Parker Ranch Rtl. ~~°~ ~~ ~~ _ \ ~ _ ~~ ~ 12467 Parker Ranch Rd. 1 ~-:4 ~ Parcels within 600 ft. of 12467 Parker Ranch Rtl. ~'~ _ ~.~ -__ _ _r ~ ~~`,..~~ f ~~ ~ -. ~~ __ ...A II ~~ ~~~ i ~. _ z~ \ ~.. ~ ;~ 7~ .awe yq~ a .apt -~(~o w' i~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ; is ,~ 1° ~ nw.a r{.Hcn w'- t ' , ~ .~ - ~ Pte' ~ ~ /T.-'., • C-- i _~ ~A~n~t~~~ t ~ l /i ~..~ t _ _. i d/ ~ - _ i .. t- ' - o cr __. _.._... _.. ..i.._......_ 3K' ~. ~ -~~ _ ,....i, ~~ i ..~. ,. -" r y ~% _ ~ .. ~ ~:rw ~c~ci t ~L ~•'/%~ ..~ .- ..~_ ,. .. i .-~__ .. /. ~ ,` -~... _.: .„ ~, ..: :; ,. i ~ __ _ - _ _~ i n.aa~Rr .=_ j! 0 160 ~. S-rOD'~ 460 600` 7~ft I; i^ /~. /- /~-- M - _ -- onrey£n /` ~_ ~~ E f„ I S ~ti~ ;i 12467 Parker Ranch Road ~~~~~ Application No. 06-139; 12467ParkerRanch Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 10/11/OS Application complete: 01/12/06 Notice published: 01/25/06 Mailing completed: OU24/06 Posting completed: 02/02/06 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests sign approval to construct a brick and stone veneer freestanding subdivision identification sign atone of the entrances to the Parker Ranch subdivision. This sign will be identical to a sign that was previously approved (S-92-002), which is located at 12906 Chiquita Court. The sign is approximately 23 square feet in area and measures 4 ft. 4 inches in height. "PARKER RANCH" will be spelled out in 8-inch tall brass letters. The sign will be located on the southeast corner of Prospect Road and Parker Ranch Road, outside of the fifty-foot sight triangle. The lot is zoned HR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for sign approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~~'~~~~ Application No. 06-139;12467Parker Ranch Road • ,, STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR (Hillside Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside Conservation Single Family) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.3 acres ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed 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 (e)' of the Public Resources .Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory (appurtenant) structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Brick and stone veneer with brass lettering LENGTH OF STRUCTURE: 12 feet 6 inches PROPOSED SIZE OF LETTERING: 8 inches AREA OF SIGN: HEIGHT OF SIGN: 23 square feet 4 feet 4 inches CODE REQUIREMENTS/MAX SIZE 18 inches 24 square feet 10 feet (outside of 50-foot triangle of visibility) ~~C~~~33 Application No. 06-139;12467ParkerRanch Road • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background.• There are currently two freestanding subdivision signs for Parker Ranch. One is located at 12906 Chiquita Court near Comer Drive and the other is at the corner of Parker Ranch Road and Prospect Road, near Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. A third sign, the subject of this application, is proposed at the other end of Parker Ranch Road where it meets Prospect Road near the Saratoga Country Club. This proposed sign would be identical to the Parker Ranch subdivision sign on Chiquita Court, which was previously approved by the Planning Commission (S-92-002). Project Analysis.• The project site is located on the south side of Parker Ranch Road just east of Prospect Road. On January 3, 2006, a grant deed was submitted for recording with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office. This deed dedicates an easement to the Parker Ranch ' Homeowners Association for the purpose of installing and maintaining the sign and related landscaping improvements on this site (Attachment 3). Because the project site lies with the Santa Clara Valley Water District right-of-way, the Association has also obtained a construction permit from the SCWVD (Attachment 4). The proposed freestanding slgn will be constructed of beck (foundation, cap, and columns) surrounding a stone facade. "PARKER RANCH" will be spelled out in 8-inch tall brass letters on the side that faces the road. The sign will be 4 feet 4 inches tall, well below the ten-foot height allowed for freestanding signs. Because it is located