Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-08-2006 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, August 8, 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 COMMISSION AGENDA ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #06-i07 WONG 14015 SHORT HILL COURT 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 that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is afact-finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. • • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TAE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2006 Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 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 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 3, 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 #06-276 AMINI 15397 PEACH HILL (517-22-100) (The Planning Commission continued this item on June 28, 2006 to allow the applicant to return with revisions) The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel atwo-story, single-family residence, which may result in the demolition of over 50% of existing walls, and to construct an addition to the first and second story of the existing home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 5,595 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26- feet. The net lot size is 53,162.5 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. 2. APPLICATION: #06-107 WONG 14015 SHORT HILL COURT (397-14-018) The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel an existing two-story, single-family residence to construct an addition to the first and second story of the existing home. The maximum total floor area of the proposed residence will be 6,032 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is approximately 41,785 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. DIRECTORS ITEM: - None COMMISSION ITEMS: - None COMMUNICATIONS: - None EXT 1VIEETING: ADJOURNMENT TO N Wednesday, August 23, 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 August 3, 2006 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoQa.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning(a~sarato~a.ca.us • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers Absent: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter and Zhao Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Planner Sweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 28, 2006. Consideration of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 28, 2006, was continued to the next meeting at which a quorum of the Commission is in attendance eligible to vote on these minutes. Commissioner Kundtz needed to abstain from participation, as he was absent from .the June 28th meeting leaving just three Commissioners and no quorum. 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 July 6, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director John Livingstone announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR ~~ There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-411 -Ordinance Amending Section 15-12.160 of the Saratoga Code relating to Storage of Personal Property and Materials: The City is proposing an update of this section including but not limited to clarifying the length of time personal property and materials may be stored. (John Livingstone) (This item was continued to this agenda from fhe June 28, 2006, public hearing.) __ City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that following a public hearing at the last meeting on June 28, 2006, this item was continued to this meeting. • Explained that a revised Ordinance has been prepared that included additions and clean up. • Added that a supplemental staff report has been provided and that copies of said report are available in the lobby for members of the public. • Stated that based upon public testimony from the last meeting, the Ordinance has been further revised to establish two types of limits in prohibited areas, front yards and other areas visible to the public including side yards on corner lots. • Said that for many years the existing Code had a five consecutive day limitation. As originally written, after those five days are up, that item cannot be returned to the property period. • Said that realistically people bring their boat and/or recreational vehicle to their property to prepare for use and to clean up following use. This typically occurs for each trip and/or use. • Said that a storage day limitation total per calendar year is proposed at two weeks. • Added that the Ordinance includes two examples on how this would be applied. In one example, if both a boat and recreational vehicle were stored on the property concurrently, the calendar days used up would be counted concurrently. However, if a boat or recreational vehicle are brought to the property on separate occasions and are not on the premises concurrently, the days are counted separately. • Said that the intention of this Ordinance is to manage visible areas in which certain types of personal property are not to be stored. • Explained that personal property -can be screened from public view and/or a Temporary Storage Permit could be obtained through the Community Development Director. A Temporary Storage Permit would allow up to an additional two-weeks without any public notification. Beyond that amount of time, a notification to property owners within 150 feet would be sent. In those cases, there would be a 10-day delay before any permit is issued. • Said that the existing Ordinance is being clarified. Inconcise language had been interpreted in the past. This update helps to quantify what represents a "reasonable time" for storage of personal property in public view. • Added that the other changes proposed are technical matters and to ensure that there is no confusion with other Codes. Mention of storage of trash, garbage and refuse has been eliminated since that is covered in another part of the Code. Under that Code, garbage • t Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 3 containers can be placed in public view no more than one day before collection and must be removed within one day of collection. • Said that enforcement remedies are outlined in this updated Code. • Explained that enforcement includes infractions and public nuisance actions. Penalties include $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second offense within the same year and $500 for the third offense. Each violation is a separate offense. • Added that the City normally enforces by use of infraction penalties. The next level of enforcement is through the Public Nuisance process at which time a Notice of Intent to Abate is issued that allows the City itself to abate a nuisance if the property owner does not reach compliance. When notice is received, a property owner has the right to appeal and have a hearing. • Said that the limit of time for a Temporary Storage Permit would be set at two weeks absent of public notice. There is a prohibition of such storage on a vacant parcel or in the public right-of-way. A limitation is also being established for temporary storage of construction materials for a project not requiring a permit. That limit is proposed at 30 days. • Said that a draft resolution has been prepared to forward a recommendation to Council. On that draft there are two typographical errors that need to be corrected. The fourth WHEREAS statement needs the word "of' added. The NOW, THEREFORE statement needs to have the word "is" replaced with the word "be" amended. Commissioner Hlava asked about impacts on activities such as leaving things out for the Goodwill to pick up or with a note offering that item for free to any interested passer by.. Commissioner Kundtz asked how the fining system has been used to date, particularly in the last two years. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said between 20 and 30 times. Commissioner Kundtz said. that this is revenue for the City. However, he asked if it is within the authority of the Planning Commission to recommend that fines not be imposed but rather to move immediately to the Notice of Removal process. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is for storage in all open areas. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said it refers to prohibited areas. Commissioner Nagpal asked about screening. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that screening couldn't be installed within the front yard setback. Screening can be used in side yard setbacks. Commissioner Nagpal asked about Temporary Storage Permits. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that one could be issued for atwo-week time frame. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 4 r Na al asked how often such a ermit could be re-issued. Commissione gp p City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that has not yet been established. Chair Rodgers questioned how days would be counted when only a portion of a day of storage might occur. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that any partial day when the item is on site is counted against the total. allowed per year no matter what time of day the item arrives on site. Chair Rodgers suggested that a week be spelled out as seven days. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer agreed. Chair Rodgers added that instead of saying two weeks, it would be clearer to use 14 days. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said he was fine with that change to 14 days. Chair Rodgers asked if screening allowed includes tarps and/or tents. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied no, just fencing as is currently in the Code. Commissioner Na al asked for clarification that storage in the front setback would not be 9p allowed even if the item has a screening fence. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said correct. Director John Livingstone reminded that there is athree-and-e-half-foot fence height limitation within the front setback area, which would be inadequate to properly screen these stored items. The height for allowable fencing beyond that setback is six feet. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer added that items could be stored beyond the required setback area without any screening required. Commissioner Nagpal made the point that this update to the Code is not the result of any complaint but rather is intending to clarify an existing Ordinance. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said yes. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Earl Johns: • Explained that he has been a Saratoga resident since 1972. • Added that he has enjoyed having a recreational vehicle since 1980, which is parked beside his house in his side yard. Provided a photograph of his RV. ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 5 • Reported that this RV is for his traveling pleasure and also can serve as an emergency escape vehicle in case of a catastrophic event such as an earthquake. • Stated that his RV could sustain both he and his wife for three or more days in the event of a substantial earthquake. There are emergency cooking facilities in the RV. • Added that if this RV were stored across town, he would lose that benefit. • Stated that the Ordinance as written says that only homes on corner lots can utilize side yards for storage. • Pointed out that his interior lot is 87 feet wide. • Recommended that the Ordinance be amended to allow storage in the side yard for anon- corner lot. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if the photograph provided by Mr. Earl Johns depicts an RV that is considered to be properly screened or is it improperly stored. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that an interior parcel's side yard is not covered by this Ordinance. If Mr. Johns' storage were on an exterior corner side yard, this existing storage would not meet the Code due to its visibility. Commissioner Nagpal said it appears that a taller fence would be needed to screen. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that it would take between an eight and 10-foot tall fence to sufficiently screen recreational vehicles. Mr. Earl Johns cautioned that the usual height of an RV is about 10.5 feet. Commissioner Hlava asked staff to verify that Mr. Johns' RV storage is considered legal because it is not on a corner lot but rather is an interior lot. Chair Rodgers said that it appears to be the understanding that this would be considered legal under the Code. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that Mr. Johns' storage of his RV is not prohibited as depicted in his photograph. Mr. Dave Ball: • Expressed concern that he has seen different wording on several copies of the Ordinance, three in total, and has a problem with some wording. • Asked for clarification about a collector vehicle, such as a 57 Chevy, and if it has to be driven daily. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that the Code used to require that a vehicle be driven regularly but now that vehicle must simply be capable of being driven. Mr. Dave Ball questioned the ability to parka 12-foot high RV on an interior lot side yard especially if that RV were visible from the neighbor's kitchen. He reiterated his question about collector cars. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 6 Chair Rodgers clarified that cars must be registered and able to be driven. Mr. Dave Ball asked about trailers and what is counted. He said that the City is trying to fix a failed Ordinance. Commissioner Kundtz clarified that the Commission is looking at a third generation draft tonight. The Commission will address any questions raised by the public during its deliberations. The Commission will not leave loose ends on this. Mr. Chris Ducote: • Said that he does not own an RV or boat but believes that any legally licensed vehicle can be parked on the street as long as it is moved every 72 hours. • Suggested that these recreational vehicles should instead be allowed to be parked on private property. • Said that he has less of an opinion when it comes to boats but feels that there should be no time limitation set for parking cars or recreational vehicles at a home. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Chris Ducote if he does not feel that there is more of a visual impact from an RV as opposed to a car in front of a house. Mr. Chris Ducote said that he drove around the community and saw over 800 recreational vehicles parked in front of homes. He felt there was no visual impact. Chair Rod ers asked Mr. Chris Ducote where in Sarato a he drove. 9 g Mr. Chris Ducote replied around West Valley, in the EI Rancho area and other areas. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Chris Ducote if the recreational vehicles he saw on his tour were screened. Mr. Chris Ducote replied no. Ms. Carol Walker: • Described a neighboring property that has three boats, four trailers, two cars, and two trucks. • Added that that particular property only had two adults living there. • Said that another neighbor has a similar number of items including three trucks and a car. Commissioner Hlava sought clarification from Ms. Carol Walker as to whether she is objecting to these items stored on these properties or is okay with it. Ms. Carol Walker said she objects. Mr. Ron Pasqualini: • Said that he has submitted a letter to the Commission this evening. • • Suggested that if the City adopts this more restrictive Code, it should be applied to all property owners and not just to those properties for which a compliant is issued. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 7 • Stressed the importance of allocating sufficient manpower to enforce this Code, • Added that it is important to adopt Codes that reflect the will of the majority of residents. • Suggested that people who constantly complain about a variety of issues should be ignored. The community should not allow itself to be intimidated by a small number of residents. Mr.-Harry Carlson: • Described himself as a 44-year resident of Saratoga. • Said that a clarified definition of a recreational vehicle is needed. • Questioned if an SUV with a ski rack is counted as a recreational vehicle. • Stated that these recreational vehicles allow elderly retirees to travel in a leisurely manner. • Explained that now that he is retired, he is not in a hurry. • Said that when he brings his RV out of storage it takes him about two weeks to put that RV back into business for his travels. After the trip is done, it takes time to unload. • Reported that his long-term storage site for his RV is located in Gilroy. It takes all day to go there to pick it up or take it back. • Stated that the provisions of this Code puts a serious restriction on the use of his RV and represents an unfair penalty on "retired elderly slow people." • Said that this restriction is the result of a few people who object to the sight of an RV versus the hundreds of residents who own and use recreational vehicles. Mr. John Cantlen: • Said he is a 42-year resident. • Said that he supports the spirit of the basic Ordinance because junk in front yards causes a devaluation of property. • Stated that he is not sure that 14 days per year is enough time but agrees that full-time storage in front of a residence devalues properties. • Said that there needs to be a difference between tough limits and no limits since the cost of off-site storage can be high. • Pointed out that recreational vehicles can be parked on the street for up to 72 hours at a time, which is troubling. • Reiterated his belief that permanent storage on a residential property is a no-no but that occasional parking is okay. Mr. Simon Eual: • Asked the Commission to look into the audience at the "sea of blue shirts." • Explained that people who are pro RV and boats were asked to wear blue as a show of support. • Said that the proposed amended Code is unworkable and out of touch. • Suggested that more time is .needed to make an informed decision. • Pointed out that the City of Sunnyvale Planning Department provided a detailed analysis to its Planning Commission on this issue and suggested that Saratoga staff should do the same. • Stated that the City appears to be responding to the complaints of a few and that he wants to know the number and types of complaints received on this issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 8 • Expressed the need for a thorough analysis of existing recreational vehicles and boats and suggested that there are not enough off-site storage spaces available to store all of them. • Said that he wants to know what other cities allow. • Questioned whether a covered car is allowed under this Code and really what is the difference between a covered car and a covered boat. Mr. Ed Vincent: • Said that he spoke at the last meeting. • Thanked the City Attorney for his efforts. • .Urged the Commission to go forward with this Code as amended to Council. Mr. Matt Doyle: • Advised that he supports the revised Ordinance's wording. • Stated that if someone owns an RV or boat, .that owner has the responsibility to properly store it. • Described an informal survey he did of 94 homes. From that number of homes, he found four had boats and four had recreational vehicles. Three out of four of the boats and three out of four of the recreational vehicles are already in compliance with this Code for a total of six of eight in compliance. • Added that he was surprised by the unique methods used to screen these from view. Only two were not in compliance. • Suggested that a boat on a trailer in front of a house represents a child safety hazard. • Reported that he had placed his house on the market on two occasions. A trailer and boat are stored in front of an adjacent property. While friends were able to sell their homes quickly because they did not have such on-site storage nearby, he said that he believes that the storage of that boat by his neighbor was the reason he was unsuccessful in selling his home at a market-rate price: He only received low offers. Mr. Brad Anderson: • Said that he has concerns. • Cited a case that went to the Supreme Court that resulted in saying that cities cannot compel people to get rid of personal property. He left his documentation on this case with the City Attorney. • Said that it is important that people be given a warning before being imposed with a fine, as they may not know about storage requirements. • Stated that Saratoga has a unique character. Ms. Anna Polonsky: • Advised that she is a musician who will leave for Vienna tomorrow to teach at an international piano camp, among teachers from eight countries. • Said that she has been in the United States for 16 years, first in Dayton, Ohio. • Stated that she is proud of this country and would like to continue to be proud. It is a country where there is a sense of democracy and ability for people to be themselves. • Explained that she moved to Saratoga a year ago. • Reported that from day one, there have been constant complaints issued from her neighbor over her piano students. She added that she only has nine students per week. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 9 • Added that her husband of 33 years is a passionate fisherman who owns a boat. It was his dream to have a boat and to be able to go fishing often. • Informed that she does many recitals in senior homes. • Added that although her neighbor has lived in this neighborhood for 40 years, as a one- year neighbor she too has the same rights as that neighbor. In the US everything is just. • Asked that the Code not be enforced only according to complaints by neighbors. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Anna Polonsky where her boat is kept. Ms. Anna Polonsky replied in her front yard.. Mr. Viktor Polonsky: • Described himself as the husband of that "passionate woman" who just spoke. • Asked the Commission to consider the well-being of Saratoga residents and carefully weigh the pros and cons of this Ordinance. • Suggested it would be beneficial to obtain data on how many residents are happy versus unhappy with this decision. • Stated that the majority of residents own boats and/or recreational vehicles or if not they don't mind that their neighbor do. He added that most are tolerant neighbors. Saratoga is not a good place because of its buildings but because of the good quality of its residents. • Recounted how his wife's family was sent to Siberia in the 1930s. They didn't know why at the time. Years later, they learned that it had happened based on something that had been written about them by someone else. • Supported allowing on-site storage as long as the items are clean, licensed and not abusive to the eye. • Suggested making a simple rule, such as the size of driveway. If it can support the storage and be kept clean, it should be allowed. • Urged that the rules .adopted be applied equally to all and not just against people against whom a complaint is made. It must apply to everyone or don't create the rule at all. Mr. John Correia: • Said that he is a 20-year boat and RV owner and anine-year resident of Saratoga. • Said that he stores on the side of his driveway. • Stated that he is not sure what the front yard setback is and how far back onto the property one must go so that screening is not required. • Asked about the impacts of homeowner association rules as opposed to the provisions of this Ordinance. • Reminded that there is not a large availability of storage in Saratoga and said that two weeks per year is not realistic. • Recounted that regular maintenance of boats and recreational vehicles is required. • Pointed out that boat owners are more responsible and courteous and take care of their property. • Said that properly stored, the visual impact of a boat on a property is a beautiful sight. . • Urged the Commission not to react to a few complaints but rather to be logical and do a proper report and study. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 10 Chair Rogers advised the City does not enforce homeowner's association rules. This Ordinance is for all of Saratoga while HOA's are independent. She asked Mr. John Correia what time limitation might be more realistic instead of two weeks. Mr. John Correia: • Described the many aspects of boat maintenance from charging batteries, cleaning the boat out and regular maintenance. • Joked that the two happiest times in a man's life is when they buy and sell a boat. • Stated that boat ownership is a lifestyle, a hobby, and he uses his boat. every weekend. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. John Correia what he considers to be proper storage. Mr. John Correia said that he has a large circular driveway lined with Cypress trees. He parks his boat alongside these Cypress trees. His boat is 25-feet back from the cul de sac and is covered. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. John Correia what remedy there might be for an improperly stored boat or RV. Mr. John Correia said that being on the road is improperly stored. He said proper storage is if it is on private property, kept as best as it can be kept, not obstructing the public sidewalk and/or street and kept covered. Ms. Cheryl Owiesny: • Said that she has been married for 11 years to a man from Ohio. She was born in Los Altos. • Said that she and her husband were given a canoe as a wedding gift. • Identified her property as the one mentioned by another speaker this evening with the four trucks, etc. • Said that the important times for using their boats include Memorial weekend,. Labor Day weekend, July 4th holiday, the beginning of crab season, the beginning of salmon season, Fleet Week, to name a few. • Discounted the impacts of boat and RV storage on real estate values. • Reported that she has bought and sold two homes in the last couple of years. • Reminded that MLS listings include features such as available boat and RV storage and was an important factor in selecting her home here in Saratoga. • Said that boating is her family's hobby. • Said that with gas at $3 per gallon and storage typically a distance away, there are time and money impacts with off-site storage. • Said that there is no real difference between a covered car and a covered boat. She has no problem with it. • Advised that her boat is shorter than her neighbor's car. • Reminded that there is not enough open space available and it should not be wasted for the storage of boats and trailers. Mr. Glen Crow: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 11 • Said that he is a 22-year resident and is wearing blue tonight simply as a coincidence rather than to make any sort of statement. • Said that he has two neighbors with motor homes for the last four years or so. These families also have small children and he and other neighbors are concerned about visibility as it relates to child safety when driving in the immediate area of these motor homes when parked on the street although now they are on the driveway. • Reiterated that he worries about visibility. • Said that renters living down the street have someone living in a motor home on the property and that is not what motor homes are for. • Agreed that recreation is great. Mr. Paul Batista: • Stated that Hitler showed us a lesson. We don't want to be like him. • Added that since 9/11 lots of rights have been taken away. • Asked that they be allowed to have their recreational vehicles and fun with their own kids and grandchildren. Ms. Charlotte Wong: • Said that she does not have an RV or boat but has some thoughts on the subject. • Explained that the definition of nuisance is that you are unable to enjoy your property. • Said that many people have been heard. • Stated that parking an RV or boat on a property is okay and she has no objection. • Said that the purpose of government and law is to support the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and should not be too restrictive. • Described the book On Liberty as stating that liberty should not be restricted unless it causes harm or injury to other people. If not, leave them alone and let people govern themselves. • Opined that sometimes the harder you work on something like this Ordinance, the less you achieve. Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Charlotte Wong what her background is as she appears to be very knowledgeable on sociological issues. Ms. Charlotte Wong explained that she has her PhD in Sociology and her law degree. She is licensed in two states and with the federal courts. Ms. Chris Correia: • Said that two of Saratoga's largest groups, retired and young families are being impacted here. They are the ones that use these vehicles the most. • -Said that working families need down time. Her husband works hard for long hours each week. • Added that her family camps and fishes. • Pointed out that retirees saved for their recreational vehicles and they are not inexpensive. • Said that these regulations make enjoying an RV or boat more difficult and stressful. • Pointed out that it is expensive to live in Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 12 • Disagreed with the nuisance factor saying that a brand new boat or RV is less of a nuisance than any old beat up cars that leak oil or cats running around all over the place. • Said that this is delving into personal preference here. • Said that if it is an eyesore, that's one thing. If it is clean and not blocking the street, that's another thing. • Said that too much attention is being paid to a few complainers who will always find something to complain about. Mr. Jim Todd: • Advised that he has an RV. • Recounted that several years ago San Jose was writing a law about getting rid of recreational vehicles on the street and in yards. However, there are 6,000 RV's in San Jose and only 120 places that were rentable to place them. • Reiterated that there are not enough places available to store all the RV's and boats. • Added that going as far out as Los Banos is not very rational. • Asked if the City can answer the question of how many RV's there are in the City versus places to store them. • Said that he is retired and a $100 per month storage fee is important to him. • Stated that there must be available parking for RV's before they can be thrown out of front yards. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Jim Todd if he is questioning whether there are enough spaces off- site in Saratoga or in the general area. Mr. Jim Todd replied in the general area. He added that some of these storage facilities are not particularly attractive places. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Jim Todd if he has space on his property that is beyond the front setback. Mr. Jim Todd said that his side yard is eight-feet wide and his RV is eight-feet, six-inches wide. That is not an option for parking his RV. Commissioner Kundtz asked if a complaint has been lodged against Mr. Jim Todd about where his RV exists. Mr. Jim Todd informed that prior to buying his RV he sampled his neighbors who all said it was no problem. He moves it around on the street. One neighbor does not want it parked in front of his house. He said he likes to keep it at home so he can attend to maintenance. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Rodgers explained to the audience that the Commission is trying to work out details of the Ordinance that will then go to Council for adoption. The Commission will discuss the questions raised tonight. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 13 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Clarified several points raised by the public as follows: o While a vehicle can have an inoperable permit issued by DMV, any vehicles stored in the front setback must be operational and capable of being driven. o The types of trailers included in this Ordinance are all types with no exceptions. o Agreed that a definition of recreational vehicle needs to be developed. Both recreational vehicle and motor home is used in the current Code and he is not sure what the difference might be. o Said that staff can elaborate on what constitutes a front yard setback. o Said that screening must consist of solid fencing that blocks the item being screened from public view. o The issue of HOA rules versus City Code is that HOA's are completely independent and private. The Codes govern what the City enforces. Director John Livingstone said that Council would look at this Ordinance at is July 19tH meeting. They will also discuss the issue of people living in recreational vehicles on residential properties. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the issue of living in an RV is not part of the Zoning Code but rather is handled in another part of the Municipal Code. Commissioner Hlava: • Reported that a friend told her that Sunnyvale recently sent out a huge survey to its residents. One issue that came back as important to residents was the large number of RV's and boats. • Reminded that the Ordinance under discussion tonight is the same that has been in effect for over 30 years at least. The City is simply trying to make it easier to enforce. • Said that allowing 72 hours of parking on the street for an RV doesn't seem right. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that there is a complete restriction on the parking of commercial vehicles of a certain size on the public street, over 20-feet in length and over 8- feet in height. Whether an RV is considered to be a commercial vehicle would need to be determined. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that several canopies or tents are being used and asked if this is counted as screening and legal. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied that under the current Ordinance the screening has to be by means of a fence. However, the Commission could change that if it so wishes. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that it doesn't seem as if 14 days per year is adequate or quite enough. • Stated that allowing an RV on a property for a few days to load and/or unload has not been a problem. Neither has parking in either a side or rear yard. • Asked staff to define permanent storage. • Said she is not sure how hard this Ordinance might be to enforce but pointed out that it is also complaint driven. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 14 • Supported the issuance of a warning before imposing a fine. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that with the Code Enforcement process, the property owner is always contacted first, provided with regulations and given an opportunity to cure the problem. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she has listened to the comments. • Pointed out that the sides were more evenly split at the first hearing than tonight. • Reminded that Council would look at this issue on July 19tH • Said that enforcement will be uniform and this amendment is about clarifying what is already there. • Pointed out that the Commission spends a lot of time doing Design Review of homes. It is important that the visible impacts of boat and RV storage are minimized. • Said that there needs to be flexibility to implement this so that it is reasonable. • Reminded that beyond the front setback, storage is okay. If stored on a side yard, screening is required. She said that she would like to see this screening include trees and/or shrubs. • Outlined several options for storage from permanent placement on site as outlined or temporary placement to allow preparation of a boat and/or RV for use by an owner. • Listed issues to be discussed further including screening, a definition of recreational vehicles, describing the allowed time as 14 days versus two weeks, enforcement and placement of recycling and Goodwill type donations. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that recycling is outlined in the Garbage Ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal suggested defining an allowable vehicle size and enforcement and fine standards. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that this is a remarkable process. Twenty speakers have been heard tonight. • Advised that while he was not in attendance at the last meeting he did watch it. • Pointed out that not one person who spoke tonight has yet been fined. • Said that this update expands the number of allowable days from the current five and actually liberalizes the existing Code. • Stated that for some it might be cheaper to pay a fine than to go to Gilroy or Fremont to store a boat or RV. • Stated that at the end of the day only true behavior problems will be subject to enforcement. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer clarified his earlier response to indicate that only between 20 and 30 Code cases have gone to Court. Commissioner Kundtz asked how many fines have been imposed. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied that either zero or one for personal property storage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 15 Commissioner Hlava su ested that Cit Attorne Jonathan Wittwer ex lain to Council that a 99 Y Y P definition of what an RV is needs to be included. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this Commission has the opportunity to amend the draft Ordinance here tonight. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Commission could recommend changes to Council. Commissioner Hlava said that as far as the screening issue, any fence needs to meet the City's Fence Ordinance. However, she is also okay with using shrubs to screen. She suggested a maximum of 21 days per calendar year. Chair Rodgers asked if the issue is screening or completely hiding the item. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that the Commission instruct him to revise the language so that the item does not have to be completely screened or hidden from view. Chair Rodgers: • Stated her agreement with the comments made by the other Commissioners. • Said that people look to Saratoga for a gracious place to live without a lot of vehicles in the front yard that are visible from the street or in a side yard that is not screened from public view. • Stressed the importance to accommodate seniors. • Said that there are enough protections for both sides of this issue including both long-term and short-term storage. Owners need to look into off-premise storage for RV's and boats if they cannot be accommodated on their properties full time as required. • Reported that she did not see 800 homes with RV's and boats when she drove around Saratoga. • Said that a recommendation can be forwarded to Council that offers flexibility in implementation, setback requirements adequately addressed, allowance for evergreen screening as an alternative to fencing, provisions for a temporary permit and a definition of recreational vehicle as well as motor vehicle. • Expressed concern about the number of days allowed on the street. • Said that the enforcement recommendations seem reasonable and said that acomplaint- driven system is the only way it can be. If neighbors are fine,. there is no reason to enforce. Commissioner Hlava said that she does not want to see 10-foot fences. However, with asix- foot fence about four-feet of an RV would still be visible. Using evergreens for screening is a good idea, as they can grow tall enough to completely obscure the parked RV or boat. Commissioner Kundtz said that he is okay with asix-foot fence and has difficulty envisioning where greenery would come in. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 16 Commissioner Hlava said that if the storage occurs on the side yard landscaping could assist with screening. Commissioner Nagpal agrees that this gives another option and that she too is okay with a six-foot high fence. Chair Rodgers said that this represents four votes for screening. She said further discussion is needed on the definition of an RV and the total number of days allowed. Commissioner Kundtz suggested allowing on-site storage for a total of five percent of the year, which equals 18 days. He said he could support six consecutive days. Chair Rodgers said she supports a maximum of five consecutive days with a total of 18 days per year. Commissioner Nagpal asked how long anon-temporary permit is good for. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that it is a Use Permit that is ongoing. Commissioner Hlava asked if that would come to the Planning Commission. Director John Livingstone replied that it would indeed come to the Planning Commission for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Rodgers clarified that the Community Development Director has the authority to grant a temporary storage permit for 14 days. Commissioner Nagpal reminded of the issue of vehicle size. Chair Rodgers said that defining a recreational vehicle might well include size -but feels that details could be left up to the drafter. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that this could be a part of the definition. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Clarified that Section D will read that the Community Development Director is authorized to grant an extension up to 14 days unless there is a noticed process for more permanent storage. • Framed the motion for the Commission in which it is recommending that Council adopt a Resolution approving the third amended draft of the Storage of Personal Property and Materials Ordinance with the following modifications: o Section B will allow five consecutive days and 18 days per calendar year; o Section C will allow a screening fence or evergreen screening at least six-feet in height; o Section D authorizes the Community Development Director to grant a Temporary Storage Permit in excess of 18 days per year. o Language reading an additional two weeks becomes 14 days. o Include a definition of recreational vehicle. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 17 • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded b Commissioner Hlava Y the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that Council approve an update to Ordinance Section 15-12.160 of the Saratoga Code (Application #06-411) relating to Storage of Personal Property and Materials with modifications as outlined by the City Attorney above, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Cappello, Hunter and Zhao ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2 APPLICATION #06-311 (517-13-034) KANSKY, 16150 Cuvilly Way: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new single-family dwelling on a currently vacant tot. The dwelling will consist of approximately 6,077 square feet, including a garage approximately 762 square feet in size. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26-foot height limitation. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Sweta Bhatt) Planner Sweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new single family dwelling on a vacant lot. • Explained that this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Described the home as consisting of 6,077 square feet with a tower entrance and terraces at the front and rear. It is a single-story home that is five-and-a-half feet below the maximum allowed height. • Reported that no neighbor comments in opposition have been received although some neighbors requested tree screening specifically on the northwest and southeast property lines. The applicant has agreed to that request. • Said that 18 trees are proposed for removal. Two Oaks are in good condition and the Arborist is recommending replacement trees. • Said that the findings can be made. • Distributed the color board. • Said that this home is rustic and well articulated. It was thorough and well executed. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hlava asked if the addition of trees needs to become a part of the motion or are they already in the plan. Planner Sweta Bhatt said that they are already in the plan. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 18 ' ect Architect: Mr. Gar Kohlsat Pro y ~ J • Provided an updated color rendering. • Said that the design is fairly rustic looking. It is low key and has a country feel. No white trim is used but rather darker, more muted and blended colors are proposed that go well with the natural environment. • Said that they have met with the neighbors. Two neighbors requested extra tree screening. They have complied with that request and have shown their amended plans to those neighbors. -•- E-xplained that they are trying to plant these trees early in the process so they can begin to become established. The neighbors have agreed to water the young trees until the site is fully developed. • Said that this home consists of asingle-story. It is lower and not too visible from the street or from the neighbors' homes. • Assured that neighbor privacy was respected while this house still holds its own in this neighborhood of large homes. • Explained that a 3,000 square foot house would not look right in this neighborhood. • Reported that passive solar features would be incorporated and high quality materials used. They are exceeding State Code as it relates to energy efficiency. They have gone above and beyond design standards. • Stated that he is proud to present this proposal to the Planning Commission tonight. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is a wonderful street and it is nice to see a house being built on this lot. Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a great project and neighborhood. Chair Rodgers stressed the importance of following the Arborist's recommendations. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval (Application #06-311) to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling on property located at 16150 Cuvilly Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Cappello, Hunter and Zhao ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-359 (510-26-001) BYRD, 19930 Sunset Drive: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new single-family dwelling on a currently vacant lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 19 The dwelling will consist of approximately 5,574 square feet, in addition to an approximately 5,181 square foot basement and a 728 square foot detached second dwelling unit. The maximum height of the home will be 26 feet. The site is currently located in Santa Clara County within the City of Saratoga sphere of influence and in the Hillside Residential (HR) prezone. A request to initiate annexation of this approximately 86,153 gross square foot parcel to the City was approved by the Saratoga City Council on June 7, 2006. (Lata Vasudevan) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow a new residence. • Explained that this property is currently in County jurisdiction but is proposed for annexation into Saratoga. This Design Review Approval would be contingent on final annexation. • Said that the property is pre-zoned HR (Hillside Residential). On June 7th, Council adopted a Resolution initiating annexation of this property. The final hearing on annexation will occur in the future. • Described the architectural style as Santa Barbara. The basement is day lighted to the west. Code allows a basement to be a daylight basement to one side. • Reported that this applicant is seeking a 10 percent coverage bonus and will record a deed restriction for the detached second unit as a BMR (below market rate) unit. • Said that neighbor input has been received including several comment letters from the owner's to the south. Those letters were attached to the report. • Added that the Byrd's attorney has prepared an itemized response. • Said that copies of all letters have been provided as well as additional 11 x 17 drawings. • Said that to exceed grading beyond the 1,000 cubic yards allowed in the Hillside Residential zoning district, the Planning Commission would have to make findings to support it. Staff has drafted a condition requiring that 1,000 cubic yards or less be cut, excluding the basement excavation. • Said that an Arborist would monitor the trees on site during construction. One tree is proposed for removal and another for relocation. • Said that allowed fencing is limited in the Hillside district and that the existing chain link and barbed wire fencing on this property will be removed. • Said that the findings can be made that this home conforms to policies and is compatible with the neighborhood. Privacy impacts are minimized. • Said that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Stated that this home is replacing a previous residence that existed on the site but has since been demolished. • Reported that a Biologist's review has occurred and the determination was made that there would be no impacts to Wildcat Creek. • Recommended approval with the addition of a condition for a Storm Water Management Plan. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Bill Mastin, Project Architect: • Distributed a color rendering to the Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 20 • Thanked the Commission for its site visit. • Said that they have worked with Planning staff, the site and the neighbors. • Outlined neighbor concerns as conforming to construction hours and limiting construction parking on the roadway. • Said that substantial grading has been proposed around the garage to minimize the impacts of this garage on the Gibersons. • Said that the closest point between this new house and the Giberson house is 87 feet. • Said that the overall design took into consideration the trees and neighbor concerns. • Endorsed the staff recommendations as written including the requirement for a Storm -- - -Water Management Plan. -- - Chair Rodgers said that while it may be 87 feet to the Giberson house what is the distance to their yard. Mr. Bill Mastin replied 35 feet. Chair Rodgers asked about wood burning fireplaces. Mr. Bill Mastin said that they are both gas and wood burning. Chair Rodgers explained that City Ordinance would limit them to just one wood-burning fireplace. Mr. Bill Mastin said they would comply with that restriction. Mr. Alan Giberson: • Said that they have several concerns. • Said that there are 85 feet between the proposed house and his home. • Advised that he would be glad to be annexed into Saratoga. Ms. Meg Giberson: • Explained that they are the closest neighbors to the project while other neighbors are about 330 feet away. • Advised that they welcome the Byrds as neighbors. • Said that there is a 35-foot setback on her property, which is a side, yard and that meets Saratoga requirements. • Reported that there have been conflicting grading allowance numbers and that proposed export amounts are considerable, which will result in a lot of truck traffic. • Said that there is also an air impact. • Added that there are problems with runoff -that have not yet been addressed. • Suggested that project approval be withheld until the approval of a Storm Water Runoff Plan. • Said that the project results in privacy, solar and screening impacts. • Advised that she did. not find anywhere in the Saratoga Code where there is an exemption, for basement grading against the total grading allowed. • Said that approval should be withheld until the confusion over grading is resolved. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 21 • Listed concerns as grading, setbacks, runoff drainage and overflow that runs onto their property and will impact Wildcat Creek. • Asked for an added condition that would prohibit any night lighting of any sports court on this property. • Asked that trucks be forced to shut off their engines when on site. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to clarify the basement excavation issue. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that the UBC (Uniform Building Code) includes grading provisions that exclude counting basement excavation. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that a residence is exempt under CEQA. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said unless something has been determined to be an impact. A Biologist's Report was prepared and determined that there is no substantial impact on Wildcat Creek with this project. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Storm Water Management Plan would result in water being managed on site. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. That is a standard requirement. Chair Rodgers asked if the Gibersons might be concerned about water crossing over an easement area. Ms. Meg Giberson asked the City Attorney to provide the cite from the UBC that refers to an exemption of basement excavation. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that it is in the California Building Code, Chapter 33, Section 3306.2. The City has adopted that provision by reference. Ms. Meg Giberson said that this provision is after construction but this is only in the Design Review stage right now. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Meg Giberson to elaborate on the privacy issues. Ms. Meg Giberson said it relates to setback. Commissioner Kundtz asked if Ms. Giberson is objecting to proximity as opposed to visual impacts. Ms. Meg Giberson said. she would have less of a concern if the 60-foot setback standard were met. Commissioner Nagpal reported that the setback is 50 feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 22 Ms. Meg Giberson disagreed saying that this is a vacant lot so the required setback is 60 feet. Mr. Alan Giberson said that the 60-foot setback should be met as this is a 240-foot deep vacant lot. Rotating the garage would satisfy that. Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney for the Byrds: • Reiterated that the Biologist Report on the stream impacts verifies that there are no impacts. • Adde_ d that there is no other evidence to support anything that prevents this project -from being treated as Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Explained that runoff would be addressed. • Said that the existing road and driveway would be used to access the site. • Assured that this project would retain water on site. • Said that the issue of noise from trucks is not one that is covered under CEQA review but rather by a Noise Ordinance. • Corrected that this is not a vacant lot. Therefore, it comes under the guidelines that allow a 50-foot setback. • Said that the basement definition allows an exemption from grading. • Advised that the garage cannot be rotated due to the need to preserve a grove of Redwood trees. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Civil Engineer for Project: • Clarified that there is just one set of grading and drainage numbers for this project. • Stated that raising the house a few inches and reducing the grading of the back yard could reduce the project grading required. • Said that drainage is handled three ways. Roof runoff will be directed into a dissipater and discharged into the landscaping. There will be a bio swale. Additionally, a 200- foot long dissipater will lead into the bio swale and allow for percolation. • Pointed out that the previous residence on this property had no provision for storm water retention at all. This project will be much better than what existed previously. • Assured that they would be looking at the geotechnical report to address any concerns. • Reiterated that they are trying not to concentrate water but rather percolate on site. Mr. Lester Sachs: • Said that he owns a property across the street on Sunset. • Said that he has reviewed the plans and his primary concern was the possibility of a second access to this lot from Sunset. • Added that other concerns are primarily construction impacts such as the location of the temporary construction trailer, the location of the portable toilet and that trade parking be on site rather than on the street. Additionally, there is the question of street repairs after construction. • Stated that he would like to see the deed restriction on the second dwelling unit before it is recorded. • Said that he has lived in Saratoga for 40 years. _ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 23 • Advised that the Project Architect has offered to have the centerline of Sunset marked. • Explained that he has seen the plans and thinks this looks like a beautiful home. • Welcomed Mr. and Mrs. Byrd to the neighborhood. Mr. Doug Ralston: • Said he lives -next door to Mr. Sachs. • Said that this proposed home is not visible from his property. • Advised that the Byrds have accommodated neighbor requests. • Stated that he is okay with this project. Mr. Bill Mastin, Project Architect: • Explained that they have given their best effort in cooperating with the neighbors. • Said that letters of endorsement from five other neighbors have been provided. • Stressed that they have gone to great lengths to meet the Gibersons' concerns and met with them three times. • Said that they will mitigate any privacy concerns. • Stated that they look forward to approval and that he is available for any questions from the Commission. • Reported that Mr. Giberson verbally endorsed the suggested raising of the garage level by six inches a few minutes ago. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to clarify for the Commission the issue between a 50 and 60-foot setback. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Said that a 60-foot setback requirement is for vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992. • Stated that staff has made the determination that this is not a vacant lot but rather a developed lot with a demolished structure. The conclusion was that the 50-foot setback standard was appropriate here. Commissioner Kundtz said that this site shows respect for the Gibersons' sensibilities. The applicant has made a great effort to accommodate them. It is not reasonable to ask the Byrds to do more. He recommended approval. Chair Rodgers asked Commissioner Kundtz if he is okay with the 50-foot setback. Commissioner Kundtz replied that he was. Commissioner Nagpal concurred. She added that this is a sensitive and beautiful design. With the Storm Water Management Plan and the meeting of the maximum grading allowance, she can support this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 24 Commissioner Hlava said she has no problem making the required findings. She is okay with the grading and finds this proposed house to be beautiful. Chair Rodgers agreed with staff on the findings but cautioned that the grading limit of a maximum 1,000 cubic yards of cut must be met. Director John Livingstone suggested that since we don't have the grading plan tonight the motion should include a statement that the grading must be reduced by raising the garage area by an additional six inches and leave the rest of the grading plan to be worked out -between-the applicant and.staff___ _________.___ ___._._ __ Planner Lata Vasudevan clarified that not just the garage area but also the whole house would need to be raised by six inches. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that it is preferable to use the Resolution on Condition No. 2 to have the applicant work with the Director on the grading. Chair Rodgers asked about amending Finding F. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested adding the words "as conditioned" to the end of that finding. Chair Rodgers said that Condition 10 would be the required Storm Water Management • Plan and reminded that the chain link fencing removal is also important. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the issue of tree screening. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that three trees proposed are not evergreen and the neighbors prefer that evergreen trees be used. Chair Rodgers asked if the secondary access originally considered to Sunset has been removed from the plan. Mr. Bill Mastin, Project Architect, said that the parking spaces of concern to Mr. Sachs were on a previous submittal and has been removed. Chair Rodgers said that the setback appears to be sufficient. She said that this is a beautiful design that steps down the hill and is consistent with the Hillside District. Mr. Lester Sachs said that the parking on Sunset is still depicted but that Architect Bill Mastin has assured him that this parking along Sunset would be removed. Chair Rodgers suggested that Condition 11 be added to read that no perpendicular parking for this project would be included on Sunset. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 25 Approval (Application #04-359) to construct a new single-family dwelling on property located at 19930 Sunset Drive (currently in County jurisdiction but pending annexation into City of Saratoga), with the following changes: • Adding the text, "as conditioned," to the end of Finding F as well as to one of the Whereas clauses on the Resolution; • Adding Condition No. 11 to require the preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan; • Adding Condition No. 12 that removes any perpendicular parking along __ _ __ _ __ _ Sunset; __ _ • Increasing the height by six inches to reduce the site grading required; • Conditioning that the landscaping screening for the Gibersons be evergreen; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Cappello, Hunter and Zhao ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.4 APPLICATION #06-404 (517-09-043, 517-09-018, 517-09-044) Comerica Bank (tenant)/Hiekali (property owner) - 14410 Big Basin Way: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a financial institution (bank) with an ATM in an existing approximately 5,249 square foot vacant tenant space in the newly remodeled Corinthian Corners commercial complex. The bank will face Big Basin Way, abutting Starbucks Coffee Shop, with entrances from Big Basin Way as well as the side parking lot facing Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The net lot size is 16,180 square feet and the site is zoned CH-1. (Therese Schmidt) Chair Rodgers advised that the applicant has withdrawn this item. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #06-218 (503-81-005) GREEN, 13000 Paramount Court: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish atwo-story single-family residence and accessory structure and construct atwo-story residence with an attached two-car garage and carport. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 5,715 square feet including the attached garage and carport. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 feet. The net lot size is 36,873 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Therese Schmidt) Director John Livin stone resented the staff report as follows: 9 P Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 26 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing two-story single-family residence and the construction of a new two-story single- - family residence with two-car garage and carport. The new home would consist of 5,715 square feet and the maximum height would not exceed 26 feet. • Provided a color rendering to the Commission. • Recommended approval. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr.-Rich Hartman, _Project Architect, ARTECH: • Said that his client has lived on this property for four years now. • Said that the neighbor most. impacted is located to the south. Therefore, this new home would be only one-story on the southern portion. • Said that the setback from this house to the home to the south is 32 feet to the carport and 78 feet to the second-story wall. They stayed as far away from the southern property line as possible to protect that neighbor's privacy. Additionally there is an existing 20-foot wide landscape area in place to which additional landscaping would be added. • Reported that this is not a fenced in property. However, a good neighbor fence could be added in the future, if necessary, if additional privacy is desired by the neighbors to the south. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that one letter received mentions the addition of Redwood trees. Ms. Brandy Green, Applicant and Property Owner, said that when presenting their plans to neighbors they also went over screening and added some trees. They are not opposed to additional trees. Director John Livingstone suggested being clear by conditioning two 24-inch box Redwood trees. Mr. Ray Azzi: • Assured that he is the owner of neither an RV nor boat. • Said that he appreciates the efforts made by the Greens to preserve his privacy. • Said he appreciates the design of this house and is supportive of not installing fencing between the properties. He .prefers to maintain privacy purely through the use of landscaping. • Added that he prefers Redwoods and worked with the Greens on a final landscape plan. • Suggested that the installation of these trees be executed early, either prior to or early in the construction process. • Requested that construction vehicles not use his driveway for turnarounds as it causes damage. • Asked that if any dog run is proposed that it be located toward the other end of the property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 27 • Said he has nothing else to say. • Reiterated that the Greens have been very accommodating and he thanks them for that. Mr. Rich Hartman, Project Architect, pointed to the last page of the landscape plan and suggested an area where one or two Redwood trees could be added to fill in an existing gap. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Chair Rodgers asked how preventing the use of the neighbor's driveway to turn around could be enforced. Director John Livingstone suggested that the applicant would have to work with his contractor and subcontractors to avoid that action. Commissioner Kundtz asked about the timing to plant the new trees. Director John Livingstone suggested that this planting be required prior to issuance of building permits. There should be two 24-inch box Redwood trees installed at the southern property line. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval (Application #06-218) to allow the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single-family residence on property located at 13000 Paramount Court, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Cappello, Hunter and Zhao ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Distributed material on the issue of ex parte communications. • Explained that the Commissioners have the discretion to decide whether or not to meet individually with applicants or members of the public. • Stated that possible steps for the Commission could be to develop a specific policy to prohibit and/or to allow ex parte communications. • Advised that if a Commissioner does have ex parte communications on a matter under consideration by the Commission, that Commissioner should disclose the fact of that communication to the other Commissioners at the public hearing if it is part of the basis for - the Commissioner's vote. • Stated that it is better to try to limit such ex parte communication. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006 Page 28 • Suggested that the Commissioners look at this material, think about it and let him know what their individual thoughts are on the subject. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz and Zhao Absent: Commissioners Nagpal and Rodgers Staff: Director John Livingstone, Planner Sweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 28, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of June 28, 2006, were adopted with a correction to page 32. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Nagpal and Rodgers were absent and Commission Kundtz abstained) APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 12, 2006. Consideration of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 12, 2006, was continued to the next meeting at which a quorum of the Commission is in attendance eligible to vote on these minutes. Commissioners Cappello, Hunter and Zhao needed to abstain from participation, as they were absent from the July 12t" meeting leaving just two Commissioners available to vote and no quorum. 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 July 20, 2006. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 2 REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Acting Chair Cappello announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-419 - (517-09-043, 517-09-018, 517-09-044) Planet Juice (tenant)/Hiekali (Property Owner) -- 14410 Biq Basin Way: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a juice shop in an existing approximately 960 square foot vacant tenant space in the newly remodeled Corinthian Corners commercial complex. The juice shop will face Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and will be located between the existing Starbucks Coffee Shop and Breakaway Bicycle Shop. The site is zoned CH-1. Planner Sweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a restaurant in a commercial building known as Corinthian Corners. The building is located at the corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The tenant space is located between Starbucks and Breakaway Bicycle Shop. • Described the proposed restaurant as Planet Juice, which sells fruit and vegetable juices. A Use Permit is required to establish a restaurant. The restaurant will consist of a total of 14 seats, including both interior and exterior seating. • Reported that the correspondence received has been positive. One comment was received expressing concerns about traffic and circulation impacts. • Informed that the traffic report previously prepared for this site indicates that no substantial impact is anticipated. • Reminded that recent changes have resulted in there being no parking requirement for new uses in the Village. • Said that while the Use Permit will offer this business flexible operational hours, limitations for delivery hours are specifically outlined in the Conditions of Approval.. • Said that two illuminated wall signs will be used. Both of them are identical and are three feet by two feet in size. • Said that staff finds that this business will compliment the mix of uses in the area and recommends approval. Commissioner Kundtz asked Planner Sweta Bhatt why staff has deduced just a modest traffic impact with the addition of this juice shop especially that now there is real experience with the Starbucks at that location. He asked if it would be cost-prohibitive to do a new traffic study. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 3 Director John Livingstone said that it has been determined that this business would not cause significant impacts to the LOS (Levels of Service) of the intersection. Acting Chair Cappello opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Tarek ElJarrari, Applicant: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address them this evening. • Said he is married and the father of athree-year-old daughter. His wife is eight months pregnant with a second daughter. • Added that he works for San Mateo County in the Department of Mental Health. • Reported that as a graduate student he worked at Planet Juice, which was established in 1992. Planet Juice serves fresh smoothies, ice cream, fruit and veggie juices. • Added that what distinguishes Planet Juice from Jamba Juice is that it is small franchise with just nine stores that offers more variety and choice. • Advised that both he and his wife were instantly charmed by this site and location and that they are hoping that the charm of the Village will help their business succeed. • Stated he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Hlava asked if Mr. Tarek ElJarrari intended to state in his letter that deliveries would occur at 11 p.m. rather than 11 a.m. Mr. Tarek ElJarrari replied yes. Deliveries will occur after his business has closed. He added that he works with small and flexible vendors. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Tarek ElJarrari about his business's demographics and peak operational hours. He pointed out thatit~report offers peak hours as being between 9 and 11 a.m. and 2 and 4 p.m. ~ Mr. Tarek ElJarrari: • Said that his experience is with Planet Juice stores that he has managed. The demographics vary but their target is ages 18 to 40. They also get families and children. • Added that another Planet Juice at which he worked at was also situated next to a coffee shop. • Stated that he is reluctant to limit his demographics and added that employees for other nearby businesses are likely patrons as are others coming into the area to do business. • Said that there are various peak and seasonal business times. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that this location is situated about half way between Saratoga High School as is Jamba Juice. Therefore Planet Juice is also likely to have lots of students. Mr. Tarek ElJarrari said that at the Planet Juice locations at which he worked before there were no high schools nearby. He suggested that if traffic impacts occur with school traffic he could perhaps deliver to the school. If that traffic proves dangerous, he would be the first to want to do what he could.to avert those impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that for nine months of the year Jamba Juice is busy at lunch with students. Early morning is when Starbucks is busiest. She asked staff if no traffic study has been conducted since Starbucks opened at Corinthian Corners. Director John Livingstone replied correct, no new traffic study has been prepared. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Tarek ElJarrari that she is looking forward to his being active in the community. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Tarek ElJarrari if this would be the first Planet Juice he will own although he has managed other locations. Mr. Tarek ElJarrari replied yes. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Tarek ElJarrari if he plans to run the business himself. Mr. Tarek ElJarrari said that he plans to take a leave of absence from his full-time job to manage this new business for at least six months. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Tarek ElJarrari how he plans to attract,customers to his store. Mr. Tarek ElJarrari replied that the product itself would draw people. Also there will be word of mouth to help generate interest as well as the attraction of the Village itself. He said that he hopes his business will provide another reason for people to come to the Village. Acting Chair Cappello asked if the two proposed signs are identical. Mr. Tarek ElJarrari replied yes. They are identical signs that are made of wood. Acting Chair Cappello closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that although this is the same location for which she did not support a Subway Sandwich Shop, she does not feel the same objection to this use. • Added that one rationale to not support the Subway Sandwich Shop was the fact that there were already 21 or more businesses selling sandwiches in the Village, there were traffic impacts and other concerns. • Advised that she does not feel the same way with this application. This is smaller with less of a traffic impact. It will be a good asset to the Village. • Said that she talked with the owner of the Breakaway Bike Store and they have no problem with the proposed colorful sign. • Expressed her support for this Use Permit. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that this use is complimentary to what is there and is a reasonable use of this space. • Added that once there are retail spaces to be filled, new traffic is part of the dynamic when those spaces are occupied. It is part of living near a downtown. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 5 • Stated that she has no issue with traffic impacts. • Said that this is a complimentary use that she has no problem supporting. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he too did not support Subway for two reasons, the effects on existing businesses and traffic impacts. • Said that he also voted against Starbucks due to traffic concerns. • Advised that he is disappointed that no new traffic study was done and to be consistent he would have to vote against this. • Added that he wished it were proposed for Sixth Street instead of this site. • Said that he is sensitive about traffic from the high school. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that this is a unique shop for the Village offering healthy smoothies and juice. • Said she first was concerned but feels that most of the traffic is likely to be pedestrian. • Stated that this is a nice addition to the Village. Commissioner Hunter: • Advised that the Pet Parade was held this weekend with about 100 people participating. • Pointed out that a lot of traffic on Big Basin Way is going up into the mountains, as it is a gateway to Big Basin State Park and Henry Coe Park. People going through the Village is beyond just local people but rather it serves as a gateway for the whole area to use. • Added that the only shop in the Village currently selling smoothies is Tapioca Express. Acting Chair Cappello: • Announced for the record that he spoke with the applicant, Mr. Tarek ElJarrari, before he even submitted to the City. • Expressed support for this project, as it is a good fit in terms of space. • Pointed out that talking about revitalization includes traffic. • Said that there are no safety impact issues here, • Stated that this business lends itself to purchase and then walking through the area, an opportunity to mingle around the downtown area. Being located next to a coffee shop, this juice shop will offer a good healthy alternative to coffee. • Said he likes this project. • Advised that his concerns about the sign were addressed through the use of painted wood. • Stated that we have a great applicant here with a willingness to be a part of the community. Commissioner Hlava asked if sign approval was part of this application. Planner Sweta Bhatt said that the signs are part of Exhibit A. Motion: .Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (Application #06-419) to allow the establishment of a juice shop (Planet Juice) within a 960 square foot tenant space in the Corinthian Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 6 Corners commercial complex located at 14410 Big Basin Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter and Zhao NOES: Kundtz ABSENT: Nagpal and Rodgers ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2 Zoning Text Amendment: The City of Saratoga Community Development Department is proposing text changes in the Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations Chapter of the City Code. The purpose of the text changes is to improve clarity and maintain consistency among the various sections in Chapter 15 and provide consistent use of terms as used in other Chapters of the City Code. Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff maintains a copy of the Zoning Code at the front counter, in which they have been making minor corrections as problems are discovered. This includes typographical and other errors as well as inconsistencies. • Pointed out an example whereby the term formerly used was "yards" that is now known as "setbacks." Part of the update included removing and replacing old terms with currently used ones. • Added that some fixes to the Zoning Code also affect other sections of Code, which must also be corrected for consistency. • Informed that there are no substantial changes but that the update will help make the Zoning Code easier to understand. • Advised that the City Attorney has one more correction to add to the update. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that Section 15-90.080 regarding the time to file for judicial review currently reads 120 days to serve summons. By State Law, that limitation is 90 days. Director John Livingstone: • Said that this is a last minute addition to the Update of the Zoning Code. • Explained that this update process begins with the Planning Commission with a noticed public hearing. Another public hearing notice will be published for another hearing and review by Council before final adoption of the Update to the Zoning Code. • Described the options available to the Commission. They can review, accept or deny, and/or forward recommendations to Council. Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed concern over the amount of material to be reviewed here. Said that she has never before in her six years on the Commission been asked to consider amending 119 pages. • Said she does not understand why this Update was not broken up. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 7 • Said that while she understands that staff is saying that these are small changes, she does not feel experienced enough to vote on all of it at once. • Stated that she gets the sense that as modified, the Zoning Code will make 30-foot house heights more acceptable. • Advised that there are things here to be concerned about while other things are simple. • Asked why so much material is being crossed out. Director John Livingstone: • Said that the material can be gone through page by page if that is the desire of the Commission. • Explained that a couple of years back the height section was amended to allow 30-foot height in order to meet architectural style. That change was never put into the actual document. Until that occurs, someone could come in with a 40-foot height request. This 30-foot is a clarification. Acting Chair Cappello: • Clarified that some items have been in the Code for some time but staff is simply putting the required language into the Code to avoid misinterpretation. • Added that the amendment on heights makes it clear that 26 foot is the standard with an exception available up to 30 feet if it meets specific criteria. • Reiterated that this is simply clarification and putting language to clarify Code, as it now exists. There is no new Code here. Director John Livingstone replied correct. ' Commissioner Hunter said that she does not agree. Someone could come in and request 32- foot height. She expressed regret that she inadvertently left her notes on this Zoning Code Update at home. Director John Livingstone: • Advised that the Section being removed outright is on Water Efficiency. • Recounted that in his six years with Saratoga, he has never asked someone to prepare. that. • Added that everyone now has drip irrigation systems. Irrigation is now much better and there are common Conditions of Approval imposed now that relate to water efficiency as well as a Water Permit requirement. • Reiterated that this Water Efficiency Section has never been implemented. Commissioner Hunter reiterated that she has never seen so much change at once and that she is overwhelmed with the amount of pages here to update. Director John Livingstone apologized to Commissioner Hunter but explained that when such a Zoning Code update is done piecemeal all the impacted Sections are not caught. One word change can impact several Sections and Chapters of the Municipal Code. This is a minor but important clean up process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 8 Acting Chair Cappello opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Meg Giberson: • Explained that she lives in Saratoga's Sphere of Influence. • Said that she agrees with Commissioner Hunter's concerns about the amount of material here. • Saluted staff for their work on the update, as it is important to codify what is practiced into the Code. For example, it will be nice to see basement grading written into the Code. • Said that where items are corrected, she thinks that is great. However, where they are deleted outright she would like to see some analysis especially Page B37, Section 15- 13.080(b) that deals with setbacks for vacant lots. • Suggested that the Commission continue its discussion this evening and then make a decision at the next meeting to allow more review and public participation. That would allow staff time to provide what information and/or process it used to recommend changes. • Reiterated her suggestion to discuss tonight and continue to the next meeting. Acting Chair Cappello closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Acting Chair Cappello asked for suggestions on how to approach this material, as there is a lot included. He said that going Section by Section is one option but he suggested that they start off with Commissioners raising any questions they may have. Commissioner Hlava: • Pointed to Section 14-10.110 Frontage (Page B-3). • Said that the shorter lot line will not always work and that the front of a house is generally where the address is. • Added that frontage needs to go from the historic address of a property. Director John Livingstone: • Said that planners deal with setbacks to determine what is the front, side and rear setbacks. This Section addresses determining the building envelope only. • Advised that the front door can actually be wherever the owner wants. • Added that the address is assigned by the Building Official and does not always correlate with where the front door is located. • Said that an address can be changed sometimes but not always. • Said that setbacks is a land use decision and one Section leaves it to the Community Development Director for final decision. This issue constantly comes up. • Pointed out that using the shorter part of a lot as the front gives a larger building envelope. Commissioner Hlava clarified with Director John Livingstone that this is just to be able to establish setbacks. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 9 Director John Livingstone said that setbacks and building envelopes are not required to include the front door on the street used in the site's address, Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some homes have the front door on the side and asked Director John Livingstone how that relates to this. Director John Livingstone replied that this is a Design Review topic. However, having the front door at the front of a property offers a safety feature. Again, the modification to Section 14-10.110 Frontage does not have any impact on the location of the front door. Acting Chair Cappello clarified that this is the practice of today and not new ideology. It is based upon interpretations over time and is being added into the Code to maintain consistency. The point is to put this information into writing to clarify. it and ,make it more user-friendly. He asked staff to point out any new areas as they come up. Director John Livingstone restated that there is nothing new just clarifications. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that for Code Enforcement purposes a more definitive Code is needed. Commissioner Zhao raised the issue of Section 15-06.290 that appears to offer another definition of frontage to that in Section 14-10.110. She questioned whether the definition should be the same in both Sections. Director John Livingstone replied no. They must be customized slightly. Commissioner Zhao asked staff to explain the difference between Community Development Director and Advisory Agency. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that the Advisory Agency is the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hlava raised the issue of Section 14-10.300(b) Structure, asking why not define as "not a dwelling unit." Director John Livingstone explained that the key to a secondary dwelling unit is a kitchen. Accessory structures can have a bedroom in it without a kitchen. This is an attempt to clarify including the differences in allowable height. An accessory structure has a lower height allowance than a secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Hunter said that she understands the maximum height for accessory structures as being 15 feet. She asked what the height limitation is for a secondary dwelling unit. Director John Livingstone replied the same as a house or 26 feet. Again, a secondary dwelling unit is not an accessory structure. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 10 Commissioner Hunter: • Said that secondary dwelling units have not been coming in at the same height as houses. • Suggested that this amendment might actually encourage higher heights for secondary dwelling units if they are called out in the Code. • Asked if secondary dwelling units that are deed restricted, as affordable units could be as large as 1,200 square feet. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Hunter said that they could have what are essentially two houses on the property since many people live in a house not much larger than 1,200 square feet. Director John Livingstone said yes. Commissioner Hlava pointed out two Sections on pages B-15 and B-22. One is 15- 06.255 Equestrian Zone and the other is 15-10.030 Equestrian Map. Both are proposed for removal. She suggested that the Code ought to identify the area of the City that is an Equestrian Overlay District. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer agreed and suggested that this be added to the appendix. Commissioner Hlava brought up page B-16 and Section 15-06.370 Impervious Surface. Director John Livingstone said that this Section was ahead of its time and dealt with aesthetics. The City did not want the entire front yard in cement for aesthetic as well as drainage reasons. Today the idea is to keep all water on site. Today there is water permitting with Santa Clara County. Additionally, there are incredible products that look like concrete but are still pervious. Commissioner Hunter said that this allows use of less dirt and more use of pervious products. Director. John Hunter said that the modification to the Code is dealing solely with aesthetics and taking out the issue of permeability. Commissioner Hunter asked if the same amount of square footage of impervious surface is allowed. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Acting Chair Cappello said that this prevents the applicant from taking a large driveway and using paving stones and pervious concrete. It prevents use of the Code as a loophole. Commissioner Hlava asked about page B-37 Section 15-13.090(b) as it relates to vacant lots. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 11 Director John Livingstone: • Said that this as it is in the Code now vacant lots had different setbacks. Neighborhoods in a completely developed area with just one or two vacant lots would require greater setbacks for a new home than all the existing neighbors and result in the need to ask for a Variance. • Added that upon research conducted by one applicant's attorney, it was discovered that this Section (b) was never formally approved and adopted. Acting Chair Cappello asked if there are separate setbacks for vacant lots now. Director John Livingstone replied yes, in Hillside Residential Zoning. He clarified that Section 15-13.090(b) is currently included in the Code but was not in the Ordinance that adopted that Code (Ordinance 71.113S.2) Commissioner Kundtz asked staff to clarify the deletion of the concept of gross floor area. Director John Livingstone said that most floor area rations/impervious surface ratios are based on net. To keep things from getting confused, they are taking gross out altogether. Commissioner Hunter asked for further explanation of the completely removed section. Director John Livingstone said that Article 15-47 Water Efficient Landscapes is being removed because there are more current standards and practices being used. This includes Conditions for use of native species and prohibition of the use of pesticides. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a lot of material being removed. Important stuff is being deleted. Commissioner Zhao asked if the actions of the Planning Commission taken at the last meeting have been incorporated in Section 15-12.160 Storage of Personal Property and Materials. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the action -taken by the Commission is going before Council for second reading next week. Director John Livingstone added that this .update will be reflected but is on a separate path. When it is codified, it will be changed here too. Commissioner Hunter said that she does not understand if all that is here will be taken together in one motion. She questioned how it is possible to change 100 pages of regulations with one motion. Director John Livingstone replied that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt all of the Zoning Code Update with one motion including adding the Equestrian Overlay and changing the 120 days to 90 days. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 12 Commissioner Hunter said that she would not support this amendment, as it is too much. She added that ambiguity is sometimes helpful. Commissioner Hlava: • Agreed that there is a lot here but it appears to be cleaning up the Code. • Said that she does not have the same problem as Commission Hunter with this update. • Stated that she does not agree with the statement made that ambiguity is a good thing. Commissioner Kundtz said that he is sensitive to Commissioner Hunter's position on this. If time permitted, he would like to see this amount of material talked through more in the future to avoid having something of this volume to be voted upon at once. However, he will support passing this Update to the Zoning Code as amended. Commissioner Zhao said that staff had explained to her satisfaction that this is mostly clarification and not major changes in Code. She is willing to pass it tonight. Acting Chair Cappello agreed, saying he had looked carefully to find changes to Code and didn't. He encouraged Commissioners to contact staff early in the process if they have problems with items before the Commission. Commissioner Hunter advised that she had called staff.. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that Council adopt the proposed text changes to Chapter 15 -Zoning Regulations - of the City Code, with the inclusion of language outlining the Equestrian Overlay and editing Section 15-90.080 to read 90 days instead of 120 to be consistent with State Law, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz and Zhao NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Nagpal, Rodgers ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone assured the Commission that their concern about dealing with a large amount of material has been noted and in the future Study Sessions will be scheduled for items of this magnitude. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter: • Advised that she has participated on the Village Regulations Committee. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for July 26, 2006 Page 13 t • Said that news racks are out of control in the Village and there are areas with a concentration of the racks. • Stated that this Committee is considering design standards. Acting Chair Cappello asked if there is a permitting process for news racks. Commissioner Hunter said that this issue has to be clarified but since 1956 people have been putting these racks out. COMMUNICATIONS-- - ~ - - - - --- - --- -- There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Acting Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • C7 • Item 1 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No/Location: 06-276 -15397 Peach Hill Road Type of Application: Design Review Owner: Mehdi and Azar Amini Staff Planner: Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP, Contract Planner Meeting Date: August 9, 2006 ~'N~ 517-22-100 Department Head: , ~ John Livingstone, AICP 15397 PEACH HILL ROAD Application No. 06-276;15397 Peach Hill Road Page 2 of 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 02/22/06 Application complete: 06/06/06 Notice published: 07/26/06 Mailing completed: 07/24/06 Posting completed: 08/03/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a 122 square foot addition to an existing two-story, single-family residence, which has an existing basement and attached garage. In addition, the project includes extensive remodeling of the exterior and interior of the existing residence that will result in a different architectural style. The total floor area of the proposed residence is approximately 5,595 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 53,162.50 square feet and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning designation. Consideration of this application was continued from the hearing on June 28, 2008 to allow the applicant to work with staff to revise elevations to address issues related to bulk and mass. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review by adopting the attached Resolution with required findings. • Application No. 06-276;15397 Peach Hill Road Page 3 of 8 ., .~ STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Residential Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 53,162.50 gross and net square feet SLOPE: 22 % average site slope GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single-family residence remodel and addition is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include exterior stucco walls and column bases painted in "Oatmeal' color with moldings, trims and columns and railings painted beige. A colors and materials board is available on file_with the Community Development Deparhnent and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. • Application No. 06-276;15397 Peach Hill Road Page 4 of 8 PROJECT DAT A: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 32% Maximum Allowable 35% (Impervious) Residence 2,654.0 sq. ft. Porch 484.0 sq. ft. Walkways 1,911.0 sq. ft. Driveway 10,026.0 sq. ft. Garage 1,938.0 sq. ft. TOTAL 17,013.0 sq. ft. 18,606.87 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 2,642.0 sq. ft. Garage ~ 2,051.0 sq. ft. Basement 532.0 sq. ft. Secondary Unit .370.0 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,595.0 sq. ft. 5,610.0 sq. ft. Setbacks• Minimum Requirement Main Residence Front 105.0 ft. 30 ft. Rear (15L floor) 62.0 ft. 50 ft. Rear (2°d Floor) 93.0 ft. 60 ft. Right Side (15` floor) 55.0 ft. 20 ft. Right Side (2°a floor) 63.0 ft. 25 ft. Left Side (151 floor) 26.0 ft. 20 ft. Left Side (2°d floor) 26.9 ft. 25 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence Lowest elevation pt. 124.36 ft. Highest elevation pt. 133.06 ft. Average 128.71 ft. At the topmost point of the structure 154.71 ft Maximum height 26.0 ft. 26 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The site is akidney-shaped parcel that contains an existing two-story residence. It is accessed by a private road off Peach Hill Road, which encircles the property along the southern edge of the property. The private road provides vehicular access to three other parcels. The lot size is approximately 53,162.50 net square feet and the site is zoned R-1- 40,000. The site slopes to the north and east with an average site slope of 22%. Application 1Vo. 06-276;15397 Peach Hill Road Page 5 of 8 The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a net 122 square foot addition to an existing two-story, single-family residence that contains a basement and attached garage. Only a minor change in footprint is proposed in the south west corner of the existing residence and in the east side of the upper level with a net gain of 122 square foot of floor area. The applicant is also proposing to extensively remodel the interior and exterior of the building, which will result in a complete change in architectural style of the existing structure. The only area to remain in its original location and design is the central living area in the lower level of the home. The remodeling may result in the demolition of over 50% of existing walls, which is considered a new home and requires approval by the Planning Commission. Historic Evaluation The original residence is approximately 70 years old and the architecture was originally reflective of the late Arts & Crafts design in its simple shape, gables and use of natural materials. However, the original shingles have been replaced and the wood frame windows have been retrofitted with aluminum sash frames. Most of the interior has been renovated and, except for the central living room, it is no longer consistent with the Arts & Crafts design. Because of its age and the proposed extensive remodeling of the exterior of the home, a historic and architectural evaluation was prepared by Frank Maggi, Archives & Architecture (November 8, 2005). Mr. Maggi concluded that the property history confirms that the house is not associated with persons significant to our past, and that the existing house is no longer reflective of the Arts & Craft design. The Heritage Preservation Commission visited the site, considered and approved the historic evaluation report on May 9, 2006. Design/Architecture The proposed residence incorporates elements of Greek and Classical Revival style of architecture. A new front porch is being added with tall columns and a faux balcony with balustrades above the new front door. The covered porch area along the lower level of the east elevation is being replaced with covered porch with columns that extend from the first to the second level of the home and around to the front of the home. In the center portion of the east elevation, a new second story covered porch with short columns and balustrades is proposed. The proposed rear elevation includes three new sliding doors and balconies. There is an existing rear wood deck that appears to have been constructed and/or added on to over the years without ,proper footings. The height of the deck is such that it does not allow proper access to the basement-level garage. It is also being replaced in the same style and materials as the home, and balustrades are proposed around its perimeter. The new deck will be constructed to Code and will allow full access and use of the existing garage. On June 28, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the application, and after extensive discussion, continued the item to allow the applicant to work with staff to address design issues related to bulk and mass. More specifically, the Planning Commission asked staff to look at reducing the thickness of the fascia and columns and other design elements to help reduce the sense of bulk. Another issue of concern was the mixing of architectural elements, Application No. 06-276;15397 Peach Hill Road Page6of8 which contributed to the sense of mass. The applicant met with staff on several occasions to work on addressing these issues, and has revised the project elevations as follows: the columns are narrower and now have a base and volutes in the Ionic style; windows are now all rectangular, multi-paned with decorative crowns and the cornice is narrower with corbels (detailing) beneath. The color scheme of the house has also been revised to a richer color (previously shown as White) with beige moldings, trims and colors. The front entry cover is extended beyond the edge of the porch and a balcony has been added to over the entry door. These are elements that are found in Greek Revival homes. In addition to the revised elevations, the applicant has provided photo simulations of the proposed elevations, which give a better sense of depth and how the building walls are recessed from the edge of the porch and columns. Staff feels that in the revised elevations the applicant has addressed the concerns raised in the original report. Trees The site contains a significant number of trees. However, the addition and remodel are contained within an area that is already developed and no trees will be impacted by the project. Therefore, an arborist report was not required for this project. If approved, the project conditions will require that all construction activities be limited to existing area of development and that protective fencing be installed to the satisfaction of the city arborist to protect all existing ordinance size and native trees. Compatibility with adjacent homes The project site is located in a residential area that consists of a mix of two-and one-story homes on generally one-acre lots. The architectural styles vary, including French eclectic, Craftsman, Contemporary, Modern and Mediterranean. The subject home is visible from the immediate homes to the north and east of the property. The homes immediately to the west and south are screened by significant mature vegetation and thus the subject site is not readily visible from these properties. Interference with views and privacy issues The first and second story setbacks meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by City Code. Because of the significant existing mature vegetation on the -west, north and south side of the property and on the adjacent properties, there are no privacy concerns for properties facing these sides of the home. The north facing second-story elevation is set back approximately 93 ft. from the rear property line with an existing wood deck that extends approximately 50 feet towards the rear of the site. The property to the north (rear) of the site is at a much lower grade than the subject home; therefore, the second-story portion of the home is generally outside the line of site of the adjacent home. In addition, there is significant vegetation surrounding the subject property. Therefore, there are no concerns about privacy and interference with view for this property in reference to north side of the property. Staff originally raised potential privacy issues regarding the east facing elevation. However, based on closer review of the project and input from the adjacent property, staff has determined that the area in question will not impact the privacy of the adjacent home. Application No. 06-276;15397 Peach Hill Road Page 7 of 8 Currently the east facing elevation does not contain a second story balcony, only a covered porch/deck in the first floor, along the length of this elevation. The proposed remodeling and addition includes a new second-story balcony in the center portion of the east elevation, which is adjacent to an interior hall corridor. The purpose of this hall comdor is to connect the two upper levels of the home, which currently are separated and accessed by two separate stairways. In addition, this elevation faces the existing garage of the adjacent home and the setback is over 75 ft. from the building. In addition, there is significant vegetation along the perimeter of the site that helps minimize views from the adjacent site. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification forms to adjacent property owners. No comments in opposition of the project had been received as of the writing of this report. Testimony was also presented by the adjacent neighbors at the first public hearing in support of the proposed addition and exterior remodel of the home. Geotechnical Clearance The application as proposed does not currently require geotechnical review. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The house is located and designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties to the north, south and west. This includes setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by City Code and its surrounding mature vegetation. New windows and balconies are proposed on the second stories that will not interfere with privacy of adjacent homes. In addition, the setbacks on these sides meet or significantly exceed the minimum required setback and are screened by significant mature landscaping. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The site contains numerous native trees. The proposed remodeling and addition are limited to the existing developed portion of the site and no changes or impact to the existing vegetation are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is proposing to retain all ordinance-size trees and other existing vegetation on the site. The remodeling and construction activities are limited to areas of existing development, which would not impact existing native and heritage trees. If approved, the project conditions will require that all construction activities be limited to the existing area of development and protective fencing be installed to the satisfaction of the city arborist for all existing ordinance size trees. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. Application No. 06-276;15397 Peach Hill Road Page8of8 (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed architectural style and proposed colors and materials, as revised, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The elements of Greek Revival architecture have been incorporated throughout the elevation and reduce the sense of bulk. The walls are set back from the edge of the porch and include detailing and windows that are reflective of the Greek Revival architecture and add interest and articulation to the building. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height The proposed residence will be located in an area, which contains a mix of older and newer two-story homes on primarily one acre and larger lots. The remodeling of the two-story residence has been designed, as described in (d) above, in a manner that minimizes the appearance of excessive height and bulk in relation to other homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (fl Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (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 avoidance of unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. Conclusion Staff concludes that all of the Design Review findings can be supported. STAFF itL' COMiV1ENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTAC~NTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification forms. 3. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 4. Planning Commission Minutes -June 28, 2006 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" 6. Photo simulations • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.06-0 Application No. 06-276 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Amini;15397 Peach Hill Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct an addition, which also include interior/exterior remodeling of an existing two-story, single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is approximately 5,595 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were- given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and • WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home; 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 have been made in the affirmative: The proposed project is not consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code 15-45.080: The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The house is located and designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties to the north, south and west. This includes setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by City Code and its surrounding mature vegetation. New windows and balconies are proposed on the second stories that will not interfere with privacy of adjacent homes. In addition, the setbacks on these sides meet or significantly exceed the minimum required setback and are screened by significant mature landscaping. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The site contains numerous native trees. The proposed remodeling and addition are limited to the existing developed portion of the site and no changes or impact to the existing vegetation are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is proposing to retain all ordinance-size trees and other existing vegetation on the site. The remodeling and construction activities are limited to areas of existing development, which would not impact existing native and heritage trees. If approved, the project conditions will require that all construction activities be limited to the existing area of development and protective fencing be installed to the satisfaction of the city arborist for all existing ordinance size trees. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed architectural style and proposed colors and materials, as revised, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The elements of Greek Revival architecture have been incorporated throughout the elevation and reduce the sense of bulk. The walls are set back from the edge of the porch and include detailing and windows that are reflective of the Greek Revival architecture and add interest and articulation to the building. Therefore, this. finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence will be located in an area, which contains a mix of older and newer two-story homes on primarily one acre .and larger lots. The remodeling of the two-story residence has been designed, as described in (d) above, in a manner that minimizes the appearance of excessive height and bulk in relation to other homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. 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 avoidance of unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other- exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 06-276 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped August 1, 2006) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, -including but not limited to facade design and materials - to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report (see item 11 below), as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace per residential structure may be installed. All other fireplaces shall be gas-fired fireplaces with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. • 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 6. The owner/applicant is responsible for all damages to curb, gutter and public street caused during the project construction by project construction vehicles at the public right away areas at/near the property frontage. Public Works Inspector will determine if any repair is required prior to Final Occupancy Approval. 7. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of--way including construction and curb, gutter and street repair. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped areas especially along any hardscaped area. 9. Proper maintenance of landscaping with minimal pesticide use shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 10. 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 prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted. CITY ARBORIST 11. All construction activities shall be limited to existing area of development in accordance with approved Exhibit "A". A fee shall be submitted for City Arborist review to determine locations of protective tree fencing and to determine appropriate tree bond amount to ensure that protected trees on the property are maintained in a healthy manner. Any applicable tree bonds and the results and recommendations of the arborist review shall be incorporated on the building plans for the project prior to obtaining building 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 in the amount of as determine appropriate by the City Arborist to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 13. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and the payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE DISTRICT 14. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 15. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction shall commence 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. C PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 9`h day of August 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John 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 Neighbor Address: • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: '~ ~ ~ _ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS:_ X53 ~ ~ ~/~,~ . z ~ ~~. . Applicant Name:_ _ N~ ~ ~ .i ~ 1? Z C~ C wt i .-t ~ ~•~~--.ems Application Number: Sta, f,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any. concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is ~ -~ representative of all residents. residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~1VIy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the.project plans;. T t,nderctand the c nz a of work; and I do N03' have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. pMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I»nderctand the c nz P of ~arsu=k; 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: (~..~it C?i„e{~ ~.- ~~+z~li-~v~ i Neighbor Phone Number: Y a~ ~~6 7. D~ `/~ Signature: Printed: ~O' i'h b Y1 Gz ,~. P i'L a ~ ~.S .__ 'J '~ i -4 CIl Y Ui~ :,::r. . "'"MUNITY DEVEL~ }~~ • City of Sarato a g Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: l 5 3 /~e'c~~ 1.t . ~ , ~~ Applicant Name:_I"~~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ 2-e~ r ~ ~ ,r ~ ~ t~ _ ;~` . Application Number: ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ Sta, f~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any.concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. pMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the.project plans;. I,mrleTCtand th ~~nne ~f work; and I do N03' have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the.applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. pMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; T ~~ndPrstanc~ th can»P of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concems are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ' ~~ Neighbor Address: ____-~~~~--~1~--~~------ ---__ ------= Neighbor Phone Number: ~va '-' ~~~' ~ ~~ Signature: Printed: ~ .lu.~ii~ /~ ,~~~~~1 T u ~(~~0 ~~ MAR 2 1 ~. X106 CITY OF SARgTOGA ~~ "MUNITY DEVELOnnr~. ~~fL • ~.. City of Saratoga Neighbox Notification Form Date:_3 -- r 9 ~ ~ 6 PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ,5 cz z ~~` I~ .. . Applicant Name: ~~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ /' Application Number: ~~^ Sta, j"and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any.-concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is ' representative of all residents residing on your properly Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual'public review and appeal periodr. ~ . ~lMy signature below certifies the following. I have reviewed the.project plans;. 7 tmderctand tl~e c~nYnP of . w~rl~ and I do NOT Lave any concerns or issues whicL need to be address by the applicant prior to • • • the City's public hearing on the proposed project. • - pMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; T ,m[~erctantl the ••.•~ .,f w~rl~ and I Lave issues or concerns, wLicL after discussion witL tLe applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the fallowing (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ' Neighbor Name: ~~ L ~~!~/ ~ ~~ N Ne~~~ ~ddres ~ ~ ~s~ . Neighbor Phone Number. __ ~~ ~ ~b~ oZ . ~ ~~~D .. N/ i ture• Printed: ~ Ak 2 ,j 20 ciTyo ~~ '~~riN/Ty~~~9TOGA nn~,._. • Ci of Sar ty atoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ ° ~ ~ - ~? .~ PROJECT ADDRESS: l 53 9~ e~ l~ (~~ Applicant Name: ' ~~- Z~~ tM ~ ~~ `~ Application Number: ' 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. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the.right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual~public review and appeal periods. ~~ ~VIy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the.project plans;. Lunderc and thr cc~ ~f ~acm:k; 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. _ ~ ~ ~ ~. pMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; Lunderciantl the cenn of wnr'k~ 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: ~~~ i L. ~~- C.-~ ~ /~`~t t f.r1 3--, ~ ~ t.-E Neighbor Address: ~ 5t.~ j ~ ~ ~--,~C~ ~{ ~ LZ ~~Ac-~ ~ i S?-~ G-A Neighbor Phone Number: `7 d ~ S iC 7 - (G (~ j `7 Si ~ Printed: . l ~.~~~~ . MqR 2 1 Zp~6 i C/T y~F ~~°IINITy~FkATp~A.. • Attachment 3 • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,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 Tuly , 2006, that I deposited 26 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: APN: 517-22-100 -15397 Peach Hill; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~' ~.~ enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services 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 9th day of August, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission continued this item on June 28, 2006 to allow the applicant to return with revisions. 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.. PROJECT LOCATION: 15397 PEACH HILL APN: 517-22-100; AMINI, property owner APPLICATION:.#06-276 The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel atwo-story, single-family residence, which may result in the demolition of over 50% of existing walls, and to construct an addition to the first and second story of the existing home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 5,595 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 53,162.5 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 Monday, July 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. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP Contract Planner 408-868-1232 July 22, 2006 500 Ownership Listing Prepared for: 517-22-100 M & A AMINI-RAD 15397 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 517-22-020 517-22-021 517-22-024 JAMES S & PATRICIA RYLEY YI-JANG ROAN RAYMOND A & LEE MARTINO OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 11 MARTINGALE CT 15401 MADRONE HILL RD 15461 MADRONE HILL RD EAST SETAUKET NY 11733-1119 SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 517-22-040 517-22-041 517-22-055 G & MARILYN SMITH GARY E & LANAYA DIX HORINE FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15472 MADRONE HILL RD 15404 MADRONE HILL RD 15250 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 SARATOGA CA 95070-6448 517-22-060 517-22-068 517-22-070 HERBERT C & HELEN BERQUIST CHARLES J & ROMONA BROOKS SARITA K JOHNSON OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 40 MADRONE HILL RD 15355 PEACH HILL RD 15277 PEACH HILL RD ATOGA CA 95070-6403 SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 SARATOGA CA 95070-6469 517-22-073 517-22-074 517-22-071 517-22-072 TONY MASSIE DARRELL E & ANGELIN DUKES BIRK S MC LANDLESS OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 3945 FREEDOM CIR 1000 15301 PEACH HILL RD 15329 PEACH HILL RD SANTA CLARA CA 95054-1274 SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 517-22-078 517-22-079 517-22-083 JOHN & CAROL GIANNANDREA FREDERICK S & SHARON ANDRES WM & SARAH WALKER OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15363 PEACH HILL RD 15255 PEACH HILL RD 15315 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 SARATOGA CA 95070-6469 SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 517-22-084 517-22-087 517-22-088 ROBERT M & JULIE RINEHART ROBERT L & PATRICIA DALE WILLIAM J & BARBARA ELFVING OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15230 MADRONE HILL RD 15419 PEACH HILL RD 15451 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 517-22-091 KATHLEEN MCGUIRE-CHAIDES 517-22-092 517-22-099 -- THOMAS C & JUDITH LAVEY OR CURRENT RESIDENT CHRISTINE CHIDLOW OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15305 MADRONE HILL RD p0 BOX 3096 SARATOGA CA 95070-1096 15375 PEACH HILL RD ARATOGA CA 95070-6401 SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 -22-100 517-22-112 517-22-121 517-22-122 M & A AMINI-RAD DAVID J & TERESA CAREY CLYDE R WALLIN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15397 PEACH HILL RD 15320 PEACH HILL RD 15288 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 SARATOGA CA 95070-6448 SARATOGA CA 95070-6448 517-3 8-001 517-3 8-002 W L PELIO 14573 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6801 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • • • Attachment 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 12 ace on this s ecific arcel of land and that Cautioned that there may not be enough sp p p creative solutions must be reached that meet ADA requirements for children. Pointed out that this applicant appears to need more help from staff than most do. • Supported the extension of time for Condition 21 to January 26, 2007. Planner Therese Schmidt said that a correction of one typographical error on the Resolution must be made that corrects the date to October 17, 2005, rather than the 2006 listed. Commissioner Hlava asked if the plans being approved are the ones posted here tonight. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes, adding that the applicant will be asked to provide a reduced set for the record. Commissioner Hunter suggested having the applicant work with the Community Development Director on issues such as wheelchair storage and a maintenance facility. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that this requirement be added to the conditions when the motion is made. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution (with correction of a typographical error on a listed date) approving a Modification to Approved Plans (Application #04-189) to modify the site plan to add a children's play yard, grant an extension of time required for completion of Condition of Approval No. 21 of Resolution No. 05-048 to January 26, 2007, and with an added Condition that allows the Community Development Director to approve modifications to plans to accommodate facilities for wheelchair storage and maintenance as long as said facilities are consistent with regulations, on property located at 13425 Sousa Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Cappello thanked Planner Therese Schmidt for her work on a very difficult project. . *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #06 276 (517-22-100) AMINI - 15397 Peach Hill Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel atwo-story, single-family residence, which may result in the demolition of over 50% of existing walls, and to construct an addition to the first and second story of the existing home. The total floor are of the proposed residence will be 5,595 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be no higher than 26 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 13 uare feet and the site is zoned R-1-40;000. (Deborah feet. The net lot size is 53,162.5 sq Ungo McCormick) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for an addition to an existing two=story single-family residence with a net increase of 122 square feet. • Reported that such a small addition is not typically referred to the Planning Commission but this addition is part of an extensive remodeling of the exterior of this home and staff decided to bring this request to the Planning Commission as a Design Review application. • Explained that the total FAR is 5,595 square feet and the maximum height will be 26 feet. The remodeled home would stay within the existing footprint. • Said that the home is located on a private drive accessed via Peach Hill Road. • Stated that the home is currently a Craftsman style built in the 1920s. • Reported that staff had required that a historic evaluation be prepared and reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. That review occurred in May. The HPC concluded that this property is not historic because it is not associated with any person of significance to the past. Additionally, it is no longer reflective of the architectural style due to remodeling that has occurred over the years. • Stated that the proposal is for a Greek and Classic Revival style home. They are proposing columns, balconies and windows. It will be very different from what is currently there. • Advised that the architectural styles reflected in this neighborhood are varied. The lots are larger one-acre lots with significant numbers of large trees. This is a heavily wooded lot. • Added that a large deck on the property will be rebuilt. • Reported that the proposal meets setbacks and impervious coverage limits. • Said that there is staff concern with making the finding that there are no massing and/or view impacts with this proposal. • Said that the neighbors were contacted and no issues were raised. The notification list for 500 feet included homes on the other side of the creek. • Recommended denial due to massing and view impacts. • Advised that a color board was submitted with four options offered. The applicant is willing to work with the Commission to alter the color combination as necessary. Commissioner Hunter expressed surprise with the findings of the historic evaluation. She asked if the consideration whether someone of note lived on a property is a new criterion. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the evaluation looks at the building itself, the site and/or the context, which is who may have lived there. Commissioner Hunter: • Asked for clarification that the footprint would remain the way it was except for the porch. • Pointed- out that when one drives up to this home, it is clear that this is a 70-year-old house. • Reiterated her surprise at the evaluation of this home and the way that it has been dismissed as not being a historic house. • Reminded that she has attended a number of HPC meetings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 14 • Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reminded that numerous modifications have been made. The only original portion of this structure is the center room, which is to be retained with the remodel. The rest of the interior has pretty much been remodeled. Commissioner Hunter said that when a home is 70 years old it is a shame to dismiss it as not being historical. It could be brought back. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Commission does not often see a project where staff is recommending denial. She asked staff if they had proposed changes in the proposal to this applicant. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick: • Replied that this is the style this property owner wanted. They. are not interested in another design and wanted to move forward with this design. • Agreed that this architectural style would not fit in most areas of Saratoga because it is so different. • Added that this is a large isolated property. The walls are not solid but rather have articulation, • Reported that when this project originally came to the Planning Department for review, it represented a small increase that is usually astaff-level review. • Advised that the Community Development Director had concerns with this design including bulk. When the construction begins on this remodel, it may result in more than 50 percent of the walls being removed, which would kick it up to Planning Commission review. Instead of waiting until later, the Director elected to bring it forward to the Commission now. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned ,that Design Review findings do not include historic review. Historic review should not be used as criteria for denial, should that be the final action of the Commission on this request. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mike Amini, Project Designer: • Explained that he is representing his brother, who is his client. • Stated that he designed this -house as well as his own house that was constructed in Saratoga. • Added that he is very familiar with Saratoga's regulations. • Informed that another brother also plans to relocate to Saratoga. • Stated that his brother always wanted a Greek Villa and it took his brother three years to find this property on which to build. • Said that the plans were shown to the neighbors. Five have expressed support, two of which are present this evening. • Announced that after having sat through the hearing for Item 1 on tonight's agenda, he is willing to offer design assistance to Sub-Acute at no charge. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 15 • Ex lained that the rest room that is on final to this home is being completely p 9 9 preserved. • Described the architectural style as a combination of Italian and Greek Mediterranean style. The proposal meets FAR, height and lot coverage limitations. It will be located on top. of the old .foundation. No trees are being touched and all of the natural landscaping will be retained. • Stated he is available for any questions. Chair Rodgers told Mr. Mike Amini that she is glad to see that they have been talking to the neighbors. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Mike Amini what changes had been considered to address the issue of bulk. Mr. Mike Amini said that although the exterior walls of the new home would be tilted up higher, they are using a flat roof. It will not look that massive: He added that this is a very private lot and that only three neighbors can see this home. They are happy with the home's design. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Mike Amini how tall is the original home on this property. Mr. Mike Amini replied 27 feet. The proposed home is 26 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked about the posting of story poles. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that story poles are already in place. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mike Amini if there is architectural significance in the elements of this design. Mr. Mike Amini said that he has been in the Bay Area for 25 years. The home design is meeting his brother's preference and he made sure that the design met all of the City's standards. Commissioner Zhao commended Mr. Mike Amini's offer of free design assistance for Sub- Acute. Mr. Mike Amini said that he was very serious about that offer. Commissioner Zhao asked how well the old and new portions of the home would blend particularly the rooflines. Mr. Mike Amini said that he is keeping the original roof over the great room portion of the house and tying the new portions into that original roof. Commissioner Hunter asked about roof material. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 16 ' aid that the existin roof materials used would be matched. He reiterated Mr. Mike Amines 9 how hard they have worked to meet the requirements of the City. Mr. Amine, Property Owner and Designer's Brother, explained that this home represents his family's dream house and that it took them three years to find this specific private property on which to build this house. He asked that they be allowed to have their dream house. He reported that his two ,immediate neighbors are here this evening. A third supportive neighbor had intended to attend tonight but was unable to do so. Mr. Charles Brooks: • Informed that his is an adjacent property. • Reported that Mr. Amine came to his home and showed the plans for this. new house. • Advised that he has looked at these plans and is familiar with this property for over 40 years. • Assured that this home is not visible from his home; neither as the existing or .proposed home. • Stated that this would be an asset to the neighborhood. • Said that he discussed this project with other neighbors and there have been no unfavorable comments. • Said that this home would have a lovely appearance and represents an upgrade to the current home that is not in good condition as it is loaded with termites. • Asked that the Commission look at this proposal favorably. The owners are good people. • Said that he is looking forward to a new building there. Commissioner .Hunter pointed out to Mr. Charles Brooks that staff is recommending denial based upon issues of bulk. She asked if he feels that bulk is not a problem with the new design. Mr. Charles Brooks replied not for us. He said that he is not aware that anyone can see it in order to be affected by it. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Charles Brooks which side his home is located on in relation to the subject property. Mr. Charles Brooks replied the front. Commissioner Nagpal reported staff's opinion that the finding stating that the design avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy cannot be made. She asked Mr. Charles Brooks if he agrees with that opinion. Mr. Charles Brooks replied no. This design is not offensive to him, his family or his neighbors. Mr. John Giannanerea: Explained that he is the neighbor below this house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 17 • Reported that he was involved with the design of this. house early on. • Said that he has lived in this neighborhood for seven years. • Stated that this is a very innovative design and that he looks forward to seeing it built. • Expressed his support. Commissioner Nagpal explained that staff has compatibility, bulk and height issues. She asked the height of Mr. John Giannanerea's home. Mr. John Giannanerea said that his house is lower than this house. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that while staff has issues with bulk and height, the neighbors don't have the same issues. • Stated that staff is usually right on target with recommendations. • Pointed out that the neighbors like this design and it represents the owner's dream home. • Said that within a different context, he would agree with the issues of bulk and height raised by staff. However, he can make the findings in context with this secluded lot. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that the house has a nice design. • Reported that she was initially concerned about how it might fit within a hillside neighborhood. • Pointed out that the neighbors have been heard and they are fine with the design. While she might find that it looks massive, the neighbors are not complaining so she does not see a problem with it and can support it in this case. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that the question must be raised. Does neighborhood support drive the findings required under Design Review approval? • Stated that the, decision making process by the Planning Commission must be at its purest and that she struggles with this from that perspective. • Advised that she asked the designer about the significance of the design features proposed and if they are essential to meet the architectural style but did not get any assurances. • Added that she is concerned with the proposed colors and with the bulk. • Said that she could make the findings supporting a lack of views and privacy impacts but that the compatibility issues of the bulk and height are a coin toss from her perspective even though these are large lots in the neighborhood. • Added that the compelling factor is that the site itself is completely enclosed. Commissioner Hunter said that she support staff's recommendation for denial due to excessive bulk. Its walls are 26 feet in height with a flat roof, which gives an appearance of mass and bulk. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 18 • Commissioner Hlava: Said that she has the same issues as Commissioner Nagpal. Stated that it is difficult to make the finding that the design does not create excessive bulk. Added that she does not agree with staff's excessive impacts on views and privacy. Said that the object of the Design Review process is to reflect the whole community's sensibility and not just nearby neighbors. Stated her-support for the staff recommendation for denial. Chair Rodgers: Said she sides with Commissioners Nagpal and Hlava. Agreed that she can back off from concerns of view and privacy impacts that were raised by staff but that she agrees with staff on the issue of bulk. Said that the question must be considered as to whether this particular architectural style fits in this area. • Reminded that landscape screening does not make up for architectural incompatibility. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that one way to approve is if the Commission can be convinced that the design features are needed as proposed in order to achieve architectural purity. Does it truly .reflect the purity of that style? • Asked if anything has been done to prove that point. Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that period architectural style is not a finding. Issues that can be considered are more articulation, less articulation, different scale. One example of when the issue of purity of architectural style applies is with a Use Permit to go above height limits in order to retain architectural design purity. Commissioner Cappello: Cautioned that the Commission has to be careful how it looks at atwo-dimensional drawing. Stated that athree-dimensional exhibit gives more of an impression of what it will look like. Said that this house does have articulation but it is not obvious in the two-dimensional drawing. Reminded that the applicant has expressed flexibility in the colors. Commissioner Hunter said that the color shown is unfortunate as it stands out in the hillside. Commissioner Nagpal said that she agreed that another color would be better if this design goes forward. Commissioner Hunter said that she has problems with the ten columns that go all around and are 26 feet tall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 19 • Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the photo simulation shows more columns than is actually proposed. Commissioner Zhao asked if columns are an important element of this architectural style. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she would have to do more research to answer that. This design is actually a blend of different styles. She reminded that the applicant has. expressed flexibility on the colors to be used and that staff could work with them on the color choice. Commissioner Hunter reported that in her six years on this Commission she does not remember the use of a flat roof. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that there have been a couple including one more modern design that incorporated a metal roof that was fairly flat. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated that there would be more issues if this design included a pitch roof rather than the proposed flat roof. • Said that while this is not his preferred architectural style, it is a beautiful style. • Reported that his parents have a home with a similar style. • Said that he does have a problem with this style on a hillside and would have less of a problem if it were on a lower elevation parcel. • Advised that he can make the findings to support this application. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is struggling with the point made by Commissioner Cappello about evaluating a design with atwo-dimensional drawing as opposed to a three-dimensional one. She suggested a straw poll of the Commission to see where this is going. Commissioner Nagpal: • Suggested that the applicant go back and deal with the bulk issue, specifically the color, columns, use of two materials and roofline. • Said that she has problems making Findings D and G. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she still is asking if the columns are a part of this architectural style's characteristics. • Said that since this is a private road and offers no impacts to its neighbors, this homeowner should have the right to build his dream house in the style they prefer. • Expressed her support. Commissioner Cappello said he supports this project. Commissioner Hunter said that she does not support it because she cannot make Finding D and specifically due to the inclusion of 10 large columns. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 20 • Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to be able to reach an approval for this applicant but has a problem making Finding D. Commissioner Hlava said she has problems with making Findings B, D and G: She suggested continuing this public hearing, as it appears the majority vote is for denial or at most a tie. Chair Rodgers said the options are to make a motion, which is likely to be for denial due to concerns over bulk, or allow the applicant to work further with staff. Alternately, the applicant can ask for a denial outright and appeal that action to Council. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer clarified that a three to three vote is a failure of a motion but would automatically place the item on the next agenda for a meeting where the entire seven member Commission is in attendance in order to break that tie: Mr. Mike Amini, Project Designer: • Said that they are flexible on the issue of color. • Reminded that the only people near this site is his brother and his three neighbors, none of which have objected to this design. • Added that they are meeting all standards. • Said that this architectural style is hard or almost impossible to change. • Said that he would rather work with staff than to be denied and that he is willing to consider recommendations for modifications to the project. • Recounted that his brother searched for three years to find this property. for his dream house and made sure that none of his neighbors objected. • Reiterated that no one else can even see this house on this very private lot. Chair Rodgers said it appears that the applicant prefers a denial and appeal to' Council. Mr. Amini, Applicant and Property Owner: • Reminded that this new home design is lower than the existing structure. • Corrected that the columns are only 18 feet tall and not 26 feet as mentioned. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the Aminis considered staff's negative recommendation. Mr. Amini said that it was not a negative recommendation. Since. it may become necessary to pass the 50 percent point in demolition once construction begins depending on what they find during demolition, they brought this project to the Planning Commission so as not to have to stop in mid-construction to go through this step. Commissioner Nagpal asked to see the three-dimensional drawing Mr. Amini has in hand. Mr. Amini said that the Commission should be flexible on creativity. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 2006 Page 21 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that this project might best be continued to a date uncertain to allow some redesign. Planner Lata Vasudevan offered another alternative. Have the applicant work with staff to reduce the thickness of the fascia and reduce the thickness of columns by approving this design with reductions that are to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the cornice is rather large and can be reduced. Commissioner Cappello cautioned to be careful what you ask for, as it might not look good. Commissioner Hunter said that it usually works out well when applicants are asked to work issues out with staff. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN Design Review for the remodel of a two-story single-family residence on property located at 15397 Peach Hill Road to allow redesign, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: Cappello ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #06-137 (366-43-011) PARKER RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 12132 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 anal the height is 4 ft, 4 inches. (Suzanne Thomas) Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a freestanding sign. This is the fourth and final subdivision sign for the Parker Ranch Subdivision. • Stated that the sign is not illuminated. It is located within a landscaping easement that will be maintained by the HOA. • Reported that all neighbor have been notified and no negative responses were received. • Informed that this sign complies with Code requirements. It is situated away from the corner so it does not block visibility. • Said that findings to support this request can be made in the affirmative. • Recommended approval. • Attachment 5 • ~ ~l3Abf1S OIHdd2l9010Hd ~~b'OS Ol lON SOlOHd ~~lON 00 69 06 ZE 91 0 ~~~, 1 1 ~~ ~ 1 ~j i ~ / ~~ • vlNao~nvo 'voolvaes odOa IIIH H~V3d L6£5L 3~N~aIS~2~ INIWt/ ~ o 4 '~ ~o 0 `~ N d 0 ~ ~ Q [~ o '~- ~ o _. ~ '~ ~ v~ ~ f 657105'iagwnN asuwl~ s~%xiluo~ a3e18 e~wo71laJ 0011-99E-806'~d OOOI-99E-806 avo4d [[[~~~ f ~n[~ 61056 tlJ o%uatln~ ~ryenal~o8 a tl ad 4lnog 99501 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ g ~ ! O piing s,uau~s~~~.~~ i .~. +N~lm M N Aw~~ ~ N IPM P~ ~ OEM! P~Mi ~ P~4 ~ MM ~ p~ ~wn•W M '~4 r~ y a.rew .sr~ ol...w.wr +Imw.s N ~o.~.. +or ~.~.. ~ ~vma n ++VM 4 v~*~ aan.o~ ~I +~o a. ~1~ rrMr 4 ~0 >pn P EO ~Vl 710 rO 4 +~PP~ P~M~ Ycll~ ~ !o P~~ yrp~e 11~eFC u Pr ~ 'ml 7M0 •~11v0 M W LgNd~d ~ M~ ap gelp~ ~V+II• MIY srorasal~oo ~nr a 7~Itar ~ FrolmaPro~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o •.n wla {aa 3 ; ~"• "'~;.,,p ~ ~1°~ eL, VAS - feOW U H~~ Jp~ • n 1• F•6~tl~Jl~ n I An __ ~ ~ ~ • Q ~~ ~ •b~ t ~ ~~ y/Q • £ •Y~ • •~ ~., E ~~~~~ U 1/tNLIO~ilW9 b`JOlVLf~fS Q~ 111Fi FK33V3d L6£St wiwv idw •saw ~ •aw eslms~a! ~rew~wlarans+W+m4 ~NII rlmsv~a~iamo~~~sa~om ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Q Pi~~ s,uam~s~~~ M ~ w W ~ ~ Q S LL (A N LL N ~ LL p1 N ~ W O LL N LL Cpl p .p ~ P $ li Oy ~ V v ~ N '~ .- OI N p G1 G r O dl ~ N ~ •- ~ O IG t0 Y> ' C ~ .1 N UJ ~ ~ p o' n II ~D ~ N N ~ ] fV 11 lL ~ O ~ ~ s po _ 1' ~ ~ ~ ~ LL m ~ ~ Q Wa O N m m U~ ~ ~[~G~ Q to ~ ~ M N M N ~~ M y~ y~j I i @ ~ $ Z'p ~p O ~y N ~ O .~{ IA ~ ~ w LL a ~ ~ ~ z N W O Q O W~ ~ j~ II ~ U Q ~ ~ Z Z F' w LL fA N W y ro W ~ ~ LL m O M IL V) C,1 N fn ~ dZ C tp a 1~ ~yu~ J U =.., W V N ~ ~ CA m p N N t` g f~ T ~ W '~ ~ ~ a N ~ Fwz ~ ~ w ~ W ~ ~~~ o ~ ~ ~$ _~ ~ ~ ~ o$ > g ~ ~ N ~ o ~ ~wFa~-- z W w a? ~ ~ g ". ~ w z z ~ w ~ ~ U1-ii ~ ~W ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ g J '$a r Ow,pO O Q Q ~~ O C ? m y Z a ~. ~ .~ T 7 a~~ ~" ~ 1- - ~ g ~ii U ~>. ~O t W W T uJ.U ~ r n w ~ ~ °- 7 a m ~ o~ F-K u a 0 Owl ~~ Q _ ~~ m q 6 ~ V ~a ~a noS S ~ x C S J LL LL y m LL LL /i 1o LL v pl 4. v y) ( LLILLLL W i v 1 N ~j N m Nm LL tl/ Y.LLY. LL 4. 4. q ~j yj y t 0 y l4 ~ mp l ~ LLLLHh V1 N tpd m ~ ~ ~ IL N fl1l LL Vl . A CI ® A ( ~ Y) p p S ~ IV 0 m ~ ~ y S ~ { ~ i0 ^ 8 " ~ m ~ j f 8 1~ ~ ~I 8 ry II Cl ffVV l 11 11 u~ w ~ i aa~~ < gt ~ rcQ ~ ~ w p ~ Z~ Ja 64662 pppp~ OK g I rczzz zz a4gpapO o~ 3~ ~ iza ~ d w p ~ Q ~ V~ 1 z W H? 2T ? 0 ? K ~ 3 W W W ~ ` 1' I 3 V . _ p q IX W~ ~Z ZZ 0 J J J J a K W j 00 0 Z~ G O Z ~ ~ a a 7 < J V W XX W W W 2 2 z ~ `~' jl jl X W q Q. ~ 11 1 oo N lel 11 ryry I N l+l a d a Ja J ry 11 ry 1 11 11 11 ~ ~ aa O it 11 ry 11 ~I 2 W Z ry 11 p z aaaam ~ ' I~px xJ~ ~ ~ oci_oo ~ wmt- }~ ~y _,_ ~ ~, •u~oss~s -:-- W ~~ • ~ ~_ og? ~ ~ ~ 8 0 ~1 •~ ~os soz ~ 71 U 'ld "OS TOL ~ '~ ~~' w~ ~ - ~ ~ I I -------------- ; a a$ I_---- ,i 1 I I ~~ ~ 1- -- ~1.~vssoz Lv .s~- ° ~ ~ aec o z~ n LL Q ~ O w w0 s J LL iaszz~ fY ~ , (~ Q >~ a ~ ~ O O ~' S tJ.. ~ ~~ o~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ 0 ~~~~ U z I~ Y m I I II II I I I }~ I I I I I}.._~~~__~II I I I I I I ~,~~~ r~ql ~~ ~ I ~I ~~r~ I ~~ ~~ ~~ I S ~~ I ~! . ! z II I _~ I ~ I ~ ~~1 v' ~ 1 U ~ Z ~- '_ I ~ Z f 0 I > -~ W J I W w I I .I ~ ~I I ~I i el I Q ~I : I ~I II I I 7 I I U I W ..J 1 I Q I I Z I 1 I I [] i I I i ~ 1 I I I I I 0 I i I I J I I Z I I i I I I Z I ~; ~ a I ~~ w II g W _~ a ~~ ~ a~ ~ Q II I I %~~~ ~ • • ... Q?1YN213H~2~[E~6 9002/92/L l~ Iig N 1 N 1 WN I w a M rraodnr3ioazvasu,roo~ VMIfDYJIMSr9MYNY8A/JT.I ~o N p ~ ~~ yy yy 1i8 Aii11 A ~ ' ' x~ i ; 71611 lOli liY B~IIdiD.Y.SIdVd Qllq YCl16t ( o- aa - t ~~If ~ ~ awe~liov3ems9- j ' ' , , . ~ JOdO.L OIHd~ I~ ~~p~,Tl ~' '~ ~~~ ~ L 33N3QI53M ININM 1 llifW 1~ 71L?1~1W J , spa --- , IB H 81 ~ 9l 0 r--fi 315-NO YH15A9 394NIV7~ 9NLL5DC33F1.1 Ol tA+IOQ Wlii 'i4.4?B1YM t-iLOlS I'1Y ONY'13H1 ~03d0'S'Pd2Y11VN 013f10 310N dIQ 9rarcas~e~a aoi w~rrrtrlrroemn+mssaa ~ as ®~nr~lawa~s ~ sa ~nrr.soaemu 1i47R! 9 rte! ~ ~ 1~8~1~3~A1 !i D a1iB~lataw ~ 11 ~e~oi~~aaaN ~ ~ raa so -~ a rrr~sara~ r r i~lA rrlJBl>N ~~II~a! i~~~S l~Qf sra~a mesa®x rr~rs~r-rlaa®w~ saaraa~mra+ra~s rsrlaraars~rr~rsaum~~ al^ui~nnLr~~aeaa.rs >,s o a s ra airla s;tlr• a warar ^rwsrrem>~ss~o~ ~t _ D00 DNS 00007 NeiMtia sl Np 0195 00007 DNr 00051 NaaMlia 51 np _ DNV NiiM188 SI N ONtl 0005 M8iN188 SI Ntl M8aM188 1 (ISy tli6D 80014 818tlM071p 1i10liltl~ tl8alp Tali :AL>B~SIID7 2107£ • (lI'OS)ilp :i5tl6 SDLL NI MO170~ s0 61 N]UM1 'p.(ietlaNi6oid Diu1N1a0'I) • NV : SI tli8tl laN % 00'9£ :Ol 7tlfWi 51 O8UMi0 iB Ol i8tl 1iN 10 % 111 astla SINl N) %00'09 %00'0£ ManO % Z MO 1015 10 61 NOtla tl0) %S n d %O£ iBnO i~Ol 10 q Igtli 80J Sill %06'0£ 9 %10 :Ni8M139 :NaiMl NOLL~ 0 :MOIa 0i1]f107D Y Ol alnl laN !0 SI iJOI$ 10'1 ietl87np :MOno~ m altl 910utl7naiy outla tlitrp Doo7j as a708 itl7iNas iNj % ZZ :Si B'vl SINl Nt NOINid gy(p)/(1e1.001) •(%?+a'LS i0tl83/~p 1 O81tl1f161tl0 51 81075 B8tl831~tl iNl g {1~~ps7tlnoa1lD 7valxwoeD~o1 OL£Z ~(ld'l)StlnO1N0~ 7tl]IN~tl89010j /0 M18Nil 1tl10j £41£5 :(li'p) ri8p 55080 ~V901V2lV$ d0 Ally 3Hj tlOd 3~VtlV~J ONI0111]N~ V3tly ONIAII 318VM0~11y 2l0~ NOIlVViJIY~ +a~.n+e a r 4w~r ~t ~t a~ ~ rp.e e~ VlN2lO~iltf'J b'JOIVLFFfS ^ 1 arum r. r~ rw rr raaer.m r• ~rwu n +~,~ ~ r(ms~r(~n~+ss~mn ~ ~ ` V a ~ ~~~~, 4 ~ ~~ wro-awwr~aaor~wceor~wa M4~~P fr~r ddOtl l'71FE H:}K~d t6£S4 ~Nl -(a~v~asum~nonwmswv+emms~soi P ~ ~•." •~.a+w.wd ~.aaw.*. :.off.. ~ 3JN3a1S~?~ INIW~d p~ s uauz3'-~'~~ ~ ~~~ Z Q J ~.. Y U W _, ZIP ~-~. ~ ----~ ,~ ~ r~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ / IL J I ~ ~~ ' m 8 8 ~ I o ~ ~ ~ o: ~ b II I it I I __ _ I I I i ~ o I I ~ ~ ~8 - - ~ ~ I I ~ e~Z 1 g>o ~ ~ I ~Q I ~ ~ o W ~ ( - I- - - - - - - - - - -i--- - I I I ~ ~ ~ ~, - - -~ ~ ~ I i~ ~~ ' ' ~~ ~ l ~ ~ U ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~w ~ ~ I ~W ~ ~ ~I -.---- ----- ---------- -- ~ m ~i ~ I ~~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ i _~ -~ ~__--- ------~ ~ Cn X s-s a-a W 0 OJdN213H ~Wb 4E~SC[( 9002/92/[ • • ~.~~ a r 41wMedu ~ N PP Pm 40 O~1lIt V'~12fOjill/'3'~/pO1HtlyS M wales rl^ rea wW rM •~ a• rwaro n '~1MeP.rls sstaos~x~nwlsw~mo s o.rl~n ~ov~a t~ ~ +.ool.e ~ r alr~ow.e ~ ~VO?J'1'tIH Ft3Af3d L6£S! amreaQea-=vwor-eaeeo-~ea ~ y p +wM 4 ~ ~tlj( mm~v~wwlvw+lme.w•oamlas~or reM r•ls +w 4#~.wl ~a r~ P m +u ~1 M+4 N~• o~w•~ ~I ~IwwoPwenaMpwP~ ;~~ ~~wlr~Pa.~. :ew~.~ ~~N~K]IS~ZI (NIWb~ p~~ ~5~~~ Q 'nr m n.oM SlIIa e_g a''" Q_a ______ ----r _==_=====r,== __=====7=,===_ ====-Y~====_ I ( I I I BKE T =i~====_____ ~ i_1===__=_____ _ _ ~~ ~d I 1 1 816 I _____~..--__ e%1 1 BKE - -- - - - - II II i I 1 I 1 a_ _ _ -_-___ _.v 1 ~. _.__ ~ 1 ( m 1 II -__ _~ F ~ I I II ' 1 n II II II II II II 11 n II II II W ~ L 1 F-r re _ - - ~ QF~. - 1 '~ I II II 11 II I J I I I W I I ~ 1 t ~ 1 1 I ~ 3f F _ m I' ~I- - _ r, 11 ~ ~ , ~ t' 1 ~ i l 1 __~ IYr~ 1 ------ - - -- I 1 • 1 I 1 II ;1 - j I t 1 ~r I ~ ~ __.,1 Il r 7 y ' I --- 019 11 E--r-i 1 11 ` d ////JAI ~ III 11 : ~ I 9 ~ I I Z} - - - - i / i ~~-:`.-.~"I I --'IRw Ih---~m~ lic; I ; I , ~ X111 I"_ `_- W~ --- I /// I T61111 ~i Inl ~ n i;^ ° t ~ _ i t ' ~' '" K r-- kt I J)I II I I u l±- n I ul ^ 1 1 I ---- -_- --Ir--~ I ,; - I r ~ ~ fll ~ 1 1 III _ ~~-- 1 _ ~~_ 1 1 1 1 ~,_- I ~ F-~-- 'r~~~ ------ -n-~- b li P 1 ~ ---- ~ f-0 "F~i t e 1 IOC l1 rl I I I (- .I I I I J` ~' ~1 -'-- ' ' --- • I 1 I 1 l y !.J I I ~ I 1 ! I'. 1 I _ 1 -_-1 t 1 1 I m I -I---I -- - ~ -__ 1 L: ___-_____: __~ J 1 1 11 ~ -I--11 I • 1 F~_-_;1 ~ ! ~r 1 • 5j 1 DTI I I ~ I I ----I O W ~ __-1 . . .. ~. % i ~~ 111 G - -_ = I----~ I I 11 ~ I 11 ...J O ~ Q-__- _ ~~-- ~ I T 1 % \`` IJIJ 6 n 1 / 1 _! 1 ~ % ~I ~ ' h.E ~35O1~ 0 0 ~ { 1llllllfl 01>f ~~ ~~ ldR 9;W BItE SYJ34 a 0 D IJNINIa AZIWtld ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~~~~~~~ va_ ~~ ~~~II~1 ~~I Q Q W002iO3H H1VH (3) [e~ e d~ Y O W W ~ U /a z~ a O O z Q w Z Z ^~^ f.11~ z ~_ Z t^~, v_J X W 0 r O i- II d" r ¢ytlN213¢ 'Wtl ESBCS[ 9002/92/G • . • ~IOOP7 AZIlN4Jd *ep~ P r 4nw~w Nt w IM/ Pr ~ e!w tllNilO~I~H~~'tlaJO1VLfVS rww w. ~a r~ w• • w w.o•~ n *er.•v ••^a ~~s~wmm~aowve.~m~o '~ n ~ q'"~ 'r+~~ft „~„J'0r+~,~'°r`.. f1~'6'll~fi FiJV~d' X6656 aoiroac~o-zvoe«-aaom-omae t~ t ^4e ~CY'l M~!+r+~4 is P OO ~9l ffi~IB~9+1P A~+r ~I~ -C09BV~w~D9~"a~H~v~a9w~99asot 'vr ~IF~ +q w4~ P~ Orly ?~ ~~M4 u Pm ~01~ ~I ~1 ta.a.a.~.npo..a+cry.,a.w..w,r.a.no~ 3JN3oIS3~! INIWH p~~ S~IIa11]~1~~ @ 0 I g 8~ ~_ ° > ~ V J m ~- ~ a ~~ ~ m ~ g ~ ~ -r- ~ .~ a-a m _~ W - ~ - -"- u Irv _~ psi ,> )~i ';=l ~~ i .~ ~~ z O 0 J W ~.. ~ o W Z 1 r Z O O W ~~•^j V Z o u W T- • • QMVW83H ~W6[=IC 9002/9@/L r-----------------------------------------T ~ ~ ~ ~n 10 ~fl ~, I ~W ~$ 4 P+ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~I a ~I ~~ I I I I I +•~•,••..a.r•••iwlw w•~.. VINL10dilb"J'b'J01.VNVs /rIMM M MMI iMr• MM NqW~ N N ~~ NiVI ~ rv~r~ ~pMr ~~`~y tl"~ ""w~~"p'w~~ I1 '~ii°"' ~VOa IIIH H~t/3d L6£9l ~IM~Mr•~ i,MFN /r Irlw'~, WI ~~M ,,.~,-~•~,~,,....~,.~ a~Naoissa wiwd ~I ~I ~~ 0 1~~';. Uzi: ]u:: ]u :: 7~,::::- ]lt: ]U::" 1!1=":.. ~7 II r • /1tlHi T-T-7-(-II I\ W ~tOC +.ao~ut..on ~ ~ W omq 001 ~i0P001 ~ 000I'OiPiOY'~Id .7),~ -IOa1 V~~'Prelmt®Mtl9~1000Di p~n~ s,ua~asa ~ r 4weW M- N PM N+ ~ 0~!!l VlPR.iO~ilV~ 'V`JOJ.IRJVS P~IMN !~ !n4 1~ 1'M ~+4m1~~raP~~v 4irlw N ~4 III @.1L08~M~a'14~84~AI4 ~ vM r+~ d~4 ~ ~ ~+Y.o~~ ae~wacaa~aoor-nawo-Wwa a' '~ CMONIIiHFK3V3.d'C6€SL ~Ni -tmar~~ev~e~vaawess9soT 4 ~M rWl 4_!1~!+~+ ~0 ~ M !0 ~9l '~ rL 4 MPS P~fN ~ ~ g 1 ane ~o"nn«s4~a w~p ~ ?~.arelrPa.r..a"~i...~..n 3~N3~ISS~ lNIW1'/ ~1~II~ SIIaIQSi~.I~ Q sro-avarMae TM a feuae • 1 H?JVN?J3H ~WV 85~82~CT 9002/92/L M ~~ ~ K PR Pe /Me ~lM rlllJ2~jl'1V:? ~/~JObV2111fS r~ a+ ~ ~ ~ ~..e a~ ~www n +~* +~a esias~x~ng~wworo~.~mo ~t aM ~r ~v~4 ~~ ~+wo~ a~OZi ~lFf Fi:3!/3d fb6~6 roioe~eo-~ooowe~or~aa . ~ ~ '~ ~Nf noxv~~roa•mvaam~anmr ^ ~N ~R +4 ~1~!Mr~ M 7~ P EO ~Vl 'OQ «9 A ~F P~1~ ~ ~ g i i W~ +4 r~~~~~~Pn !m PrM~~ fge+e ~w4M y P~ dOD) '~ ~T' ^ ~ aewww•aaR.wsd.eww•.a~.eo~ 33N3a1S~Z! iNIWH p~~ S~IIaIIiS-#,~tt~ E ~I- ----_ - -- -_- - --- - --- _----- - --~--- I li ~ ~~ r~g ~~ ~S i LL2 80 (~ J F, Z O ~~~I ~~ ~~ o~ J ~, d W V ~ ~ W e+ .~ ~ M W ~ ~~ p I W w y j J ~ O J W W W Z W ~ ~ {~{~,~ W Z U ~ J W ~ ~6 ~ y U 2 W Z 3 a ~ ~ a A I l 0 U W 1 11 W LL F ~~ .~ ~ I J I W ~ ~ ~ W I JJ W I I.A ~ ~ H ~ I a 2I ~ Z f ~ 1 I I- U W O T 11 i~ • Q2JVN2J36 'W. E~C[ 9002/92/L ~_ • aavr,aae~os~r 9oozi[zic +~a+o M r Ma N wr ~w ~w tlINaO~Il1rJ'Vfl011RNS ea[mo~w®[+~noa~s+~mo r•oM w r.r w•~ w. ~~..~i~..ri.w N ~M~ R MM4A ~M» M~ r+IV~M tirp~s ± ~ rr~*.~+~ dtli02! l'11H FklM3d L6£S L amwaaao-•amm~aaeo-~va t ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ N ti~M 4 wwt //1~ ~II nmev~wwvv~a~vamoeaemt i wM ~ ~ M it ~ OD ML w AI MU~~ M~~Ir ~ t ~grMrs ~ r wr *w•+ ~.-.. w Oeo) +~ P~ S IIa1QS~~ ~.T I ~ ,a~e,'••ao •. a ~w•• •• ~ •,, a•.~• +q••.... INI WH 1HW •S21 W $ 'a W ••wr• w,• ,q~~y «w h w>w n..r.. r~ b'INaO~IItrJ 'tlJOlHat/S ..~...~.. /w11~M M NM iwr 1/~ ~iMw N~ OINMd N yAMy MGM ~ttAPwmMir+fi l.~awJme~wnmq ~ ~y 1~iw~Nri~p'w rit~~» ~w db'Oa lIIH HJH3d L6ESl oott~oea~vooowwvo-~a t ~rM wMt ~1 N w w m w- ~p~ EMI -toaeva~roawav.woawt iek ~ 5 +nti~~+~~+++r~wra..~a•w ~. u 3JN341S3?J INIWV rw++••• •~ w"r~w r•~... taw+mew~ro nor a ara '~1~n-~, s~IIs~tQ~'~.t'~ r of l ~ ~ I I ~ I I I~ ~ I I I ( ~~~ I I W~ I I I I ~m~l ~ ~ "~~~I I I~ ~ I I I I II II I i II I II I I I II I I I J __-- --__-__ .'~ 1 I -_ -~[tt h`,y` Jh='7Q i~t=::-L la_= I Z -.'_1 Ut'-~-..1 I ~ ~I ------ ~u::.~ t.::.-. J,,~ I ~ ~ l;' I ____.__ I I ~_ ~:~ ~ ,t ~_.~, i _:~~_:~ I I ~ -- _.~-- ~ I ~I m~I ~~I WI S ~I `al I ~I I I ~I I yl . WI ~ I I II I II I I I I I I I II I II I I I I ~ I I ~~ ~~~ i '~~ ~~~ I I ~I I~ ~I H ~~ n g ZI O J W F- LL. W J n II I 11 I I ~gI I I I I I I I' ~~31 I I I I- I~ I~ ~~ Ii i a II I ~> " II ~~ I I ~ ~ ~~ ~~ I 8 .r.~l ~ ~ .as .o-,a .o- I- I I I I I•. _~ I --- -__._. I I __-~.,_.___ W I~ _I~_i • Attachment 6 LJ . ~_ i ~~ ,~x.i . 4 4F~ yr ~.4~ i 1}- 44 IS, { ' .f piit ~1 ( i ,. _ f ,1 ,?f t ~i ;~ ~, t . ~~ 4. 19t s ~, i~4 ~~~ ,t ~~~ i ~~ ! 1i (-. 'i :~ ~ 'I t q1 is ew. } ' •i .. .~, +. ~~~ ~~0~ 4~'r ,. ,.~~;, j; y ,~ >.. ,_....wA. t~r~ .w_._.. ,. i~ y` ` r ~~ I r ~~~ ~ ~~~. Jy ).1(~ L~ ... ~:~ .. `,i li ~- - -- -~ ~.~,. • • _~ • ~ vwao~nvo'voolvavs 6S1 LOS ~~agwnH asuaol'1 s~1ol~AUO~ alalS e~woJll~'J Ob02! IIIH H~d3d L6E5~ OOII-995-806'~d 0001-996$06 auoyd {~ ~ ~13112if 1 S 0 I H d `d ~I 9 O10 H d Dui 6I0S6 tlJ ~wl+adn~'ryanalnog aeuy ap y)noS gg5y71 ~1/i ~ ~ p £ ~ ~~N~dIS~2~ INIWb~ piln~ s,uaius~Ba~ ,~Jj 95 ~ O %~~~` Item 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No/Location: 06/107 -14015 Short Hill Court Type of Application: Design Review Owner: Aaron Wong Staff Planner: Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP, Contract Planner Meeting Date: August 9, 2006 APN: 397-14-018 Department Head: ~~~ John Livingstone, AICP !2013 A[~ ~ ~~ . ~ s Y M ( .!~!... __ ~ t + ~' ~ _ r Y I --2'.i _~~~ - ~{ ,,, ~~ 'u a- .eT , JSTRICT N __ui ___ -- t -'~ ~ .. vu _ d ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o I ~ -(i , ~aC ~+ m - C -eL. ~ ~ Kt. a '`rod wJ3 ~ nq 1,000 ~0. ~ .Mi AL 3, i~ ~.. _ yea` '.6i. 4~Cp y ` '~ 0 MW ' ~.J W '~ Ylt yl' ~`~~~ `~ k ti' ~ ...~ m e'F~:. m bm- ~1 wu " • • .a ~ ~ d m ` i ~ (•A53AQ ~ " ~~ ~~ S ~ ., ~~ -~ ~ ~~. x s 1?am k y ~ 1 ~ DISTRIC a jr ~~ ~ '~; Ip2 Ai• .~ o , 4 w..a ~ . ~ ~ !' 3 ' .. V t ~i ~ i~ Vl~ ~ 4. ~' dam, ~ tl ~ ~ 7 a~ ~ T /f ~ i ~ Nn b ~, J ~ ` 4 ~ ,r ' ` . -~ /3 s ~4 `~~~~` ~~ te 1~ Subject: ss "'•~ "" ~ ~ ~ 4 •, ~, +~ { ~ ' 14015 Short HIII Court ~ 1 ~ Y ' ~ APN: 397-14-018 + ZS 'L a;;"! ~ 11 / 500' Radius / ~ rrn.l • L.«~.r~L.-, to ~ l c ~, ;`,f s:,, 1 14015 Short Hill Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 09/01/05 07/19/06 07/26 /06 07/24/06 08/03/06 The applicant requests Design Review approval to remodel an existing two-story, single- family residence to construct an addition to the first and second story of the home. The total floor area of the proposed residence is approximately 6,032 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet from average grade level. The lot size is approximately 41,785 net square feet and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning designation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • • Application No. 6-107- Short Hill Court STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Residential Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 41,785 net square feet SLOPE: 9.68 % average site slope and 3 % at building site GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading required for addition. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include exterior stucco walls and trim painted in a cream color (Kelly Moore -Clean Canvas KM3539-1) with molding painted in off-white (Kelly Moore -Swiss Coffee KM23), Cherry-stained wood windows, new carnage-style garage doors painted the same color as the walls and a dark grey/brown the roof. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. Application No. 6-107- Short Hill Court PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 12% Maximum Allowable 35% (Impervious) Residence 2,730.0 sq. ft. Deck/pooUdriveway 1,910.0 sq. ft. 640.0 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,280.0 sq. ft. 14,624.79 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor (including garage) 2,689.10 sq. ft. Second Floor 3,341.66 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,031.0 sq. ft. 6.064.0 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Main Residence Front 30.0 ft.* 30 ft. Rear (ls` floor) 146.0 ft. 50 ft. Rear (2"d Floor) 146.0 ft. 60 ft. Right Side (15` floor) 84.0 ft.* 20 ft. Right Side (2°d floor) 84.6 ft.* 25 ft. Left Side (15` floor) 23.0 ft.* 20 ft. Left Side (2"d floor) 23.0 ft.* 25 ft. Right Side 20.0 ft. 25 ft. Deck (E) Rear 126.0 ft. 50 ft. Pool (E) Rear 82.0 ft. 50 ft. * Existing Height: Maximum Allowable Residence Lowest elevation pt. 383.79 ft. Highest elevation pt. 405.48 ft. Average 394.63 ft. At the topmost point of the structure 420.63 ft. Maximum height 26.0 ft. 26 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review to remodel an existing two-story, single-family residence and to construct atwo-story addition in the rear area of the existing house. The project includes remodeling the exterior elevation to update the exterior appearance and to create a greater sense of entry from the street. In addition, the roofline of the existing house will be raised by two feet, and the roof will be replaced as part of the remodel. No changes are proposed in the front yard and four are being removed due to the poor condition of the Application No. 6-107- Short Hill Court trees, and as recommended by the City Arborist. The total floor area with the proposed addition is approximately 6,032 square feet. The addition also includes two terraces in the upper levels of the home; one faces the rear yard and is accessed through the family room (second story) and the other is roof terrace in the northeast portion of the addition that is accessed from the interior staircase. Both are open terraces without roof covers and thus are not included in the floor area calculation. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26. The project also includes an existing swimming pool, and deck, which will be retained in their present location. The lot size is approximately 41,785.12 net square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. The site slopes down gently to the north and west from the front to the middle of the site and then slopes up to the north and west towards the rear of the site. The average slope of the site is 9.63%. There is an existing 10 ft. sanitary sewer easement, which traverses the property at an angle from northeast to southwest. No improvements are proposed within or adjacent to this easement. Design/Architecture The existing residence presents itself as aone-story ranch style facade to the street and as a two-story home in the back side. The original plans for the two-story addition submitted with this application included the relocation of the garage to the west side of the residence, which would have required removal of several trees to accommodate a new driveway. However, that proposed addition exceeded the allowable floor area limit for the site and the applicant was required to revise the plans accordingly. The revised plan retains the existing garage location and the proposed addition is now located exclusively in the rear area of the home. The front elevation continues to present asingle-story facade to the street and is being remodeled to include an entry porch, upgraded wood windows and entry door, a slightly higher (2 ft.) roofline with dormers, new carriage garage doors and a new roof. The proposed remodel incorporates a more contemporary look compared to the existing architecture and colors. The existing house consists of a linear and narrow floor plan. Because of the topography of the site and how the existing house sits on the site, the entrance and all street level rooms and the garage are in the upper level of the home. This area will include a family room, library, living room, dining room, bathroom, kitchen, terrace and nook. The lower level or first floor of the structure includes four bedrooms, three bathrooms and a laundry room. From the rear yard this area appears as atwo-story structure. The applicant is proposing the addition in the rear, which will allow the bedrooms to be enlarged in the first level and larger, more functional living/eating areas in the upper level. The addition includes atwo- story octagonal element in the northeast corner of the addition to include a kitchen nook in the upper level and a sitting area off the master bedroom in the lower level. Another vertical feature is located in the kitchen and houses the interior staircase. Both features are proposed at the maximum height of 26 ft. from average grade level and include windows on all side on the upper levels. An open roof terrace is located above the kitchen area and is accessed via an internal stairway. Walls around the terrace are 4 feet in height to meet minimum building code requirements. Application No. 6-107- Short Hill Court Trees The original arborist report dated October 3, 2005 inventoried 33 ordinance-size trees for this project. They consist of eleven Coast Live Oaks (#2, 16 24-30, 33), four Coast Redwoods (#4-6), two Olive trees(#1-2), three Blue Oaks (#12, 13, 16), one Southern Magnolia (#10), eight Monterey Pines (#22-29), one Jelecote Pine (#30) and two Camphor trees (#32-33). The majority of these trees are located at the perimeter of the property with four trees located in the middle portion of the lot. The Report recommended removal of trees #16, 28, 29 and 30 because these trees were completely or nearly dead and presented a severe public safety risk. Because of their condition, no replacement value was assigned to these trees. A tree removal permit was issued for these trees. A condition of approval of the tree permit requires replacement of each tree with a 24-inch box tree from the list of native trees. On August 1, 2006 the City Arborist visited the site and found that trees #16, 29 and 30 have been removed and that tree # 27 has fallen. The City Arborist recommends that tree #28 also be removed, in accordance with the original Arborist Report recommendation, and that they are replaced with 24-inch ordinance size trees. This has been added as a condition of approval for the project. The October 2005 Arborist Report was prepared based on the original plans for the project, which included the relocation of the garage and driveway, and identified impact to trees on the west side of the house. The current plans do not propose any changes in the existing driveway location, and thus no such trees are impacted with the project. The addition is limited to the rear of the home in an area where no trees will be impacted. It is anticipated, however, that some. re-landscaping will occur in the area adjacent to the new addition. An updated Arborist Review letter was prepared for the project (August 1, 2006), which recommends that a landscape plan must be submitted with building plans for evaluation of impacts to trees. In addition, it reports that tree #33 (as inventoried in the original Arborist Report), is no longer located on the adjacent lot, and that the tree bond value has been updated accordingly. Based on the proposed plans and location of trees, the tree protection bond will have a combined value of $86,680. The City Arborist has also reviewed the proposed grading and drainage plans for the project and has determined that the new drain line and rip rap structure have been properly designed to avoid impacts to trees. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated around all trees and shown in the final building plans, accordingly. Compatibility with adjacent homes The project site is located at the northwest end of a cul-de-sac, in a residential area that consists of a mix of one and two-story homes, with varying lot sizes and setbacks. The architectural styles vary, including contemporary and ranch style homes. In the immediate vicinity of the site there is a two-story home to the east and asingle-story structure (as viewed from the street) across the cul-de-sac to the southeast, which sits at a much higher grade than the subject site. To the west is a West Valley College parking lot and to the north are two single-family homes that are located over 200 feet from the proposed addition. The proposed residence will continue to present asingle-story appearance from the street and is Application No. 6-107- Short Hill Court compatible with the architectural styles found on Short Hill Court. The addition is proposed entirely in the rear portion of the home and the site and adjacent parcels contain mature ordinance size trees that screen the home from adjacent properties that will be retained with the project. Additionally, the addition is set back far in excess of the minimum requirement from the rear and side property lines. The new home has been designed to minimize interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties and has been designed to preserve the existing mature landscaping along the perimeter of the site. However, one comment regarding privacy concerns was recently received from the adjacent neighbors to the east of the site. The neighbors feel that the roof terrace and upper level nook area may pose some privacy issues to them. To address these concerns, the neighbors are requesting that the middle window in the nook area (facing northeast) be eliminated and that the roof terrace wall be increased (See Attachment 2). The applicant's representative and project designer indicates that the applicant is agreeable to these requests and will revise the elevation plans accordingly. He is proposing that the height of the terrace wall be approximately 5 feet, six inches, which would be in line with the height of the roof of the residence and thus more architecturally consistent with other vertical elements along the east facing elevation. These changes have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification forms to adjacent property owners. All residential neighbors that are immediately adjacent to the site submitted signed forms and only the adjacent neighbors to the east submitted comments regarding privacy concerns (See discussion above). Geotechnical Clearance: The application requires geotechnical review. Geotechnical Clearance was granted with conditions, which have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. Design Review Findings: The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy The project as designed, and with revisions to eliminate the middle window in the nook area of the addition and increasing the height of the terrace wall facing the east (as requested to by the adjacent neighbor), will minimize interference with privacy to adjacent properties. In addition, this area is screened from the adjacent neighbor by significant mature trees. The project minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties to the rear with setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by City Code and screening by significant oak trees. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve most of the existing mature landscaping along the perimeter of the site and on adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Application No. 6-107- Short Hill Court (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed project incorporates the existing mature . vegetation on the site. The use of proposed exterior colors are consistent with the existing colors of the home and adjacent properties, and roofing materials will blend in with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The original Arborist Report identified 33 trees regulated by the Tree Ordinance that could be exposed to potential damage. Of these, 4 trees were recommended for removal because of their poor condition and safety risks, and three have since been removed. The Arborist Report recommended removal of the fourth tree (Tree #28) in accordance with the original Arborist Report, installation of 24-inch box native trees as replacement trees, and implementation of all other recommendations of the original Report to ensure protection of the existing trees on the site and adjacent site. These have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The house will continue to present a single-story appearance from the street. Architectural details of the remodel and addition include varied rooflines, dormers and recessed wall planes. In addition, all elevations are fully articulated to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence will be located in an area that contains a mix of one and two-story homes with varied lot sizes and setbacks. The residence will continue to present asingle-story front facade from the street with a small increase in roof height. The addition in the rear of the house has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance of excessive height and bulk in relation to other homes in the neighborhood. Because of its location and the topography of the site, the addition will not present itself as bulky or massive to adjacent homes. In addition, the home will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district: This finding can be made in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (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 avoidance of unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. This finding can be made in the affirmative. • Application No. 6-107- Short Hill Court Conclusion Staff concludes that all of the Design Review findings can be supported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification forms. 3. Arborist Report, dated October 5, 2005 4. Arborist Review Letter dated August 1, 2006. 5. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-107 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Wong; 14015 Short Hill Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review for a remodel and addition to an existing two-story home for a total floor area of 6,032 and a maximum height of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes a remodel and addition to an existing single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden. of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 have been made in the affirmative: The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy The project as designed, and with revisions to eliminate the middle window in the nook area of the addition and increasing the height of the terrace wall facing the east (as requested to by the adjacent neighbor), will minimize interference with privacy to adjacent properties. In addition, this area is screened from the adjacent neighbor by significant mature trees. The project minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties to the rear with setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by City Code and screening by significant oak trees. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve most of the existing mature landscaping along the perimeter of the site and on adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed project incorporates the existing mature vegetation on the site. The use of proposed exterior colors are consistent with the existing colors of the home and adjacent properties, and roofing materials will blend in with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The original Arborist Report identified 33 trees regulated by the Tree Ordinance that could be exposed to potential damage. Of these, 4 trees were recommended for removal because of their poor condition and safety risks, and three have since been removed. The Arborist Report recommended removal of the fourth tree (Tree #28) in accordance with the original Arborist Report, installation of 24-inch box native trees as replacement trees, and implementation of all other recommendations of the original Report to ensure protection of the existing trees on the site and adjacent site. These have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The house will continue to present a single-story appearance from the street. Architectural details of the remodel and addition include varied rooflines, dormers and recessed wall planes. In addition, all elevations are fully articulated to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence will be located in an area that contains a mix of one and two-story homes with varied lot sizes and setbacks. The residence will continue to present asingle-story front facade from the street with a small increase in roof height. The addition in the rear of the house has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance of excessive height and bulk in relation to other homes in the neighborhood. Because of its location and the_topography of the site, the addition will not present itself as bulky or massive to adjacent homes. In addition, the home will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (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 avoidance of unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. This finding can be made in the affirmative. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 06-107 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped August 1, 2006) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, -including but not limited to facade design and materials - to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Reports dated October 5, 2005 and August 1, 2006, as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The east facing elevations and related floor plan sheets shall be revised to eliminate the middle, east-facing window in the upper level nook area and to increase the height of the roof terrace east-facing wall not to exceed five feet, six inches. 4. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace per residential structure may be installed. All other fireplaces shall be gas-fired fireplaces with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 6. A grading and drainage plan stamped by a registered civil engineer combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. The construction set shall include a final landscape, irrigation and utility plan. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units and pool equipment enclosures. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees, and shall follow the recommendations included in the Arborist Report. 9. The owner/applicant is responsible for all damages to curb, gutter and public street caused during the project construction by project construction vehicles at the public right away areas at/near the property frontage. Public Works Inspector will determine if any repair is required prior to Final Occupancy Approval. 10. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of--way including construction and curb, gutter and street repair. 11. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped areas especially along any hardscaped area. 12. 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. 13. Proper maintenance of landscaping with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 14. 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 prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted. CITY ARBORIST 15. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Reports dated October 5, 2005 shall be followed, except as otherwise superseded by the Arborist Review Letter dated August 1, 2006. 16. Tree #28 shall be removed and the applicant shall install a 24-inch native tree as replacement. 17. All trees removed as recommended by the Arborist Report shall be replaced with 24-inch native trees and shall be incorporated in the landscape plan for the project. 18. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 19. A landscape and irrigation plan shall submitted with building plans, which includes required replacement trees and any changes to the landscape features in the rear yard. The landscape plan shall be evaluated for impacts to trees and to ensure compliance with recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report. 20. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $86,680 to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 21. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and the payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. Geotechnical Clearance: 22. 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, retaining walls, pool and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. 23. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 24. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 25. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 26. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. 27. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other related and/or erosion related conditions. • FIRE DISTRICT 28. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 29. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the ,City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction shall commence within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 9th day of August 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John 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 a~ i Attachment 2 • i City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ ~ ~ `^ ~ j~ ~~ . 1 ~ 1..~ Cry PROJECT ADDRESS: J I~ Applicant Name:_T~~~N ~~~~~ Application Number: 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. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ^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): C Cc ~ ~ ~G (S~ s ~~ ~ ~e I ~ Jat-~, i C`~"~t ~ e AUG 0 1 2006 W c nG~D1~ ~0.Ci ~g Neighbor Name: J ~ `r ~ Neighbor Address: I (~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ CITY OF SARATOGA //nn p i' '`~Ml1AlITY DEVEL(1°"' SQI(^(~t~ GZ ~ ~'1 (~v7~ Neighbor Phone #: 7~g 7`r ~- ~ 3 Signature: Printed: ~;~ ~~ ~°. ~ l 9 Al..s~ni~rv na»nrfmvnf REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATIONS .v ~~~ ~ ..n Gr~he~ City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: d ,j~~' PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ _ r~ ~~ S ~-""''"1 `n ~- C~ Applicant Name: ~'~~~ W ~N~ Application Number: ~.X9 ^~ ~,Q 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 o,~'all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your 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; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if aecess:ay~= Neighbor Name: ~i,+r~ ~~~~~1 ~t ,01~f [~(~~6V~ ~~i, uu AUG 0 1 2006 U CITY OF SARATOGA '°AMl1NITY DEVELQ?~'" Neighbor Phone #: ~-1~ " 7 ~~ "~ ~~~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Address: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 7 a.,5 C7 ~' ~, O ~ S ~~ 0~ ~ ~L~ G~ PROJECT AD RESS: Applicant Name: .~. ,~ Application Number: (,~ ~O Staff and the Plaissues thorn maslhaverdirecttly to the applicant.t Please ensure theexpress any concerns or ey Y signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~t]My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I „nderstand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Nei hborName: N1~ANES~+ ~E -4A-~%Ati~ANZ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ AI~G 0 1 2006 Neighbor Address: CITY OF SARATOGA /a 1~ (1 /~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~~,Q 1"~MUNITY DEVELOP-'" } i d ~ ~ C,~} ~s ~ 7n ~nS- 74 I -a I 0 O A ,~2 ~t Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: ;u.~.~.~~- ~~ ~,~ Est J ~ ~-H ~ lJ ~ ~~ ~->L .~. ~~ ,1 • r7 ______~_ T,.«....fsr»s~f City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date:?-~i `~6 4 ~ ~ S 5 1~~ ~~~ C~ rROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: ~~~~ ~ ~~ 6 Application Number: ~'" ~ ~ Staf~`'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. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. UJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~rc1,c~ °F l~ ~V J~1~11~~ Neighbor Address: ~~~T ~ ~S~~Q Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: ~r .,~ ~P c~ c.1 S/u~lotS ~~ ,~~ ~~~BV~~fi; U11 AUG 0 1 2006 U CIl'Y OF SARATOGA "~MUNITY DEVELOP"' ,,:~, ~f ~„~,,,,,,~„ Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~7 ~ Q 6 i ~' . PROJECT AD RESS: ~ ~ I J ~ o ~- ~ f ~ L c . Applicant Name: ~~'~-4~ ~ ~`1`~~ Application Number: n ~p ~' ~ ~ 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. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the ro'ect lans• I P J P ~_ 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 ro'ect lans• I P J P ~_ 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: _~ANESI-}- E I H~~ ~N~/-~N.Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~( Neighbor Address: AI~G 0 1 2006 ~"IIO V CAM.1.l~O ~JA~W CITYOFSARATOGA '"~MUNITY DEVELOP"'" `S ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S ~ ~d Neighbor Phone #: '~~g- 7 ~ I -~ 1 O ~ Signature: Printed: v • City of Saratoga Planning Department • r~ I~ T.- ...- :. _v ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & .Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 14015 SHORT HILL COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Wong APPLICATION #: 06-107 APN #: 397-14-018 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: October 3, 2005 David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A • • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources.Qcomcast.net ... __. «~ ~cd ~~51 Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 d, David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodel to an existing residence at 14015 Short Hill Court, Saratoga. This ~ report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include the Site Grading Plans .(Sheets 1 and 2) by MH Engineering Co., dated 9/05. The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet 2. The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 33. For identification purposes, round, metallic tags were attached to the trunks of accessible trees and contain engraved numbers that con-espond to those presented within this report. FINDINGS Thirty-three trees were inventoried for this report. They include three Blue Oaks (#12, 13, 19); two Camphor Trees (#31, 32); eleven Coast Live Oaks (#7-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 33Z); four Coast Redwoods (#3-6); ei ht .Monterey Pines (#22-29); one Jelecote Pine (#30); two Olive trees (#1, 2); one Cottonwood (#16); and one Southern Magnolia (#10). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached. table. Trees #1, 2, 7-9, 14-18, 24, 29-33 are not shown on the project plans and must be added. Their rough, approximate locations are presented on the attached map but should not be construed as being surveyed. Trees #2 and 10 are in direct conflict with the proposed driveway and would be removed. Tree #2 is amulti-stemmed Olive tree and its removal would be insignificant; mitigation is necessary and should include installing two, 24-inch box size trees of native origin. Tree #10 is a Magnolia that is slightly smaller than Ordinance-size and, as such, is not regulated by Town Ordinance' and mitigation is not necessary. Trees #28 and 29 are completely dead while trees #16 and 30 are nearly entirely dead. Consequently, these three trees present a severe public safety risk, particularly #28 and 29, and should be immediately removed. Given their condition, mitigation is not necessary as they contain a zero monetary value. Please note the Tree Removal Permit Application accompanying the plans refers to trees #28,.29 and 30 and should be approved. Regarding tree #16, it contains four trunks that wrap around tree #17 and is situated immediately adjacent to tree #18. I recommend the work is performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and that trees #17 and 18 are protected during the process. ~ Thirty-one of the inventoried trees are of Ordinance-size. Trees #10 and 18 are slightly less but were included due to their location on site. , s Tree #33 is located along the western property boundary between trees #5 and 7. Page 1 of S Wong Properly, 1401 S Short Hill Court, Saratoga _ __ _ n_~W_...:s.. n,....,1.,.,..,owf nonnrtmant • {~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 All other trees ark planned for retention and expected to survive provided__the. recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The proposed drain line and rip-rap structure will adversely impact tree #19 over the long- and short-term their location must be revised. Additionally, I recommend the drain line is routed further from the trunks of trees #11 thru 13 to minimize root damage. Trees #11 thru 13 were significantly pruned as the portions of their canopies overhanging the pool were cut away. As a result, the canopies are now unbalanced and the work does , not comply with the industry or City standard. Though the trees cannot be repaired, the stubs creating during the work must be properly pruned. Per City Ordinance, the bond amount required for adhering. to the .recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $87.440.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented within this, section are intended to mitigate the fAreseeable impacts to the inventoried trees. Should the plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The trunk locations and canopy dimensions of trees #1, 2, 7-9, 14-18, 24 and 29-33 should be surveyed and presented on all site related plans. 2. The proposed rock rip-rap structure must be established at least 25 feet from tree #19's trunk. Additionally, the drain line leading to the structure should be established at least 20 feet west and 30 feet north of tree #11's trunk, as well as 20 feet north from the trunks of trees #12 and 13. 3. Trees #16 and 28-30 should, be indicated for removal on the plans.. Given their zero monetary value, mitigation for their loss is not necessary. 4. The drainage design for the project, including downspouts, must not require water being discharged beneath the canopies or towards the trunks of retained trees. 5. Plans for landscaping the backyard should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementation. 