Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2001 City Council Agenda PacketSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 19, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Thomas Sullivan, AICP AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration of the City Council action referring DR-01- 007 & BSE-01-011 (397-017-034) CHEN, 19751 Versailles Way back to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Grant the Reconsideration, adopt the attached resolution which Denies the Appeal and approves the Project. REPORT SUMMARY: The developer of the 19751 Versailles Way project has requested reconsideration of the City Council's action to refer the project back to the Planning Commission. In the intervening time between now and the last City Council meeting, he has obtained consensus to have the front yard setback at 55 feet. This is the setback approved by the Planning Commission. The next door property owner who spoke at the appeal hearing who wanted the setback reduced by seven feet has agreed to leave it at 55 feet. The one property owner who has not agreed to this is the appellant who is still out of the country. He is expected to return the weekend of October 13/14, 2001. The project architect will make contact with him. The setback was never an issue with him due to the additional trees that had required to be planted. Prior to the City Council meeting Staff will have written documentation of the neighborhood concurrence. If the written documentation is presented, Staff would recommend the City Council grant the reconsideration and deny the appeal. The setback for the front yard would be 55 feet. The additional items required by the Planning Commission would be enforced The additional items previously agreed to by the applicant and appellant would be enforced. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The project would be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in November 2001. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): ' ' 1. Deny the request for reconsideration. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Not Applicable ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DR-01-007 6;r BSE-01-011) 19725 VERSAILLES WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 15-46 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance an application. was made to the City of Saratoga for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story residence and demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence at 19752 Versailles Way per "Exhibit A" and presented at the City Council meeting of October 3, 2001; and WHEREAS, following consideration and approval of the Design Review application by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2001, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Yvonne and Hari Pillai'in accordance with Article 14-85 of the Saratoga City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on the matter at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence onJuly 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the design review proposed by the applicant in the exhibit marked "Exhibit A," all as more particularly set forth in File No. DR-01-007 & BSE- 01-011 of this City; and WHEREAS, the city Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support and in opposition to the application; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Agency and the City Council has conducted duly noticed public hearings in connection with this matter at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby finds that: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees are the suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist which are included as conditions of approval. The trees continue to provide screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties. Additionally, the pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot, which would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left side screens the outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left of the site. The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the right side property line. The separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect from excessive noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have a door associatedwlth it which would make more noise to raise and lower. Two, it is a single car carport and not a standard two-car garage which by the nature of the increased use would create more noise exposure to adjacent residential'uses. The propOsed entry porch (at the 47 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched Windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or "importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The "diminishing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in setback coupled With an alteration of the architectural &taft to a simpler fagade with rectangular windows. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the lot is nearly fiat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Additionally, eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36-inch four Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch Coast Live Oaks as shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings are the replacement tree as recommended by the City's arborist. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and tO the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the roof line is varied as the building setbacks are increased from the front property line. The project proposes stone pedimentation (vertical element) and window trim and an eave line With stone corbels (horizontal detaft). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the building. The front entry porch is 47 feet from the front setback. Other elements of the front elevation increase in setback from 55, 57 and to 76 feet from the front property hne. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43 feet from the front setback, With the majority of the building line at 43 feet. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height With (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and Within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of "statement" architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air corridors. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City in the construction requires a City-issued building permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods will be required as a part of that permit. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique/~3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1 Technique ~4 "Minimize Building Height"; Policy 1, Technique/~6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1, Technique/~5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique/~3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique ~3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique/~4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings". Therefore the appeal should be denied. City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of LEE CHEN for Design RevieW approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-01-007/BSE-01-001 DENIAL OF APPEAL CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEE CHEN; VERSAILLES WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shah be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. The basement shall not be converted to a secondary dwelling unit as defined by the City's Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shall include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and shown on-the Tide Report prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: Two fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The other fireplace shall be gas as burning. One wood burning fireplace with a gas starter and one gas-burning fireplace shall be noted on the drawings. Both chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. All the recommendations of the City Arborist shah be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iv. The site plan shah contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shah provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approv,ed plans." No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree #'s 4, 7 and 18, shall be remOved without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shah exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 9of13 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 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. If all'storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 04/23/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, butis not limited to: The Arborist. Report shah be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all apphcable measures noted on the site and grading plans. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A platform buffer shall be placed between the construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of tree/~'s 3, 5, 6 and 8. Tree #'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13- inch Coast Live Oak) shall only be pruned by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist. Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees shall be planted as shown on Sheet C-1 of Exhibit A. The plantings are also required to provide year-round privacy screening. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the apphcant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,353 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 10. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify comphance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 11. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 10 of 13 12. FIRE A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to tree # 1; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16~ 20:210). 14. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, fiat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.0901I]). 15. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders. 16. Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 17. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E). 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 19. Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the sqUare footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. _ CITY ATTORNEY 20. 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. 21. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 11 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 22. Plant additional mature Redwood trees to provide screening along the side property line. 23. Tile roof shall match the stone of the building material. 24. Apply stone around the arches and walls under the windows. widows shall wrap around the side of the structure. The stone under the 25. Plant two 54-inch box)olive trees one at either end of the portico. CITY COUNCIL 26. The front setback shall be 48 feet. 27. Relocate the proposed new 36-inch box Coast Live Oak trees from the east property line to the south portion of the lot. 28. Remove the three sm-inch trees along the west property line and locate the three 36-inch box Coast Redwoods to the west property line where the three six-inch trees were located.. 29. The deed to the 'prOPerty shall be recorded with the restriction that trees along the west property line shall not be removed without a tree removal permit from the City of Saratoga and notice and consent of the adjacent neighbor. The requirement of the consent of the adjacent neighbor, ro the west, shall be waived ff it is determined by the City that the trees are a threat to public safety. 30. The pool equipment be located as shown On the plans (on the north-south center Line of the property and shall in addition be housed in a small roofed shed that is no more than five feet high to reduce the noise impact to all the neighbors. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. SECTION 4. The appeal of Design Review DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 is hereby denied. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 3h day of October, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: 12 of 13 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Mehaffey, Mayor 13 of 13