near an intersection, it has been set back from the corner, placing it outside of the 50-foot triangle of visibility in order to prevent any visual obstruction. Although all neighbors within 500 feet of the parcel were notified about the project, Staff has received no response. The applicant submitted notification forms from three neighbors, two of whom had no concerns and one who had "no problem with the structure as long as the surrounding is weed free and landscaped accordingly" (Attachment 5). No landscaping is proposed at this time. The existing easement is not landscaped and staff does not feel that landscaping is a necessary component of the sign in this rural setting (Attachment 6). Therefore, staff has not incorporated landscaping as a condition of approval in the resolution. The Homeowners Association will maintain weed control around the proposed sign. Staff finds the proposed sign to be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood and does not feel that it will adversely affect the quality of the residential area. The sign conforms to all of the standards and requirements of Article 15-30 of the Ciry code. ~~~~~~ Application No. 06-139;12467Parker Ranch Road STAFFRECOMMFNDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for Sign permit with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval with conditions. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Grant deed easement to Homeowners Association. 4. Construction permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water District. 5. Letters from neighbors. 6. Photos showing existing site and proposed sign. 7. Location of sign outside 50-foot triangle of visibility. 8. Signed Resolution S-92-002 approving identical sign at 12906 Chiquita Court. 9. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • • ~~~~~~~ ,, • Attachment l ~~~~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.06-139 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association;12467 Parker Ranch Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for sign permit approval to construct a brick and stone veneer freestanding subdivision sign adjacent to one of the entrances to the Parker Ranch subdivision and located at 12467 Parker Ranch Road; 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 the construction of a new sign is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory (appurtenant) structures; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to 'support said application for Sign Permit Approval, and the following findings have been determined: The sign complies with the regulation of Article 15-30 of the Municipal Code and the regulations of the district in which it is located in that the sign height is 4 foot 4 inches where 10 feet is permitted, the sign area is 23 square feet where 24 square feet is allowed, and the lettering is 8 inches where 18 inches is allowed. The natural materials are compatible with the neighborhood, and the placement of a permanent subdivision sign is permitted within the HR zone 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 iri connection with this matter, the application for sign approval has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • ~~~~~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The sign shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. The letters will be 8 inches tall. 2. The height of the structure shall not exceed 4 feet 4 inches, excluding the uprights. 3. The total sign area shall not exceed 24 square feet. 4. The sign will be located outside of the fifty-foot triangle of visibility. 5. The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintaining the subdivision sign and any related landscaping improvements within the area of the dedicated easement per the grant deed that was submitted to the Santa Clara County Recorders office on January 3, 2006 by John Heindel. 6. The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association will provide a copy of the recorded sign easement. 7. All future landscaping shall be native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the Ciry's xeriscape standards. 8. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into any future landscape plans to the maximum extent possible. CITY ATTORNEY 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ~~~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8`h day of February 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susie V. Nagpal Chair,-Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~~~~~ • Attachment 2 • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Suzanne Thomas ,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 24th day of anuary , 2006, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to, the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent ec{ualized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within S00 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. ~J~.. Signed • ~~~~~ 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 Stb day of February 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of-this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #06-139 -12467 Parker Ranch Road APPLICANT: The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association APN: 366-49-006 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a stone and brick monument sign identifying a subdivision. The total area of the sign is approximately 23 square feet and the height is 4 ft. 4 inches. The sign will be identical to the Parker Ranch subdivision sign located on Comer Drive near Diamond Oaks Court. (THOMAS) All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, January 31, 2006. 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. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner 408-868-1212 ~~~~~~:~ Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® GOTTIMUKKALA KISHORE B AND OR CURRENT OWNER PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ~.PN #36648001 L1U YUH-YUN M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12497 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6502. APN #36649043 SARATOGA COUNTRY CLUB INC OR CURRENT OWNER 21990 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6541 APN #36629009 ABUABARA FUAD AND DEBRA A OR CURRENT OWNER y 1412 CONTINENTAL CL wARATOGA CA 95070-6504 ,`'LPN #36649021 CHEN MU-YUAN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER STAR RIDGE CT TOGA CA 95070-6510 APN #36649045 STEPNER DAVID AND JUDIE TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12553 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6502 APN #36649044 NIST PAULINE A OR CURRENT OWNER x2001 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY ~ARATOGA CA 95070-6561 '~pN #36632004 GOEL, AJIT & RANJANA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12467 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6538 APN #36649006 KIM, JIN H & SUNG H OR CURRENT OWNER 21427 CONTINENTAL CIRCLE TOGA, CA 95070-6505 3664Q013 3CG y y~ c ~ ~ vvww.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY HSUAN CHANG-YO OR CURRENT OWNER '' 21471 CONTINENTAL CL SARATOGA CA 95070-6505 APN #36649047. 3 L 6 `I ~ ~ y l MOORE ARNOLD W Y AND CATHERINE C L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21601 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6543 APN #36632008 A~/ERY® 5160® PATEL SANJAY M AND DARSHNA S OR CURRENT OWNER 21991 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6543 APN #36632010 PERSING DAVID H AND CAROL J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21995 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36632011 YAU CHAD C AND WENLI Y TRUSTEE , OR CURRENT OWNER 12637 STAR RIDGE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6510 APN #36649001 TSENG MEAU HUEY VIVIAN C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21621 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6543 APN #36632009 BERGERON DOUGLAS G AND SANDRA E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12441 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA GA 95070-6538 APN #36648021 MURANO KATSUYOSHI AND ANN F OR CURRENT OWNER 12413 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6538 APN #36648022 SLAGER JAMES R AND DIANA L OR CURRENT OWNER 12525 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6502 APN #36649009 SUN, LINDA S L TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 12502 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6503 APN #36649011 . PATEL, HARESH & VINA OR CURRENT OWNER 21485 CONTINENTAL CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN #36649022 GOU PERNG FEI AND BINNIE C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12609 STAR RIDGE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6510 APN #36649002 FINLEY ENTERPRISES LLC OR CURRENT OWNER 70 GILMARTIN DR TIBURON CA 94920 APN #36632002 HEINDEL JOHN H TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER -12468 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6501 APN #36648002 LIN EDWARD S AND ROSE S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER- - 12532 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6503 APN #36649010 HSUAN, CHANG-YO OR CURRENT OWNER 21471 CONTINENTAL CL SARATOGA,CA ADN #36649047 EULAU, ROBERT K & SUSAN J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21415 CONTINENTAL CIRCLE SARATOGA, CA 95070-6505 APN #36649012 HSUAN, CHANG-YO OR CURRENT OWNER 21471 CONTINENTAL CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-6505 APN #36649046 r ~ GC `/ 9 ° y '7 ~~~~~,.~ • • ;. RECORDING REQUESTED 6Y ORDER +r 366-49-006 APN W+iEN RECORDED MAIL TO r ~ Name Street -The Parker Ranch -Homeowners AOdress Association state `~ P. O. Box 3077 ~P Saratoga, CA .95070-1077 SPACc' ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ~ _ - Grant Deed The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): Documentary transfer tax is ~ ................_,,.,,..,.._.,....... ( )computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( )computed on full-value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. (~t )Unincorporated area: ( ) City of ................._....._..................._....._.._....._....._....._........_...,._....._.......................................... ~') Realty- not sold. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Ajit and Ranjan Goel; Trustee • hereby GRANT(S) to The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association; a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation organized.. under the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, that pro erty in .::City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California, as described in See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mail Tax Statements to P. O. Box 3077, Saratoga, CA 95070-1077 October 17; 2005 Date STATE OF CALIFO NIA (0(~~ COUNTY~OAF 1 ~ f~*'`~~ OD ~ `~_ t `"' `~~ before me, the unde~i~tted, a Npta~ 1t61ic(/ltn and folsaid State, pers/o,~p,~a~ll~a~peared .t~~ (~...,t 1 ~ (~Jnu~,~ ~(1~V1.A VW (or proved to n e on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persott(s~ whose name~a5fa~e subscribed to the within instrumeotand aclmowledged to a that tae~Jthey executed the same in r/theirauthorizedcapactty es ,andthatby h+rF~/theirsignature son the instrumentthe person©, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. • WITNES myhnnda doffcinlscal. Signature .~ !game "V GL>/t i'~ ~ VIIJY t~ (typed or printed) F:'GIS-1a0 &'9a ~a ~ - an~ e , rus ee BRIAN SCHERMERHORN ~' Commission # 1487302 z ~ Notary Pubiic - California ~ ..: Santa Clara County My Comm. Expires May 2, 2005 (This area for otYicial notarial seal) MAIL TAX STATEMEN"15 A~ liix~~-1 ~L HD V . r. ~~~~g~ ,~ EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SIGN AND LANDSCAPING EASEMENT An easement for purposes of installing and maintaining a subdivision entrance sign and related landscaping improvements, described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the respective centerlines of Prospect Road and Parker Ranch Road, as shown on the Map of Tract No. 6528 (The Parker Ranch Unit Two), -filed- for record on May 3, 1982, in Book 499 of Maps at pages 35 through 41, Santa Clara County Records; Thence from said POINT OF BEGII~rNING easterly along said- centerline Qf Parker Ranch Road North 89° 40' 00" East 56.20 feet; Thence leaving said centerline at right angles South 00° 20' 00" East 25.00 feet to a point at the end of a curve on the boundary of Lot 75 as shown on said map, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence easterly along said boundary North 89° 40' 00" East- 5.00 feet; Thence leaving said boundary South 51° 00' 00" West 15.00 feet; Thence at right angles North 39° 00' 00" West 8.71 feet to a point on a curve on the boundary of said Lot 75, whose radius point bears South 24° 15' 00" East 30.00 feet; Thence northeasterly along said curve to the right through a central angle of 23° 55' 00", an arc length of 12.52 feet. to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. • ~~~~~ ~ i _~ C7 b' o ~ .1 ~~d S Q?Jc ~, ,, ~~'~~ . _ s ._ - -. - °~~ . o o'~~ ,o ~~ ~a ,~ , nn ~. ..