6. This entire report should be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be titled Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection Instructions). ~ .. 3 This amount represents the combined value of trees being retained and is calculated in accordance with the Guide jor Plant Appraisal, 9'ti Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Wong Property, 1401 S Short Hill Court, Saratoga Page 2 of S ~... ~n____._._.. !'........,,n:f., T)m,olnnmonl T)onnrtmont • • ' David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 7. The plans should specify that any unused, existing underground utilities/services, lines or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and not dug up. 8. Any new underground utilities and services should be designed outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. I should be consulted in the event this is not possible.. 9. To mitigate the loss of tree #2, two new trees of 24-inch box size should be installed on site at least 20 feet apart and outside from beneath the canopies of other trees. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum; Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The trees should be installed prior to final inspection, 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. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. New plant material should be avoided or limited towards the' outer portion of the area beneath the trees' canopies; it should comprise no more than 20-percent of the canopy area. Plant material installed beneath the Oak canopies shall be drought- tolerant and compatible with Oaks. b. Irrigation should not spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. c, Any trenching for irrigation, lighting, plumbing lines or drainage should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If irrigation or electrical lines for lighting. are . designed inside this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than three to 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. d. 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. e. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should . be established on top of existing soil grade. Tree Protection Measures throughout and after Site Development 11. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any 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 the fencing should be established no further than one-foot from the future driveway edge and six feet from the proposed addition. Wong Property,1401 S Short HiIJ Court, Saratoga Page 3 of S w~. _~c+„-„~.,,.~ ('nmmunrfv Dmiolnnment Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 12. Unless otherwise approved, all grading and construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from unpaved areas beneath the trees' canopies. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, construction, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil $11), and equipmentlvehicle operation and parking. , 13. All approved grading and trenching beneath a .tree's canopy ~ .shall be manually performed usirig shovels. Roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed on the tree side of where the cut occurs; the freshly cut ends. of roots with diameters of two inches and greater shall be wrapped in a plastic sandwich bag that is sealed with a rubber band. In the case of any approved trenching, roots two inches and greater in diameter should be retained and tunneled beneath. 14. Prior to construction, afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips ('/z to 3/<-inch in size) shall be manually spread on unpaved soil within the fenced areas"beneath the canopies of trees #6-9, 11 and 12. -The chips should remain in place and not be in contact with the trees' trunks. . 15. All existing leaf litter beneath the trees' canopies should remain in place Zhroughout construction. 16. If the stones, concrete or deck beneath the canopies of trees #11 and 12 are removed, the work shall be manually performed without equipment traveling on unpaved soil beneath their canopies. The same involves removirig the section of retaining wall beneath tree #6's canopy. 17. Ivy should be removed off and two feet from the trees' trunk. The removal of any plants, shrubs or groundcover beneath the trees canopies shall be manually removed; great care should be taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. Additionally, the removal of any stumps, whether from trees or large shrubs, beneath the canopies of retained trees ,must occur by being ground below grade rather than pulled up with an excavator. 18. Each recommendation presented within the `Design Guidelines' section shall be followed. 19. All tree pruning and removals must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www:isa- arbor.com. Please note the stubs throughout trees #11 thru 13 must be pruned: Additionally, the approved tree removals should be performed prior to the tree fencing being established. 20. Throughout construction, during the months of April thru October, supplemental water must be provided to trees #6-9, 11 and 12 every two to three weeks. In doing so, I Wonx Property, 1401 S Short Hill Court, Saratoga Page 4 of S • • • ~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborrst October 3, 2005 suggest 10 gallops of water per inch of trunk diameter is supplied using soakers hoses placed on the soil surface beneath their mid- to outer-canopies. 21. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site .that allovJs drainage beneath canopies.. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 100 feet from the trees' trunks (unless on the street). 22. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. , Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet 2) • Wong Property, 1401S.Short Hill Court, Saratoga Page S of S (itv nfSaratopa Community Development Department 1 i TREE INVENT ORY TABLE - ~- N ~ D: • in ~ r ~ ., y F ~ a0 , .. o , ~ `- . . a REE T ~ ~ ,E i:~ a10i :~ o ° © ~ $~ ~ ~+~ ~ .o ~ ~ ~ o , du~ . . :110: 7?R)rE:NAly1E . .;.: , .: F C'7.. .:u`3 ,W ,~ •.x .., va .. :, A ~ ,+ .., ... .., :a~. ..~. E.,, . . 1 Olive Tree (Olea'euro aea 9.5, 9.5 20 20 50% 75%u Fair Moderate 3 - X $1,560 Coast Redwood m ervirens) i -19, 17 55 35 SO% SO% Fav Moderate 3 - $5> 6 a se (Se uo Coast Live Oak 10,8,7.5, ~ (Quercus agrifolia) 5 5(2),4 35 35 100% 25% Fair Moderate 2 - X X $3,770 Site: 1401 S Short Bill Cqurt, Saratoga Prepared jo-: Ciry ojSaratogo Community Development Depart ]0%1/1005 _ .. _ .. .._ nni ~t n!3 t ~i • , ' TREE INVENTORY TABLE Coast Live Oak l7 (Quercus agri olio 6 20 20 100%' S0% Good High 4 - X $470 Western Cottonwood 9.5, 6, (Populus fremontii) 5.5, 5.5 40 50 25%• 25% Poor REMOVE - - •X : $0 .Blue Oak 19 (Quercus doe lasii) ~22 • 40 60 75% 50% Fav Moderate 1 ~ - $7,400 i .. . Coast Live Oak 1 g (Quercus agri olia 5.5 15 ] 0 100% 50% Good High 5 - X n/a Coast Live Oak 20 (Quercus agri olio) 8 20 20 100% SO% Good Moderate 4 - $860 Monter~ Pine 2y (Pines radiata) 16 50 30 50% 75% Fair Moderate 5 - $540 Coast Live Oak ~uercus ogrifolia) 16 . 30 50 100% 100% Good High 5 - Monterey Pine 23 (Pinusradiata) 12 SS IS 50% 50% FairModerate 5 - $260 Monterey Pine 2q (Pines radiata 12.5 40 25 50% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - X $280 Monterey Pine 28 ~ (Pines radiata 16 SS - 0% 0% Dead REMOVE - - $0 Monterey Pine 27 (Pines radiata) 13.5 65 30 50% 50% Farr Moderate 4 - $290 Monterey Pine 26 (Pines radiata) 28 65 50 SO% 75% . Fair • Moderate 4 . - $1620 Monterey Pine 2S (Pines radiata) 14 65 30 50'/0. 50% Fair Moderate 4 - $350 Monterey Pine 29 (Pines radiata 14 55 - 0% 0% Dead REMOVE - - X $0 Jelecote Pine 30 (Pines atula 22, 14 25 25 0%~ 25% Poor REMOVE - - X $0 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES I S-gallon = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = S 1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch boz = $15,000 Sitc: 1015 Short Hl/t Court, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSarotoga Community Developmeet Depart.' vrenartd bv: David L Babby, RCA 2 oj3 70/3%!005 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5- allon = S 120 24-inch box = 5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch boil = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,00 Site: 1401 S Shorn Nil! Court, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Deport ~ n` ~ ]0/3/2005 • . .. 14015 SHORT HILL COURT J' yr ! 4T !. ~ ~ 1. /' f' ~ .' ' ~~"~ .`1. 1. ~ - ''~' ° (' r 1 ~ .' . ~ I'R07:'ECT~:Z'~ FENCJNG ^; ~' Y ~ ~;~ ,.,= ~.s~ ~ .J" s ~r .~ r ryR ~. s :Yt. ~._~ :.. .~ .R_.. r'< cf ~J (~ it'. ,' ~/ n. 1~/~e~/~p,, ~ :5 ~ ,/ ~ 'nom J .'~' ~ ~ 7rsY.~ ~~~ ~~"~ 1 _ d ^u ~~~ ~ ~ ~27 y Q •\ ~~~. 'r -~-~ 29 ~ PROTECTI ~' + ~ENCI:NG ~,.~~ 3Q _ _ ,, ,, . a.ss~ ~6 ~_ %' ~' ~.4.. as '" ~,^ `~ ~ ~S s. ~ f ~ 7.ti ~??~~f' J 2+~ -~•~ s~ •.~~t+~! . ~y ~,i~ i f ~ 3 •'6~ ~, ~ , ,~~ ~'vs"',a 1 .dUO Rr ~f / ~, r ~. • ~ .y ~ `7~,,.~ r V ~; ~ 0 f :; •~ ~ff _,^ `~~~' ,,' ,,,~ ,, ~ j F, ^~. ~- . ~ _ . _. " t-- ~ _. ~I~ .s n a N ,~ ail 4 ~f • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 14015 Short Hill Court Application #: 06-107 ARBORIST REPORT August 1, 200 APN 397-14-018 Prepared by Kate Bear Owner: Wong ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A This report replaces the report dated July 18, 2006 and has been revised to reflect that there is no tree #33 on the neighbor's property. INTRODUCTION The property owner of 14015 Short Hill Court has submitted revised plans to the City to remodel and add to his home. The design for the home has changed significantly from the original plans. The plans reviewed for this report was Sheet 1, Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, dated Mayl 1, 2006 (by MH Engineering Company) and Sheet A0.1, Site Plan, no date by MDA. There are a total of 32 trees on the property that were inventoried for this project. Tree #33 does not exist on the neighbor's property as of the most recent inspection. This changes the bond amount to $86,680., SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION The drainage on site has been modified to stay away from trees #11-13 and is acceptable. The existing drain line should be capped in place and not excavated.. The rock rip-rap structure has been located farther into the property and away from the property line and remains outside of the canopies of trees #19 and 20. It is acceptable in this location. A landscaping plan has not yet been submitted. It must be submitted for evaluation of impacts to trees, and at that time should incorporate the recommendations from the October 3, 2005 azborist report. The berm adjacent to tree #6 has been deleted. The plans show that no grading. in the vicinity of the redwood trees. Tree protective fencing is shown azound trees #19 - 31. It is not shown azound trees #1, 3-6, 11-13, 14- 18, and must be shown on the Site Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The entire azborist report dated October 3, 2005 shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be titled Sheet T-1 (Tree Protective Measures). Additionally the Site Plan must show the location of protective fencing as identified on the map in the azborist's report dated October 3, Page 1 of 2 14015 Short Hill Court 2005. Tree protective fencing is required around all trees to remain must be shown on the Site Plan and currently is shown only around some of the trees. 2. A landscape plan must be submitted for evaluation of impacts to trees. 3. Design requirements and tree protection measures specified in Arborist report dated October 3, 2005 shall be incorporated into plans. 4. Owner shall obtain a tree protection bond in the amount $86,680 prior to submittal for building division permit. This amount is changed from the original bond amount of $87,440 and reflects that there is no tree #33 on the neighbor's property. • Page 2 of 2 • • Attachment 5 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,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 24rd day of uj ~ , 2006, that I deposited 29 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: APN: 397-14-018 -- 14015 Short Hill Court; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~- ,c. 'C..,~-L~-' ~ enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services 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 9th day of August, 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.. PROJECT LOCATION: 14015 SHORT HILL COURT APN: 397-14-018; WONG, property owner APPLICATION: #06-107 The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel an existing two-story, single- family residence to construct an addition to the first and second story of the home. The maximum total floor area of the proposed residence will be 6,032 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is approximately 41,785 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 Monday, July 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. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP Contract Planner 408-868-1232 a >s ~[7.OD3 ACa I STRIGT N 18 (:9.41 AC) (:. i'6 .:C) t)ISTRIC 22 1 a ~~ ^ 2r~ 1 a.000 AG PCt A ~ N ~ k F t + ~p~~ ^..., ~ t art' r.. ~~na.oT^_^~~ Y S S ~ IC.1 to g: f~ 111 r^LtP ~__ G I :Q ``~ ~~`. vc~ ~ j vet.. c ~';t'64' ,,,a, ~ F~ ~ rn v ~ 1.000 AG I .M7 AC. aa+ " ~. pw +~ t5+i. 'J ~o •~ ' Y~f ~i~ ~~ o :±.~ vc~, o x ,~ 4" k b ~... ~ PGL., ~ + ~.. v +a.H~' hN PCI,^ ~ i M « 'SD. _ ( ~ro » ,. ~ ~ ~ ~Yy a 'fie ~r -T- riif a~~ '11 i i ('ASS AC) /8 l7 +!•;ne 4.500' ~ ' . ~. ~ ., u .q .,, 'N ,~ ~. ~rr~~ C K.t~ i+t Subject: 14015 Short Hill Court APN: 397-14-018 500' Radius ~'t . '~rA Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 't.J. ~ ~ 1:. i /gym ilac ~ .. • - t 1012 AC ~ K J .t ~ ;~ 4 w'a ~ ----- __. __ 7 ~ ~~ . T r~ qtr, 2 S o e g' 1S . is 1 ~'d ~ dt d~ J S.2 ~ ^-^ ... :r!17t~ L. aP~ dt~'~ li~~ Ct`U )~ _ ~ } ~, z L /4 4 ~ z , ~ p ~, +'~~ UI e«.u 'r N + . ~,. D ~ ~ %~`°y y ~ ~ ~ J ~ r ~" wi ~ ~ Y ~ -TN. 2 nte~ e b ~ ,b 4 .u `.}~ ~ ~ by ~ ~~ 13 to ,i.~ V PTN. t • / .M ~ ~ .. ~.~. r ~+ a ~ ~ f 1 I Ai 6t'. 10.99 AC _ f 7i i• • • July 22, 2006 Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397-14-018 AARON T & ZENOBIA WONG 14015 SHORT HILL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5634 397-01-045 397-01-046 397-Q1-044 JAMES J & ENRIQUETA ARCELLA LOUIS A & ANTOINETTE KOVACS KATSKE,GORDON E OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 555 KNOWLES DR 120 14001 APRICOT HL 14023 APRICOT HL LOS GATOS CA SARATOGA CA 95070-5614 SARATOGA CA 95070-5614 397-01-047 397-01-050 397-01-048 397-01-049 MARJORIE I OROURKE GERALD & SUSAN BITTNER LARRY R & JACQUELYN HESTER OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14045 APRICOT HL 14067 APRICOT HL 14089 APRICOT HL SARATOGA CA 95070-5614 SARATOGA CA 95070-5614 SARATOGA CA 95070-5614 397-01-057 397-01-058 397-01-066 MARK F SALCEDO HENRY & PATRICIA KRAUS RICHARD PREVITE OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14195 CHESTER AVE 14183 CHESTER AVE 14008 CAMINO BARCO TOGA CA 95070-5623 SARATOGA CA 95070-5623 SARATOGA CA 95070-5661 -01-067 397-01-068 397-01-069 STEVEN & JOHANNA ALLEN A LEINWAND ROBERT J & HEIDI CAUDLE SCHWARTZKOPF OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 19050 CAMINO BARCO 14024 CAMINO BARCO 13941 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070-5617 SARATOGA CA 95070-5661 SARATOGA CA 95070-5618 397-01-070 397-14-013 397-14-014 GLEN & ELLEN MC LAUGHLIN WALTER E & KAREN MUIR WALTER E & KAREN MUIR OR CURRENT RESIDENT p0 BOX 10097 OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14016 CAMINO BARCO SAN JOSE CA 95157-1097 14156 SHORT HILL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5661 S,ARATOGA CA 95070-5634 397-14-015 397-14-016 397-14-017 CHARLES & FRANCE POE JAMES H AANENSON STEVEN J & VERNA WONG OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14128 SHORT HILL CT 14052 SHORT HILL CT 14000 SHORT HILL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5634 SARATOGA CA 95070-5634 SARATOGA CA 95070-5634 397-14-018 397-14-022 397-14-024 AARON T & ZENOBIA WONG WEST VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE RILLIE CORNELIUS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 1400 FRUITVALE OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14015 SHORT HILL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 14199 SHORT HILL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5634 SARATOGA CA 95070-5634 14-025 397-15-014,015,016 397-15-018 ORE 2001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER ,WEST VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE OR CURRENT RESIDENT 50 E NORTH TEMPLE 1400 FRUITVALE 14231 SHORT HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150-0002 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-5634 397-15-019 397-15-020 397-15-021 MAHESH JETHANANDANI SUYEYASU CARL E & GAIL JONES ' OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 19100 CAMINO BARCO 19152 CAMINO BARCO 19155 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070-5617 SARATOGA CA 95070-5617 SARATOGA CA 95070-5617 397-15-022 MARGARET N BARCO OR CURRENT RESIDENT 19101 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070-5617 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • • • Attachment 6 • • • • ZO W V ~ ~ K " v -' ~ ~ o w -a~ m c~ z °i ,~ m ~ 3m ~' ~ z N z W ~ ~ 3 1 z w w 6 o ~ ~ Q Q ~~_I a.~~o ? ~ ~, ~o~ z :~3 ~ a z o W ~'~° Z °w~.° 5 ~ °QQ w U Vl i 2 Z 0 F a U w sg ~~3 s=~ + a ~ U o .-~ J W ~ ~ Z a ~ ~ d ° o 3a _ ci N '~ ~ - L7 Q `` vi W w In O p w O ~ ~ O O O O W d' y ~ W ~ a ° `° o ~ N ~> oc~~ c o o S W OQOa~= < a m~ ~ w O' T"~ Q Q ~mzWZ~ j Q z _, cV M M ~ ~ O C.i,+ ~ ~ N ~ ~ = i ~ ~ I ~ {~ ~ '~ Z -- m I m ¢~ X 4 W % ~ z ~ ° ° II II I i v F v ~ J ~ y~ ~ ~ ozJaW ~ ~ W w ~ Q ~ o o~ y a ~ a ° a G F _ a a o 0 i9 H H~ F F- (~ N O M W d v O W ~ ~ i . ~" O W N (7 ~ U= Z p ~ Q ~ 2~ w ° w U o w w Iw w W ti O D F Q O O O ~ (~j~~ U i- (n W X H W W - ~ r- ~ ° N~ v i rc w w vi a 0 0 0 o a ~ t rn °' ~ ti ~ U o °' ~ O d° a Z Lt ° < ~ ~ . i ~=zo~~ z O W = _ u ~ _ U W W W V) N N1 7 r' 1~ O Nl O' O M O cD m O - O CO O Q N + O N I r f ~ Z\ /~~ W ~^ Q z F- ~~ 0 Q U Q (n tnH U U U G c Q¢ a a¢< a _ V1 1 O aj N M ~ tD O pj N O I~ . O O O ~ ~ O ~ O m ~ r"1 7 M M ~ N NQ J Q~ X Y O W W ~ r rOi N O C O N r M ~ .- N I~ O l0 O ~ O N lJi to ~ ~` ~ = f- W S = W `- W O S V ~ ~ __ ~ _ w Z m W ~ ~ ^I J = ~~W d. Z~ ~ a a oavlo"" ~° ' ' N a O a U Z m _ U J Z ~ a_ N '1J TIH lV~]adtl X W" ~ U W N O ~ O U F- W Z ~ OO-=W UI d7 a s " Z Z OpF S U= ' O Q o f > O N N Z U W U~~ ~ a ¢ ~ d` ~i s m z ~- ~x3 w < .;yy~ Q W O Z H J Z Z O 1- ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Z O y m ~=OQp w H U O H U ~ w Q O J V! O w 2 O p y ~ V O W 0 0 Y ~ Q W- W Q Z W W (Y a Q a d z U ~ w '-` o= ~~ oz a> ~ a-=mm4-a: ~ ~ Q ~ O O J O F- W O ~ O O J ~ Q ~ > ~ F.. d N O ~ d ~ m ~ W N O ~ W ~ ~ Q ~ N ~ W W 1J IIIH laOHS ~ o w o in ° ~` ~ ~ a ~ H vI ~ a 0 w (n W O In I- o li a (n W Z f ~.. O ~ ~ w W o U .. d W o v~i ~ r= a. 0 0 0 U Q O O~ O W Q~ O C ~ ~ W N O -i Q O O ~ V) O K Q .. O > X O ~ v 0 U li O w U U w S J m m W ,~ S Z~ Q D' U W w ~ W O W U W ~ w W O ~ W W u W v 0 W O O Q m 7 U O O O W W W ~~ k- W N W t1 N f- O ~ tl V7 F- H Q ~ d ~ ~ a a 0 U r U O O S S= W W Z ~ ~ to ~ ~ d 0 d 0 W a o ~ O N d o O 7 N ~o W Z z a W 7 o ~ J p~ O w a a rn o a fn Q .- F- F- V- m Z ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ + ~ Q ~ C7 h ¢ ¢ '3ntl 3ltlnIInad ~ - - M ' 1 ] + ~ U ~~ w Z Z N ~~ ~ ~ J Q ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ = Q ~ b ~ h~ C7 ~ t + C7 _J U + ~ Q _ 2 U U Q W O ~ ? U ~ ~ O ~ ~ X ~~ ~ ~ Z C Q ~ ~ r I i H I I ~ ~ I I I I Z ° I I p I 1 ~ I I Q I 1 W . ~..:I ;~;; ?.. J E ~ \ I I I ~~1 G ~,ZJJ' ~aR / ~o y o Y 4 o I I I I I I I 1 ~ I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~~ 1 ~~I I asl ~ _. l.L ~ W ~ o= U a ~ ~ ~ ~ rn Y o 1 I I I t I i 1 ~ I I I I I I ~~/ I I I I ° .~~ V 0 _ c. O Q U Cn Z Q d F- O d MM A803N73N] ,NOM ~0 S4N`dl, nn/Ht Ae Nxvua tcoPe ra 'mH ¢~Lol[ P+u~lo~fl Pn[oulA 91oPI ~ ~ OOi °~;s ~.a A8 03AOtltldV AB 035Ntl3df15 'off ~trl~aaur.~ua Hy~ ~ _ ~N ~99~ l~d~l 8 lOl 1dNl75 doaoslsz 3,L1 Ndld 102i1N0~ NOIS02~3 ~8 3~dNlbb4/~NIOd2~S % ~- - j // W~ , O ~ ~ ~ ~~ i~ ~ ~~ ~ k ~ ~ '~e m ~e Nye 7~ $ ~' '~ m c'; ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ = h~e ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ m ~ff ~~e hem ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~$~ ~ ~2 }~! ~ ~ £~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ 0. ~ ~a ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~~ ~~~" g~~ ~`~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ $~ ~~ h~~~ ~~ ao` ~ ~~ mmt ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~j ~~~~~~ ~~ 525 ~~~am~~ "~ e~ ~ N 42i ~ "~ ~ ~2 ~ ~£ xe`+ ~Fu ~ 2 m~ y to ~ ~~ ~4 O ~., K 1~~ A~~ 3N ~~~= i2:~ ~~~~ e ~m~ ~ ~e~ ~e ~~ ~~o ~~Q ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~h ~'~~ ~2~~~ ~~~~h~ ti ti ~ K ui ~ RS a ~ .. ~~ , ~~~ e~> V~ ~~~s~ gc~i ~~ ~~ 2 ~~ r ~~ i ~~ ~,}d;i~ ~ y~,y~ e.. \~~, V w ~~ ti~ ti h q a hp h C r ~~ ~~ J I I~ ~:~Y ~. ~`~:X b ~ `D y? ,r r~ j ~.~:~ ~ -- ~ •. I h Vii' w i / W a Q ~7Q ~ ~ ~ ~N ~o o~ ~~ m v m ~. ~ ~~ ~~H A e~ p v V~ ~~~~ ~ V ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ `~~ ~~~~ S~ boa ~~ ~~~a ~~ ~3~ w b ^ m S M~M N "~i Oq r~r ` ~V !1 O r~r^ v1 ~~ ~ ti ~~ ti Y Y 41SflfZ 'W-ONZ-NVSf IfZ 'ifLi-lSl-irvSfltZ 'OldSflt2 Nyo+% lOd Wd 91~9Z~10 9002/40/SO OMa'dOd06l9Z\6MP\061SZ\ZOOZSha~~~d\~l / ~ • • • ses:zs3~ w ~s9n' p e._ z ~ G ~ W U ~ ° vg m ~ N 2 ~ W Z ~ m ~ a~~a ti~ Z~ p oo ~ W N;Z n~ 0 ~ ~ = ~ 4 ~g~ a ~- av~~ Z z rc w z N z o ~ w ~ w ~ Z Q U Q ~ ~ U W 5 = ~ V 1~/1 w ~g 's¢ ~ a ~~ ~a Srg ~ o ~ s ~ 3~ 3 dQ e ~ ~ z pgB 5 O ~' ~~ J 8~ W ~g I c9 z a ~ ~` ~ w M ~ ~ a $ ~ s r 2, ~~~ ~~ ~~~ J~ _~ .. W ~ __ fl Q Z W S_ rc '~ O .-. 1- W } Z ~ a W W K v ~ m m 8 rc 4 W Q Z U' a ¢ U n ~ v z a J O J L.t_ I 0 z 0 v w z o ~ ~~ X ~ W ~ ~~~~~~LL~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~4t ~i ~ vm~i 3i~y r~i~~inn ~m 8'~~ n g W~9i °mm$~Nn~mmmo m 8 ~ •o~P~N~ro°?b ~ $nt~t~pmv~ri~Y~maU ~ y~ pppp rp~~ ~ G i 1~ O hnE~On-~O~NN^~j^ j 4.1 ~^~ z bj <mclow4c~i~~x~i <~ ~ ci~izoio¢~~~i3 D • • • N. O w Q I ~ ° w Q Q O O 3 as~~ n a~m~ ® u€~a 2 - ~ U C~ U U = g Z K W m ~ U' Z W F ~ ~ y ~ W w Z U 'O ~ ~ ~ N 4U' K 2 Q Z 0 W O N ~ V 3] ~ ~ QQ JQ a W U a Z . - N V s U (~il Z O F J J ° > ~ U W W 8 ~al Z ~~~ ~ J ~ i~E i~g ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ o 0 0 0 .sNatlYl3a ~' ~ ~ ~ •Ptd) 1F1913H Q3LtlWLLS3 o N m ~ m m In tD In h In M » M In h n N ~ o vl ~ » N » N ~ o N h g o N ~ o IA r~ ~ o O of m o M n h In In ~ N o M ~ M .('1!} a313MV10 AdONtl~ o N ~ ~ ~ ° In M ~ ~ In N o N 0 !O ~ o 17 m N n N o H] 0 N 0 ~ 0 t0 0 N 0 1A o M] Ir>, .- m N e7 M In f0 I ~ v> N h N 1~ o N a3~rrow~NNna1 vl m O R N ~ O W O W ~ N o n ~ ~ ro ~ N m b t0 N lV + N rS O .+- N n 3WVN ~w ~'w HO ° Y-O I-O F-O fQ ° I- 1-Q Z a W H 1-Q F- p CO Y o Y o Y o O K ~ K ~ ~ ~ K K ~ K ~ ~ K t 33a1 0~ ~~ a s c~ a3 a3 a ° a° ° ¢° ° O o <° ° ~¢ mO ~¢ m° a° ' a° ~Z N " ¢ ° a ~Y mO a ° < ' ° z o°' z oa z oa 2 ~n Z a Z a ~2 a ~Z a UZ SW ~ SW ~ aO ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ '~ c c ~~ v~ ~ ~ c v5_ $~ ~ o c ~ ~~ C ~~ ~~_ c . o o o o Wa < a ~y`I J ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ () U a3ervnN 332ll .- N ro ~ n 'p P Q O O ~ N n ~ 10 m n m 0 N N N ~ N N lV N N N p M ~ ~y Mf n Wow U~ ~~ ~< ~ U ~~ _~ o= W ~~~~a)Z ~~. tla~~ aoo'~ 1S1 ~IUW - -- --_ --- ', " ~-, i - ,"~; , "m 1 ; ,~ Q I 1 ~ ; O o~ 1: 1 "_-~-- ~~ ~ --> 1 / 1 r i ~ ~"` ~_-" i~ " ;' 1 ~,~o _ ,~ 44 1 ,j ~ ~O Mi ~, i ;~~ ---- ,~ ' 1 ~ i 4'~ \ 159.29' ,~ ____~ f / _,; . o ~ ~ e ~ ~` ~ . ~, a i=~ N ~'~ W O_ L O 1 n _i ~ ~ ert 'Y ~ M: 1 00 i O ,.i .a .f. ...r ~~~ 1O I 1 - ~~ ''_ ~ ~' , i 1 1~ Ilf i 1 i 1 i;' ( ,; • , .i /; ~;% A-5L aXIVAI~c ~ ~ ~!' "ti. AaU1S NfL 'H91 ~ ~ ~ %~~ ~~ `~~® 1 N ~ 41 1 ~ _ X14 1, 1 / 1 0 ;1 ~' J~o % , 4 fy'}%"phi 6~ C l ~ ~ ~ ~\ A-.oz N o 1 j ~ MJtlalx a~ ~I .rant - ~- a., o,- i ` Ir IN I t 1 I ~ I "A~- 1 ry o0 1 j ~ i~" q~ ~ ` 1 ~ -Y "' ~~ j 1 ~ O! b / ~ 1 I i , ,1 ~ ;. F ( ~ j '~ I 1 y~~ '~, 1 I .~~ l ~ ~~ ~~ i ~ ~I f~ 1 a: ,1 l o;:, ,I - ~ ~' ~ 1 /~ 1 ~~ i ; 1 p ,I-- i ~ ~ `` ~" 1 O / 1 Y " ` \``\ +a-- - "; ~ ~ 1 "O _. 1 ~ ~ i ,. , 1 ~y 1 - : <' ~ .~, ' ~ /~ ,." ! '~?' f h /" ~ `\ I ~~~_ -~ ly" /" ~ ~ i --~'~ ~1 ~ /" ~ " O" `` ~ 1 ~ ~" ~ .i i i 1 // Q~ /' ~" 1 11 ~ % / i' ~ \ /' i- -~"' i;' -~z i~';~---~ " ~ ! ;;- ; / i1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~d .a, i i % '~ !~ / "~ i ~ ~' ;'1 i i ~' ii ~ ii i~ ~ 1 1 ~ I ` 1 ~ i ~" A-SL =M1tl9t35 Atws ar¢ •wn ~~'-+-3I '~, ~ r 1 i N ~ 11 1 1 1 ~' .0 I ~ 1 i ~ 1 1" 1 ~~ i 1 % -11 / 1%--IS 0 LV y!~ -;~ 1 ~' ' l l 1 1 4 1 ~ W U 0 "" I 1 v 1 / •'.1 --'ON~ 1 ?~ ~ ,~ ; r, 1 `,o~i ' O .~~,`~` ~~•: z ~I , ~ ~' o o, i-l,r , "t: NI `, ;,,a 1" 1 --: ;.-r----1-----~-- ,- ,: cy~ Oa: _ ~ » •o ,r~~~b~ . y .3, N .~s (H O F H 0 0 • ~ ~~~ ~ 8 ~~~ w j o ~ w ~ ~ ° ° ~_ 3 ~ g~ Z ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ U O T a ~a~ ~~~ s~ a ~ ~ i a i~~ ~ a 9 e ~ ~ ~ i O O Q ~ ~ I Z Q n~ LL LL ' ~o u ~ ^' • J v 0 ~ a~g ~ Z o ~ ~ ~ zs3 ~~ ~ ~ya~ ~ ~ ~ g~~ ~ ~ ',~ ~ ~ $s ~ W ~ y ~ ~~7t o • • • O ~Z N ~. a ~ od Q ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Z a J 0 J L.t_ Z" ~Y N ~ ~ W U = ~~~~ ~ ~ O ~ °x ~ e ~~¢ ~ Z ~ g ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ a F ~ Z U U a ~j~ is ~~~ ~~s ~.~ ~I~I OZ ~ OJ ~ G L ~ ~ a Q o ~ z Q J ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ • • • i ° ^ n g4 - h z Z o ~ K $E~~ Z U O ~ ~ l=n ('lK Z ~ s,., tt ~$ W z o z S W ~ ~ ~°o QQ ~ w L ~$~. a ~ z ~ N U S U .S-.S I I ~._ I ~24i I ~=i I ~I D I ~ ~~? ~ ~ °R I I I I I I I ~_ I I 4 I ~- I ~I. I I ~Y I i _~~~ ~- ~ I ,~ ~~~ I k~~~ . _, -- I I i ~_ ~ ~~ :-=~-' ~~ I ~=~ I ~~ - -,~ I I __ ~. =._. ~a ~,-_- . I .- ~ ~ , ,~ ~~ , I -~ 4 , ~ ~ I ~, ~ I I I I If 1" .1 S,, ` I I'~., .. 'I I I I i I i ~.. _~ L.. I - I I I I I I n .f-,Ct ~~ ~_ cZ'a a s;~; w ~ ~ya a ¢ ~~~ ~ U B ~ K ~B Z 65.9 vi w 2 a 2 I I , ___\~ Q I 8 SS 3 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ W W Q ~.,I i % _~ t i =~m I ~~ C w .~~-~9~ I = ~ ~` I I I I I v. V,-. ~ . I I I I I ~~ I -- I I (` --L -. I I I I I -s~ ~m m~ O W o o z o w J i W i ~ ~ W p (n .~ I I ;' _l ~ N o~ ~~ =a -,. ~za I ~~~ I I I k I I I I I I ~ .u-.tip I o ~ ~=1 I =.I a`%,u ~~;_J~ ~I 1'~ ~C` ~JD ~I°J;~~ ~r ~I. s ~~ ~~. ~~ o °- ~~Jp N U ~"v , W' z O ~-_ a w ___i W Z Li. m V OZ~J N 6 4\aV m3ia- 'i3 Piza m~~ ~U ~ ~~ V U pZp J v~ o z~ ~~ ~~ a m ~~a n ~F I o I :~ ~o^ m ~ C7.~ ~ m ~' n ~~s° N ~ Z w ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ECS3 Z K ~ ~ NO¢ 2 ~psO Z ~ w Sao w ~o ~S a F' ~ °~cai o s . ~, Z ~~~ ~~: <~~~ ~~+ ~.._~ ~=Y I 4=~ ~\ ~{ ~ ~S/~ ~~ ~, ~'~ ~~ ~ ~_ N ~~ ;~ yyy~~ Z V• i ~~g LL ~~~~ i I I i I i ~ I I ~ I ~ ~o o ~ D v 6 `~ D D o ~~a~o v I ~ I ~6I ~. -- --- - .. \~ 1 T i i T i 1 I 3 Z W Q U J I wl I z' I I ' z o 4 ~ ~ w J W w N O yrU U ^ z~ N v~ 2 z o ~ I Z ~ W s o ~ ~ a '. W ~~~z aim ~~~ a=~ ~~ r~~ J I I I I I ' z I z 0 Q 1 ~ w ' _J W ~ I Q ~ w ;, ~ ~ I I' O _U J~I~ 'i1 ~ ~' Nv v~ (7 Z ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ z o °° ~ a ~~ ~ i ~. I. I I .Q-.+>z I Est i I I i I I I I ~-At I I I I I I' I i I i .o-.~ I i I I . I I I I ( I I I i i I -. b 3 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~- } U Q I .g ~~ ~~ I ~~~ a I 1 ~~ Q~ I ~~, ~ .~-.~ I ~ - € ~ I I ~ I ,A-At .A-.e i I ,tt-A I I I ,ll-,Bl I I ~_,t ~ i ~ I ~ i I~ I~ Iv I I I I I I I i I I ~ I I ~-~ g ~~ n of 2~c~Q '~ U W ~ ~ U ~z m zW ~ ~ °a5 N ~ ~ W ~~O a N U z ~. F K w Z N z ° w w Z Q 4 ~ K U w ~ r U ~ (J K ~ ~ V f~/i w gfig 6aK goo ~ ~ 3 ~3 ~5_ 2s€ VI W /~/ / LL. ~ \ ~ U Q n ~ .., .~ i ~ 1 ~~ . k F • F~ .• I~ t r