~ ,,-~.. ~ V'.. ;, ~ ~ //:~~~ _-~4 - o j•£ `` ``} 1 •, ~~ i \© ~1 'S ~\a ~ . ~ ~_ © ti,' `~' e ~,~ 1 ` ~ / \ ~ ~~~ y o ~_ w ~- a ti 0 ~ J 0~~ o .~ 1 r~ ~`~ Q (~A N d'` F r1 ~~ ~ ~ ~. ' `` ~ ~ ~. t•. ~ ~ ~ ~ - r^ ~ i~ ~ ~ ). ~' . '' ~ ~\\ i ~` Attachment 4 ~'~'~is ~~ Sonto Qoro Valley Water District ( ) 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY, SAN JOSE, CA 951 1 8-361 4 (408) 265-2600 PERMIT FCE 60w (04.24-02) Prospect -Creek Permittee: Ajit and Rani Goel 12467 Parker Ranch Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Date Issued: December 7, 2005 Telephone: (408) 373-7179 Permit No.: ` 05258 File: 30883 Prospect. Creek.. Sly Parker Ranch Road. Ely Prospect Road Applicant: Parker Ranch HOA Telephone: (408) 867-9338 Re: Construction of Portion Attention: Carol Greenleaf of Stone Sign Within P:O. Box 3077 Santa Clara Valley Saratoga, CA 95070. Water-District Easement Right of Way Purpose of Permit: ®_ Encroachment. Gonstruction_ of a portion of, a son_e_ sign_on the_southeast corer of the intersec#ion_ of -Rrospect.~toad~and ` Construction Parker Ranch Road, within Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) easement right of way. ^ Temporary Construction Expiration Date: December 7, 2006 Encroachment Expiration-Date: December 7, 2006 PERMITTEE MUST NOTIFY AND FURNISH SCHEDULE OF WORK TO: Districts Construction Unit, c/o. Permit Desk, (408) 265-2607, extension 3795, at least 2 normal working days before. starting any work under. this permit.- Failure to.notify is cause for revocation of permit and removal of work: Exercise of this permit shall indicate acceptance of and agreement to comply with all provisions included herein. This permit is subject to the raL Provisions listed on the .reverse side hereof or as expressly modified in the additional Special Provisions listed w. Violation of-any provision shall be cause for immediate revocation of permit: SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. Permittee shall use only nonpotable or reclaimed water for-completion of activities under this permit; .unless the District- approves- another source. 2: ..Permittee must prevent-all construction wastes, including sediment and nonstorm water, from directly or indirectly entering Prospect Creek at any time during the construction. 3. Permittee is responsible for the full cost of repairing any damage to District's facility caused by the exercise of this permit.. 4. District easement.is to be_ left in the same`or better condition to the satisfaction of District's inspector. 5. The portwn of the sign located wtthin the:Distnci easemen#_is subiect_to damage or_terna_ vat by_tlae Dtstnct during. - - flood control or`maintenance~activites: Permittee wi0 not be compensated for materials installed within~District easement should they be damaged or removed. 6. All work associated with this permit is to be in accordance with the plans submitted to and accepted by-the District. Approval: i~'~•~ Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Engineering Unit Manager Community Projects Review Unit cc: Mr. John H. Heindel P.O. Box 3452- Saratoga, CA 95070 .s 4 rneen.~. ..nn /AA /7d M71 Attachment 5 • • ~G'~~~i~ 1 it City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Torm Date. ~1 ~s ~S PROJ~CTADDRESS: 12467 Pa~cfz2n Ranch Road AgpliFant Name: i°a r ~1 e /" lea n ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ' 06 - ~ 39 Application Number: Stafj't;nd the Planning (.'ommission prefer that neighbors take thls, opportunity to express any concerns or.issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is :; r¢prv_cvntolivQ o}'ell rasadents residing on your property. I:egarrllea•~• of rhe.opinion. expressed below, you _. °- reserve the-right 1o arnendyour opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; y,.,dPT~~,nd ~,~ ~n wnrlc;:~snd I do NO? have any concerns or issues which need t4~be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. pNly signature below certifies the followir~g: I have reviewed the project plans; 7 and .rst nri t}~ cc of wnrk end I have issues or concerns, which after dlseussion tivith the applicant, have not been addre$~ed. My concerns are the following (please at`ach additional sheets if necessary): i Neighbor Name: ~"`t l ~ pia E L i Neighbor Address: S~i4 !'~-'~o G A , CA ~ s o ~ ~ ,4,~ - ~b~- 5 33b Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: /~„ i lJ s,,~J~ /~ T i i 4 ~ c L ~~ ~~~~. 6 oE6 . City of Saratoga Ne~igLbor Notification Fvrm Date: / - s~ - o ~ ~ 2467 Panfzen. Ranch Road PRO T ADDRESS: pppli ant Namc: ~a /'k~°'~' ~Q''~''G ~ ~ ' Appli ,lion Number: ~ ~ 6 ~ '~ 3 g' Staff rtd the Planning Commission prefer that neigl+bors tPakke to ~e SPo Q~~e on ~ 9 document ~cerns or is es they may have directly to the applicant. Please 8n ,rapt- entativP ofall-residents r¢sidirrg on your property. Regardless of the opinion impressed below, you rase a the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public revietiU brill appeal prriu ,_ act lags; L~ '-- `°~a ~~'" e'^ r n ignature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the prof p ~eter]c,, and Y do IvOT' have nay concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the ty's public hearing on the proposed project. __ ~ .L ~ of pMy ignature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; and i bavo issuoc or eoeeera:, which sifter d:ceusxien with the applicant, have not been addr ssed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): J Y1Nti tT ; trtc°1 vl~ ti°-• l Name: o Nei bor Address: :. .. 1 ~ r er-- ri~ a SQ t^~z'fo a. CA R .~° ~ v Nci bor Phone Number: 74 ~ ' D J S~ Printed: • 6of6 ~~~~~~ DEC-31-2005 15 17 • Cit~- of Saratoga N~igLbor Notification Form P.02/03 Deeemben 7, 2005 • P1~0 A>7DRESS: 12467 panF~ex .l~axch Road Appli at~t Name• P a ~ h e ~c. Ranch f -I o it Appli lion Number: 0 6 - / r3 Sta,~j' red the Pkmning;Co~ission prefer that neighbors take this. oppartlrnity to upress ariy coacen~r or is es they may heve directly to r1;e applicant, Please ensure the sigrictrtre on thy-doertmau ~ rcpt entatEve of all reriddnts r~sidrxg oa your property, Ragardlt"tJ of the opi~aiott expresseJ below, you ryes the right to amend your op~on ar a later date dc~rixg the actual pr~blye review and appeal .~..~ _ My tp~atut~e below certi~a9 the fa~lowix-g: I have reviewed the project plans; r l^n .,~r 4^a t ~ e r of p~; and Y do NOT bx~ve any coaceraa or issues which need to~b! address by the sppliawtprior to tlu ty'a public hearing on the proposed project. dlVSy 'gaat-tt'e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans: Y u ~Rd Lhr.A~^~, ^f sad Y bpv issa+s dr cooeern:,which alter diseu~exiez+ rvitb the applicant, have sot been adds ssed. My ea>ioerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if rieaessaty): ~-- Nei bar Name: ? l~ i G~-~1'L ~ S Nti or Address: n~ ~ ~._ .. . ~- Nci bor Phone Number; ~ d ~ _C~'~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ . $i ti1rC: Priwtod: i ~'v = -- - - ~~~z~ ~~ b of b ~~~~~ Attachment 6 • • ~~~~ • • • NEW SIGN ~~~~~~: _~f ~-- ~~ ~ PROPOSED LOCATION (two angles) ~~°~. • Attachment 7 • ~~~~~~ • •\ FACE OF CURB PROPERTY LINE ,, • ' NO FENCES, SHRUBS, OR OTHER SUAL OBSTRUCTIONS EXCEEDING FEET IN HEIGHT IN THIS AREA. • • Stan with a triangle having sides fifty -feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges of flee street pavtment where no curb exists. It shall not exceed three feet in height about the established grade of the adjoining street. O •v rn z -~ r SIGHT DISTANCE ON m A STREET CORNEK rn O n C W i L, ~^ Q. Y ~! ~I ~9 ~ ~'f ~ ~ ~ ~~ L _ ~~. ~ I O~ ti~ s `+••~~. ~` '.~ `1 •. ~`~~ ~ ~~" `,` . 1 e j ~~ 'L~,~ \ 1 .~ '~. ~ i U h ~ ,, v. _ ~/ f ~S 4 ;, Q ~ "~ ~t y `.~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~° `;~ try ~~ `~ ~. l `~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~,~ V ~ r ~- ~;~ ~_ ~~~~~ 0. u Attachment 8 ~~~~ b '~ ~ • ~ ' • i _ _ _ - RE80LUTION N0. 8-92-002 CITY OF BARATO(3A PLAPiNIN(i CO?iHI33ION ' =STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~f ROBLE81`<12906 CHIQUITA COURT i RHEREAS, the:City of Saratoga-Planning commission has received an application tor'"sign: permit<approval to replace the existing ' wood, free-standing-Parker Ranch-subdivision entrance sign with a ' new brick and stone veneer free-standing. entrance sign; and WHEREAS, the Planning;_Commission held.a duly noticed public hearing at which- time'all interested parties were given a full opportunity to ba heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been detenained: The sign complies with the regulations of Article 15-30, of the City Code and the regulations of the district in which it will be located in that the-sign height is 4 ft. 4 'ins. where l0 ft. is permitted, the sign area is 23 sq. ft. where 24 sq. tt. is allowed and the lettering is 9 ins. where 18 ins. is allowed. The size, shape, color, illumination placement and materials of the sign are compatible with the visual characteristics of the neighborhood. . The location and- design of the sign do not adversely affect the quality or character of the residential area in which it is located. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and architectural- drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Robles for sign approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: t 1. The sign shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading pe rnit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Height of structure ,shall not exceed 4 ft. 4 inches. 4. Total sign area shall not exceed 24 sq. Peet. 5. The Parker Ranch Homeowners association. will be responsible ~g~~~~+ • • • i File 6. 7. 8. ~~ -:.. -.._- ~: __-..: ,» ..~.w.c,LM•.;r~-u..e~n,tiygot¢,psr No. 8-92-002= 12906 Chiquita`Court for maintaining the subdivision sign and'any related landscap- inq improvements within the>area;of<ahe dedicated easement per the grant deed recorded with the `Santa`Clara County Recorders office on June 19,. 1992 All future landscaping~shall`be native and drought tolerant species in conformance 'with".the' City~s` xeriscape standards. 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 act-ion with respect to the. applicant's project. Noncompliance with~any:of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of. the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages.- the City could incur due to-the violation, liduidated damages of 5250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day. of the violation. section 2: Applicant shall. sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. .section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this to each set of construction plans which will be submitt Building Division when applying for a building permit. section s. Unless appeale3 pursuant to the requirements a;: Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolu~~ion shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. ~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 23rd-day of September 1992 by the foliowinq roll call vote: ~~~+~'~ ~ d, ti ,i , i i ~~ ~ ' 1 l ( =i ~~ ... . ~ ~ -- - .~ vaiurcii~ ovgvsiBAi.MOtBA~ Asfour ~ Murakaffii •': {-: Yk z ~' • • ~~f~~~ r I i u1 N ~~ ~~~ ~ ~; III p u~ „o ..~ t J J ~s~ S 3 Fd-F ~VU ~~ o>w u ~~o ddu J dS ~. ~° -, fi z - I ~ O U t t- u, d Y u1 U ~~ 1 0! Z W ~z o ~ ~J ~ ~ LO `~~ u'. in _ O W i~ W N ', .. N w J ~ ~ Q (~ ~ U) U l} ~ N 2' ~ W~ C1 N J \s3 ~' ,~ N f~ W ~.. h- W J N N Q r 0 O I W=, w ~I 'N Z ~ O~ ~ Q ~~ _ ~ ~ V ~ r:.9~ I,~ 3~0 W~ >_ N 7 Q W ~s ~. V Q W ~I ,, p -- - - - - -- -~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - _- - - - -- -----~- ~ ~ N V _J ~. U I- • ~~~'~7~1-1~ i f I~ 1 C i -, 9 _ -' v E v ~ ~O $ °a b 1 O ! $ ~ € .r r S ~ E {~ ~ ~ ° ~~ i! ~3t 6 ~ '~ @ Y ~I C~~ ~ E °- ` d ° • m U~ o~~ € 4~` d o r~ g E O i~ =' ``per }_ 1 c ~ ' \' 2 7. a tK ~ ,; a' F oU w U C ~,, ~ _~ o F ~ u ~~~ 8 .o~ ~ II• b i no> I r (~ ~ j ' J I i ~ ~ ~ ~ • Attachment 9 • • C~~~~.~ • • •