Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-09-2007 Planning Commission Packet
ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #07 -192 P:\PC SITE VISITS\Site Visits\2007\SVA 041107.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, April 9, 2007 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 ORPHAN 20720 LEONARD RD. 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 a fact 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. DATE: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2007 and March 28, 2007. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 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 April 5, 2007. 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 #07 -192 (503 -19 -036) Orphan, 20720 Leonard Road; The applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their June 14, 1995, hearing, which consisted of construction of a 5,132 sq. ft., two -story, single family, residence with attached garage. The proposed modification would allow for a second -story balcony, modification of exterior architectural features, and a change in the proposed sq. ft. of the structure. The lot size is approximately 1.2 acres and the site is zoned R -1 40,000. (Therese Schmidt) DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 041107.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, April 25, 2007 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 April 5, 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.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planningAsaratoga.ca.us P: \PC Agendas\2007\Agn 041107.doc DATE: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 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 Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I I APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 28, 2007, were adopted as submitted (6 -0) ORAL COMMUNICATION MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Diane Drewke, Resident on Serra Oaks Court: Identified herself as a member of the Saratoga Neighborhood Task Force. Reported that they had sought a copy of the Use Permit for St. Archangel Michael Church. It was learned that there were two Use Permits (UP -147 and UP -29). A copy of one was provided but the other (UP -29) was not located by staff. Said that uses not allowed include a permanent liquor license. Attendance is supposed to be limited to members and guests but a lot of non members are often on site. They have had a catering license since 2001. The church holds events such as dances, movies, etc. They had a K -4 Elementary School through 2002. Advised that there has been a history of problems with neighbors. Asked that the Commission agendize this site for review of its Use Permit and that they be limited only to church- related activities. Stated that they currently have a bar /restaurant in this Allendale neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 2 PLANNING DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ORAL COMMUNICATIONS City Attorney Jonathan Witter: Advised the Commission that they can agendize matters from Oral Communications for future agendas, if desired. Said that the City maintains authority over Use Permits. The Commission can discuss existing permits and recommend amendments and /or modifications to it. It has pretty broad authority. Chair Rodgers asked if the Commission should discuss this evening if it wants to agendize this for a future meeting. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. Commissioner Hlava: Reminded that this church has been there for so long. Added that she is not against discussing their Use Permit. Said that before that happens, she would like to see a review of Use Permits for all churches in the City. She does not want to pick out this one church based on one complaining party or neighbor. Pointed out that some churches pre -date the incorporation of the City in 1956. Stated that she is not sure the situation is so unusual here and that other churches do similar activities as this one. Said that she is curious to know if all churches are located in residential districts. Reiterated that she does not like the idea of pulling out this one church with an old Use Permit. Proposed a Study Session with staff doing research and preparing an overview on all churches in the City of Saratoga. Chair Rodgers asked if it was not true that this church has applied for Design Review Approval. Director John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked about timing for that application. Director John Livingstone said that the Use Permit and Design Review could be considered at the same time. He pointed out that Use Permits issued today go into more detail than did older ones. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Design Review Approval would be processed next year or within the next six months. Planner Therese Schmidt: Reported that the Initial Study for that application is about two- thirds completed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 3 Added that story poles would be installed in the next week or so. Said that the application would then be deemed completed. Said that it has not yet been determined whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. If it is only a Negative Declaration, the item could be before this Commission perhaps as soon as August. Chair Rodgers sought verification that what is being sought here is a complaint- driven review. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes. Commissioner Cappello: Stated that there is value in looking at this in the context of a project review as well as in context with other churches. Suggested the Commission take a wait and see approach since this church may before this Commission within six months. Commissioner Kundtz said that it appears there is an existing Use Permit and that an enforcement issue is being raised. He asked staff if the site is in compliance or not. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that a complaint has been made and the City can deal with that complaint through a Code Enforcement action. However, staff wanted to see if the Planning Commission wanted to step in now before the situation became an adversarial issue. Chair Rodgers asked whether parking and the type of activities occurring at this church should be separated and dealt with now rather than later. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said he did not know the timing of the future application for sure. If it is more than a year than Code Enforcement can begin before that time or the Planning Commission can step in to review in the interim. Commissioner Kundtz said that the residents have initiated the request for Code Enforcement action in this situation and not the Planning Commission. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. Commissioner Kundtz said that it appears the issue is whether it should be the Commission looking into these concerns or allow the neighbors to drive enforcement through a complaint to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Hlava suggested setting a date in July for the Design Review at which time the Use Permit could also be considered. If the application is not ready by July, the Commission can review the Use Permit alone. Commissioner Nagpal: Reminded that this Use Permit is so old that it is likely the City will find activities outside of the Use Permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 4 Said that she likes the idea of setting a deadline to come before the Commission. This serves as an incentive for the applicant. Commissioner Zhao asked if the Use Permit for this church has to be renewed in the future. Community Development Director John Livingstone said that when there is an existing Use Permit that use can continued. If they change, alter and /or intensify their use, a Use Permit is looked at again and adjusted for changed conditions. It is looked at as part of an entire package of entitlements required. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the existing facility is allowed to have. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the. Use Permit is for a church of up to 150 people with typical church activities. She said that she has asked the applicant to list all anticipated activities. The uses could trigger the need for only a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an. EIR. If an EIR were required, the uses would have to be analyzed as it is, with no project at all or with an alternative project. Chair Rodgers asked when this would be known. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the Planning Consultant would make a recommendation once the Initial Study is done. This could be within the next one to two weeks. Commissioner Kundtz said that he likes the idea of allowing the application to evolve but with an established deadline. He said that 90 days would be more than adequate, on or before June 30 Commissioner Nagpal said that she likes the idea of staff putting that item on the calendar. Chair Rodgers suggested adding it to the June 27, 2007, agenda. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that the Commission make a motion to calendar this item for its meeting on June 27, 2007, to determine where it wants to go. Motion: Upon motion of. Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission agreed to place the review of the Use Permit for St. Archangel Michael Church on its agenda for the meeting to be held on June 27, 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 5 Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 8, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers 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 -206 (403 -28 -069) NGLIEM, 18344 Baylor Avenue; The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square foot addition and construct a second -story addition consisting of approximately 753 square feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,974 square- feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 -feet. The net lot size is 7,840 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Reminded that this project was presented to the Planning Commission in September 2006. Added that at the request of the applicant the Commission continued the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to work through issues with the neighbors. Said that the chief issue was the fact this home was proposed as a two -story structure. Reported that the applicant met with his neighbors on February 10, 2007. The applicant has taken suggestions raised at that meeting and incorporated some in to the project. As a result, one neighbor is no longer concerned. However, a majority remains concerned as they don't want a two -story home in this predominately single -story neighborhood. Explained that there are only about three two -story homes in this neighborhood. Described the proposed changes since September as including window sizes, use of frosted glass and glass block in areas with impact concerns, reduction of the second story and expansion of the first story. Said that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Added that no trees are impacted and that no geotechnical clearance is required Said that required findings can be met. Recommended approval. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Jolie Huston, Attorney for Applicant: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 6 Said that three more letters of support have been provided as well as a shadow study. Said that the applicant and the architect are here this evening. Stated that the applicant has worked with staff and redesigned this home several times. A balcony on the original submittal has been removed. The second story has been reduced in size. The originally proposed stucco has been changed to wood siding. She pointed out that the total square footage is 2,910. Shutters and hip roofs have been added. Reported that a 1.5 -hour neighborhood meeting was held. As a result the second story element was moved more toward the street. Windows were frosted and raised to five feet. Stated that they have addressed privacy, shadows as well as density and character. Said that they have addressed the adjacent neighbor's concerns and reduced bulk. Pointed out that the City does have an overlay option but one is not in place in this neighborhood. Reminded that while a 26 -foot maximum height is allowed, what is proposed is a maximum height of 21 feet. Stated that this project meets setbacks, FAR and other standards. Said she would be available for any questions. Commissioner Cappello asked if a reduction in size occurred as a result of redesign. Ms. Jolie Huston replied yes. The home was reduced in size by 114 square feet, going from a 753 square foot addition to a 639 square foot addition. To do so, they took out part of the master and two bedrooms upstairs. It was not an easy move to make. Commissioner Nagpal asked about a color board and whether the entry columns are constructed of wood. Mr. Ngliem, Applicant, said the columns are wood. Chair Rodgers asked about the windows and whether they were wood or vinyl. Mr. Ngliem said they were of a high -grade vinyl. Commissioner Kundtz asked about the proposed green and peach colors. He asked if peach is an accent color. Mr.. Ngliem said correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the garage doors are wooden. Mr. Ngliem said that they are metal that look wooden. Commissioner Nagpal stressed the importance of having wood -like windows and doors. Mr. Ngliem assured that the garage would have a wood -like appearance but that using real wood would be too heavy to be functional. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Nagpal said that this garage is very visible from the street and that she is not sure that she agrees that no wood garage doors are possible. She stressed that she just wants a wood -like appearance. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Ngliem if he had looked at wood -like windows. Mr. Ngliem replied no and pointed out that most of the windows in the neighborhood are vinyl. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that only place the peach paint color is used is for accent stucco. Planner Therese Schmidt said that it needs to be reflected in the plans and minutes that the windows on the rear and right elevations are to be frosted (four windows) and glass block (one window over stairway). Commissioner Nagpal asked about the red brick chimney. Mr. Ngliem said that the original chimney is red brick and he wants to do matching. Commissioner Zhao asked how many windows they are on the second floor. Planner Therese Schmidt replied seven. Ms. Susan Hollis, Resident on Baylor Avenue: Explained that her home is two doors down. Described herself as a long -term Saratoga resident who loves Saratoga, Baylor Avenue and the Sunland Park Neighborhood, which is a wonderful place to live. Reported that she has remodeled twice. Said that she believed that there was a moratorium on second story additions and that she does not understand why a second story is needed. Said that her home went from 1,300 to 2,000 square feet. Advised that she had offered to show her house to these neighbors. Stressed the importance of keeping the character and architecture of this neighborhood. Said that this two -story will change that character, is unattractive and will open the door to build mega homes in this neighborhood. Asked the Commission to protect her neighborhood. Ms. Patti Ploshay, Resident on Baylor Avenue: Said that she lives next door. Explained that she enjoys having privacy in her yard and that there is the possibility that this privacy and nature will be taken away by a monster home. Said that the second story will block existing views of redwood trees on nearby properties. Said that she is angry. Stated that she has lived on Baylor for 20 years with wonderful neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 8 Pointed out that there have been no new two -story homes on the block since it was annexed into Saratoga. There have been as many as 47 additions, all of which were single -story additions. Stated that they want their neighbors to be able to expand their home as needed. Since the lots are large, it is possible to expand in a single -story format. Reported that these neighbors cut down eucalyptus trees and don't mow their lawn. Reiterated that she is angry to see people moving into a single -story neighborhood and attempting to build up. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification as to where the redwood tree is located that will be blocked from view with this addition. Is it next door to the project. site? Ms. Patti Ploshay replied yes. Mr. Jan Null, Resident on Baylor Avenue: Said that he is here today wearing two hats. One is that he is a meteorologist. Informed that he has prepared a report on shade impacts with this two -story addition. Said that in the summertime, the second story would add two hours of shade to the house next door and a significant impact on ambient lighting. It will present a large impact on the skyline. Added that as a resident, his personal opinion is that this second story addition would change the character of this neighborhood of ranch -style single -story neighborhood. Stated that the General Plan's goal is to preserve neighborhoods and that a large home will not preserve the neighborhood that is there now. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that a shadow study was done for this project. Mr. Jan Null explained that a copy was not provided to the neighborhood for review. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is an impact in his professional) opinion. Mr. Jan Null replied yes, there is a two -hour impact. Ms. Elanah Kutik, Resident on Baylor Avenue: 1' Said that she lives several houses down. Added that this family seems lovely and that she is sympathetic to their need to add to their house. Said that she has strong reservations about what is proposed. Explained that she has resided in this neighborhood for 20 years and that CC &Rs prohibited second stories. Opined that a second -story would alter the feel of this neighborhood and set precedent. It would block sunlight and create shade over the adjacent property. Said she wants to be on record as opposed to a second story. Mr. David Grus, Resident on Baylor Avenue: Said that he lives next door and has for 33 years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 9 Stated that there is a wonderful sense of community and neighborhood. Added that there are no second story homes. Said that he remodeled in 1988, going from 1,500 to 2,900 square feet. He worked with an architect on a single -story design. Said that this home would affect the quality of life for neighbors due to the small lot sizes. Advised that he saw the plans in November 2005 and offered help on an alternative plan. Stated that the applicant has not tried a single -story design. Said that in the 16 months since, no attempt has been made to reconcile the impacts of the second story on the neighbors. Asked that the Commission not allow the cooperative spirit of their neighborhood be destroyed. Mr. Joe Ploshay, Resident of Baylor Avenue: Said he fives next door. Reminded that there have been numerous meetings about this house. Said that everyone has an opinion. Stated that a second story does not fit. Said that since the neighborhood meeting minor adjustments have been made but that he personally does not feel that these neighbors have really heard the concerns. Said he has been in this neighborhood for 20 years. Reiterated that remodels have been single -story. Said that it is wrong to him to allow a negative impact on a neighborhood. Stated that remodeling is great when it is done right. Mr. Richard Schultz, Resident of Baylor Avenue: Said he lives across the street. Recounted that he walks around the neighborhood every morning. Stated that this is not a neighborhood that is in transition. It has single -story remodels and the character stays the same. One can see the mountains as a result. Said that two -story neighborhoods have a different feel. Stated that he would like to preserve the character of this neighborhood and avoid the two story path. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that there is no finding to disallow a two -story. There is no single -story overlay in this neighborhood that prevents two -story homes. She asked Mr. Richard Schultz if he has any other suggestions on design as it is not within the purview of this Commission to simply deny a second -story addition. Mr. Richard Schultz said that his recommendation is to stay single -story as others have done. Ms. Jolie Huston, Attorney for Applicant: Said that an addition of 639 square feet does not make for a "monster" home. Reminded that the maximum height is only 21 feet whereas 26 feet is allowed. Said that a shadow study was prepared and that she was not interested in getting into a competing shadow study debate this evening. Said that the view of the redwood trees would still be unobstructed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 10 Said that this addition does not unreasonably interfere with views, privacy or enjoyment of neighboring properties. Added that conditions guarantee that the windows of this home would stay as approved. If not, the City would take Code Enforcement action. Said that other design options were evaluated including a basement and a single -story addition. However, it is not possible to place bedrooms in a basement so that option was not viable. Reiterated that there is no views interference with this 639 square foot addition. Concluded by saying she would be available for any questions. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there was some articulation proposed for the right elevation as it appears to be one solid wall. Mr. Ngliem said that there is a section of glass block. It is not one solid wall. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Ngliem if he was open to using building materials of high architectural quality. Mr. Ngliem said that this was his intention. Ms. Jolie Huston said that improved windows and other materials could be conditioned. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. Commissioner Cappello questioned the belief on the part of Ms. Jolie Huston that there could be no bedrooms located in a basement. Ms. Jolie Huston said that she was under the impression that due to a lack of fire access, bedrooms could not be placed in a basement. Director John Livingstone clarified that bedrooms are allowed in a basement. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Jolie Huston what other objections her client might have to using a basement for his expansion.. Ms. Jolie Huston said that one consideration is the cost to remove, the foundation and go up. Additionally, her client wants to preserve as much as possible of the existing residence as they have already remodeled. She added that a basement component could be evaluated if necessary. Chair Rodgers asked for the time of day for the shadow study. Mr. Ngliem replied that the study was done on July 1, 2006, at 9 a.rn. and 3 p.m. Chair Rodgers sought clarification that a portion of the house will stay single -story with the same height as the existing height. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 11 Mr. Ngliem replied yes. Commissioner Zhao asked if a second story element at the middle of the house had been considered since to her the second story pushed to the front of the house looks unbalanced. Mr. Ngliem said that a study was done for placing the second story element at the center. It was not a good use of the structure as it would result in a long hallway on the second story with narrow bedrooms. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Cappello: Said that Design Review findings must be used in considering any request. Advised that he can make most findings but has the most difficulty with Finding E, which deals with the issues of bulk and compatibility. Said that he does not consider this to be a "monster" house as the second story is modest. Added that the compatibility of the height with the neighborhood is what he has heartburn with. It does change the look and feel of a neighborhood to have second story homes. Suggested that given the new understanding by the applicant that bedrooms can indeed be located in a basement, perhaps that option needs to be investigated further. Pointed out that there are a lot of heating and cooling advantages with a basement. Stated his wish to see a stronger consideration of a basement with this application and asked if the other Commissioners felt the same. Commissioner Hlava: Stated that she did not think that a basement option is practical at all. The applicant only wants 600 additional square feet. They would have to tear down the house to install a basement. Added that she does not see what that buys the City. Rather it does not seem to make sense to her and is not a realistic alternative for this property. It doesn't fly. Said that it is not unreasonable to want their children's bedroom to be upstairs. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commissioner Hlava for her design comments. Commissioner Hlava: Said that additions almost always look like additions. Added that it seems that they have met all requirements here and it is less than what they could have asked for. Reminded that there is already a two -story home located across the street as well as others in the neighborhood. Said that when she was in the Ploshay yard during the site visit yesterday she saw a cupola in a nearby house that was more distracting and intrusive than what is proposed here. Said that on the issue of vinyl versus wood windows, maintenance is better on vinyl. Said that she does not see an issue with the design or quality of materials. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 12 Added that this addition does not infringe on neighbors. It has been reduced and moved forward as a result of neighbor comments. A shade study was done. Said that she can make the required findings and agrees with the staff recommendation to approve this request. Pointed out that half of the upstairs windows are frosted, which is more of a concession than she would have wanted to have to make. Commissioner Cappello: Said that when looking at the existing versus new site plan one can see that the garage is already impacted by the remodel. Additionally, the kitchen is being relocated and a laundry facility added. He said that where the two -story element is going in not much is being kept below it. Agreed that the additional cost for a basement could be prohibitive. Said that that there may be areas where a basement could be considered that would result in a win -win for everyone. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this understanding is correct. Will the garage and kitchen area be demolished? Planner Therese Schmidt said that it is shown on the plan which walls would be removed although at times more walls ultimately have to be removed if they are found to be damaged during construction. Commissioner. Nagpal said that there are a master and two bedrooms currently downstairs and plans for another master on the second floor. Planner Therese Schmidt said that there is an existing master with bath on the first floor. She explained that there is a multi- generational family living here. Additionally, one bedroom would be used for an office. Commissioner Kundtz: Stated that there is no prohibition against second stories and no rules that neighbors get to vote. Reminded that this Commission represents the voice of the community. Advised that he cannot make the required findings since a second -story is not compatible in this neighborhood due to excessive bulk with a 25 percent increase in square footage that is going up instead of outward. Said that he cannot support Finding D or E or the staff recommendation. Commissioner.Zhao: Expressed her appreciation for the applicant's efforts to meet with neighbors and for the use of frosted windows. Agreed that the Design Review findings don't prohibit a second story. Advised that she can make all the findings except for Finding D on the issue of bulk. Added that she has not made up her mind yet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 13 Commissioner Nagpal: Said that this is an extremely difficult decision. Added that she is stuck on Finding D as she does not feel that the applicant has met the standard. Stated that she is impressed with the maximum height of 21 feet. Said that she struggles with the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood and feels that not enough has been done with the architecture. Suggested shifting the height to the middle of the structure as Commissioner Zhao had suggested. Concluded that she is not able to overcome the bulk and height and tends to not want to approve based on Finding E. Chair Rodgers: Reminded that this is the second time that this applicant has been asked to come back. Said that since the last time, he has moved the second story toward the street. Stated that it is difficult to say no but that the Commission needs to be extremely sensitive to make sure this house stays compatible with its neighborhood. Said that she preferred the second story at the back where it is less visible from the street. Added that the quality of the materials is fine. Reiterated that she is struggling with compatibility although there is currently no single story overlay for this neighborhood that prevents a second story. Technically, the City is required to allow second story houses in this neighborhood. Reminded that they could have gone up to a 26 -foot height, which is one reason why she is on the fence. Commissioner Cappello said that the key issue is Finding E. The compatibility with the height bothers him, saying that he likes the basement concept. Chair Rodgers said that she is not sure the Commission can impose a basement requirement here. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that the applicant had not really considered a basement and he would like to see it considered. Commissioner Hlava said that she appreciates the comments about putting the second story more toward the back of the house but doing so might block backyards on both sides. It was moved forward to avoid privacy and shade impacts. Chair Rodgers said that Commissioner Hlava makes a good point. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is difficult to redesign this home here. She suggested asking the applicant if they prefer an up or down vote here or a continuance to allow them the opportunity to consider a redesign. Commissioner Rodgers asked for a straw poll. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 14 Commissioner Nagpal said her vote is for denial based on Finding E. Commissioner Zhao said her vote is for denial based on Finding D (bulk). Commissioner Cappello said his vote was for denial. Commissioner Kundtz said that he votes for denial based on Findings D and E. Commissioner Hlava said that her vote is for approval. Chair Rodgers said that her vote was also for approval. Commissioner Cappello asked if the vote should be taken for an up or down vote or continuance for redesign. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested asking the applicant's representative for their preference between those two options. Ms. Jolie Huston said that her client would accept a continuance for redesign and to allow them to explore options including a basement. Commissioner Kundtz cautioned that moving the second story back would not be an acceptable solution for him. He said the design should stay single -story going out or down with a basement. He stressed that a second -story addition is just not compatible. Commissioner Zhao said that she has no strong objection against a second story but she is not sure that it is the best solution. She said she would leave that issue to the architect. She added that she has reservations about a basement due to cost and the fact that it might not be practical for a couple of hundred square feet. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission CONTINED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN the Design Review Approval request to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square -foot addition and construct a second -story addition consisting of approximately 753 square -feet on property located at 18344 Baylor Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION /ADDRESS: #07 -225 (397 -06 -092) NARAIN, 18596 Arbolado Way: The applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 15 Commission on March 22, 2006, which consisted of demolition of approximately 38% of the existing exterior walls of a single -story single family residence an d constructing a second story addition, a small detached accessory pool structure and modify the existing architectural style from a Modern Ranch home to an International design. The Modification would allow for a full demolition of the residence. No changes are proposed to the architectural design or building materials. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 24 feet. The net lot size is 40,205 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission in March 2006. Reminded that the approval allowed for the demolition of 38 percent of existing walls. Reported that upon further review, it was determined by the contractor that a full demolition was required. Said that since the original request was noticed as a partial demolition, staff wanted the neighborhood to be aware that the entire structure would now be coming down. Said that no changes are proposed to the approved house design. The only change is going from a partial demolition to a complete demolition. Commissioner Cappello asked for clarification as to why this is necessary. Planner Therese Schmidt explained that it was found that additional walls need to come out. The determination has been made that it would be easier to demolish the entire structure. Chair Rodgers asked if the Commission is voting on the project as a whole again. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the Commission is considering a Modification to the approval. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer added that since this is now a completely reconstructed house, the Commission could elect to look at the whole picture. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Adam Rockwood, Project Designer: Stated that they have no objection to the provisions imposed by the Commission originally. Said that this request for a Modification to the original approval is just a technicality. Reminded that the approval allowed for 38 percent of the existing structure to be demolished. However, a structural engineer realized that more than 38 percent would be required for demolition. That is the reason this project is back before the Commission. Said that they ask for authorization to remove the entire structure since it is clear that more than 38 percent must come down. However, it is still possible that some part of the existing structure would end up being retained. Getting permission for demolition of the entire structure would give some leeway with how much to demo and how much to keep. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 16 Commissioner Hlava sought clarification that more than 38 percent must be demolished but there is the possibility that the whole thing might not actually have to be removed. Mr. Adam Rockwood replied yes. They are meeting with the structural engineer soon to determine the final demolition plan. Asking for authorization to remove it all prevents them from having to come back before the Commission. Chair Rodgers asked if story poles had been installed. Mr. Adam Rockwood replied no. He added that the City had notified neighbors of this public hearing. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission APPROVED a Modification (Application #07 -225) to a previously approved Design Review Approval for a residence located at 18596 Arbolado Way to allow for the full demolition of the original structure, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #06 -213 (397 -27 -010) CAHOON /PICHETTI, 18935 Hayfield Court: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new two -story single family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 6,189 square feet of floor area and a basement. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The gross lot size is approximately 62,726 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Shweta Bhatt) Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: Distributed a materials board. Said that the project will incorporate earth tone colors. Described the project as being a two -story, 6,189 square foot residence with a 1,859 square foot basement. Said that both an arborist and geotechnical clearance were required. The arborist inventoried 16 trees. The largest .tree, a Valley Oak, was found to be in poor health and recommended for removal. Another tree in the footprint was also approved for removal. Reported that a 500 -foot notice was sent. One neighbor sent a letter seeking assurance that the conservation corridor be retained in perpetuity. Assured that nothing is proposed for the conservation corridor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 17 4110 Said that staff is supportive of this application and recommends approval. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Glen Cahoon, Project Designer: Reported that the installed story poles show the shape and perspective for this nice home located on a vacant cul de sac lot. Said that the proposed structure steps up the hill. Said that the arborist has recommended the removal of one tree that they had originally designed around to preserve. Since that tree will be removed, they have slid the home down the hill. Assured that nothing was being done in the conservation easement although his clients want to be able to clean up any dead debris such as poison oak, to make it more appealing. Pointed out that the design meets requirements. This is a Spanish Mission architectural style using stucco, tile roof, corbel accents and arched doors. They have eliminated any vertical elements with the use of banding. The house steps up the hill and is nestled in there. They have been sensitive to existing grades. Said that they have reviewed the conditions of approval and request approval. Chair Rodgers thanked Mr. Glen Cahoon for installing story poles. Commissioner Kundtz said a question about the second fireplace was raised at the site visit. Mr. Glen Cahoon: Said that the City allows one wood burning fireplace. All will be gas. One will be constructed as a wood burning fireplace in the family room. Pointed out that most clients don't want wood burning fireplaces these days. However, his clients like the aesthetic look of a wood burning fireplace to use with gas logs. Said that the issue of green building practices was raised at the site visit. Explained that they will be using energy efficient lights, appliances and windows. Materials include synthetic milled lumber. Reported that the building industry is sensitive to green design issues. Explained that an energy consultant has participated in establishing three to four forced air units so that zoned areas of the house can be controlled as used. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Cappello said that this is a beautiful home and that he can make the findings as there are no issues. Commissioner Nagpal concurred, saying that the house fits well with the topography and incorporates a great color scheme. Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a great design and house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 18 Commissioner Hlava said she can make the findings and this house fits into this neighborhood. Chair Rodgers said that this home offers a nice compliment to the Julia Morgan designed house located next door. Commissioner Zhao said that it has a nice design and she can make the findings to approve it. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06 -213) to construct a new two -story single family dwelling on property located at 18935 Hayfield Court, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #06- 292(503 -22 -101) CROSS /RENN, 20625 Marion Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new single -story single family dwelling and detached two -car garage. The dwelling will consist of approximately 3,818 square feet of floor area and a basement. The detached garage will be approximately 663 square feet. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The gross lot size is approximately 21,780 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Shweta Bhatt) Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the applicant is seeking approval for a single -story residence consisting of 3,813 square feet including an attached garage, a 2,000 square foot basement and a second detached 663 square foot garage. Said that the home would incorporate a stone veneer and stucco in a deep green color. Distributed a color board. Said that a tree inventory was prepared and that a bond would be required for the protected trees. Said that a geotechnical clearance is necessary for the garage. Explained that a 500 -foot notice was sent and no comments were received. Said that this is a consistent design and the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Recommended approval and distributed a 3- dimensional drawing that has been provided by the architect. Commissioner Nagpal asked where the highest point is located. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 19 il l Planner Shweta Bhatt replied the topmost point is 24.5 feet and is the entryway. Chair Rodgers asked if story poles had been requested. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that staff had asked for them. Commissioner Nagpal asked for confirmation that no comments have been received outside of the four to five sheets received. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal said that a couple of sheets were from Canyon View and three from Marion. Chair Rodgers pointed out that there were not many notifications on Burns. Planner Shweta Bhatt explained that the applicant made contact in the immediate vicinity. She said she would defer to the applicant as to whether they spoke to property owners on Burns. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Noel Cross, Project Architect: Explained that they directly contacted the six immediately abutting neighbors. Said that the neighbors had specifically requested that story poles not be installed, some of them vehemently. Said that the project meets requirements. Said that the home to the west, which he also designed, is at the 18 -foot height although the grade is three -feet higher than this current parcel. The house to the right is 26 feet tall, a two -story that was constructed in 1981. Clarified that the height at the entry is actually 20 feet. The tallest portion of the structure is at the rear part of the house over the garage. Said that the three dimensional color renderings give a sense of what the house will feel like. Stated that the height is inconsequential and would not appear high. Said that the roof slope and type match those used in the neighborhood. Said that the garage and parking are located in the back and hidden from the street. Reported that the solar panels have no reflections impacts. Said that the neighbors to the west had been here earlier but left. They are fine with the solar panels and are available by phone if necessary. Described several green features including radiant flooring and formaldehyde -free materials. His client also wanted him to say their paint is "green" too. Said that he hopes for approval and is available for questions. Commissioner Hlava asked if the fireplace outside shares with the one inside. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 20 Mr. Noel Cross said that they only share a chimney structure 1:hat is split to serve both chimneys. They doe not share the same airflow. The fireplace inside is gas and the one outside is wood burning. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Noel Cross if there is any way to make gas fireplaces prettier. Mr. Noel Cross said that they are improving. A larger fireplace with a small vent looks better and only functions with gas logs as it would not properlyy vent wood burning. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Hlava said that she could make the findings. This is a nice design for a large lot. She has no problems. Commissioner Nagpal said that she could make the findings. This is a 21,000 square foot lot in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. She expressed a need to plug for installation of story poles. Commissioner Zhao said that she too could make the findings for this very nice design. Commissioner Cappello said that same here, this is a great design. He pointed out that this is a single -story home with a height of 24.5 feet. Chair Rodgers thanked Mr. Noah Cross for his explanation on fireplaces and green elements. She stated that she also wanted to plug for the installation of story poles. She said that she could make all of the findings to support this project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06 -292) to construct a new single -story single- family dwelling and detached garage on property located at 20625 Marion Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Rodgers advised that a Study Session was held last night (3/13/07) on the issue of green building. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 21 There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk DATE: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 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. INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER Newly appointed Commissioner Rishi Kumer was introduced. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of March 14, 2007, were adopted with changes to pages 3,10,11,13 and 14. (7 -0) 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 March 22, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. ORDER OF AGENDA Director John Livingstone informed the Commission that the applicant for Agenda Item #2 has requested a continuance. He advised that the Commission has the option to change the order of the agenda to deal with that request first or can keep the agenda in its current order. Chair Rodgers: Advised those in the audience that this application for Item #2 has been withdrawn by the applicant and will be resubmitted at another time. Added that prior to that resubmittal, this item will first need 1 :o go before the Heritage Preservation Commission. Said that people are encouraged to come back when the item is eventually heard. Stated that since it appears there are several speakers present this evening that want to speak they should be given that opportunity. Suggested keeping the agenda in its original order since the applicants for Agenda Item #1 came to this meeting with the assumption that their item would be heard first. Commissioner Kundtz said that the Commission would be happy to hear the comments on Agenda Item #2. Commissioner Cappello said that it should be made clear that the postponement is at the request of the applicant and not at the request of staff or the Commission. Director John Livingstone replied correct. This postponement is the result of the applicant's request. The Planning Commission must act on that request. The item will be re- noticed to the neighborhood again since the continuance this evening would be to a date uncertain. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that no packet or plans have been provided this evening on this Item #2 because of the request for a continuance. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #07 -250 (503 -24 -008) RISTORANTE DA MARIO (tenant) /CANCELLIERI (property owner); 14441 Big Basin Way; The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant in an e xisting approximately 1,900- square foot vacant tenant space, which was formerly occupied by Tapioca Express. Alcoholic beverages will be served. The site is zoned CH -1. (Suzanne Thomas) Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 3 Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a new restaurant in the Village. Described the site as formerly being occupied by Tapioca Express and a bakery before that. Said that the site consists of 1,900 square feet. Stated that the new restaurant will serve lunch and dinner and will include outdoor dining, alcohol and live entertainment. Explained that a Use Permit is required if a new use intensifies what the previous use was on site. Additional uses such as live entertainment, alcohol sales and patio seating also require a Use Permit. Said that there are changes to the front patio proposed. The patio, currently painted blue, will be painted in warm muted tones including cream that are compatible with the Village. A sign will be painted over the front door. The patio will be upgraded for outdoor dining with a concrete floor that appears like slate. The planters will be replaced and planted with new flowers. This will reflect a Mediterranean cafe atmosphere. Distributed a schematic of the front patio area. Said that the hours would be from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. but are not restricted within the conditions of approval. Stated that a 500 -foot notification went out. No negative comments have been received. The applicant received positive comments. Said that all findings can be made. This use will enhance the character of the Village and give another reason to visit the Village. Recommended the adoption of a Resolution, as revised, approving this Use Permit. Chair Rodgers asked Planner Suzanne Thomas if the revisions are significant. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that there is a modification to the first finding. Condition 2 is modified to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages upon obtaining the necessary ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) license. Additionally, Condition 8 will require that an encroachment permit be obtained prior to occupancy, if required, for the outdoor seating. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the need to record permanent conditions of approval for this application. She said that the conditions of approval already run with the Use Permit. Chair Rodgers said that she had the same question. Director John Livingstone agreed that conditions generally run with the permit. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Resolution needs to be amended. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said he would discuss this issue with Director John Livingstone. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the painted sign would be illuminated. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 4 Planner Suzanne Thomas replied no. There is existing exterior lighting in place that will provide any necessary visibility for this painted sign without the need to add additional lighting. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing,for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Sandro Costanza, Applicant: Said that he is very pleased with Planner Suzanne Thomas' presentation. Explained that other changes include interior decor, painting, improving the bar, lamps and new equipment in the kitchen. Added that they are investing over $60,000 in the improvements. Said that they would operate seven days a week for lunch and dinner. Perhaps there will be some service between lunch and dinner in the future. Lunch service will run between noon and 3 p.m. and dinner service between 5 and 10 p.m. Stated that there would be between eight and 10 employees in addition to himself and his partner, who is the chef. Said that he has great experience with operating an Italian restaurant. He had one in Santa Cruz for approximately 10 years that was ranked as the "best Italian Restaurant in Santa Cruz" approximately four times. Advised that he hopes to draw patrons from a large area. Commissioner Cappello asked for details about the proposed live entertainment. Mr. Sandro Costanza said that it would be occasional and represent background music. Commissioner Cappello asked if the live entertainment would predominately be inside the restaurant. Mr. Sandro Costanza replied most probably since there is no room outside. In will be located inside in the front area of the restaurant. Chair Rodgers asked if the live music would be amplified. Mr. Sandro Costanza replied yes. Commissioner Kumer asked how Mr. Sandro Costanza would prevent spillover from his outdoor seating area from making its way onto the public sidewalk. Mr. Sandro Costanza replied that he was thinking about fencing iri his patio area. The patio area would contain just two tables with three chairs per table for a total of six guests. Commissioner Kumer suggested that some action, such as chaining the furniture, might prevent spillover onto the sidewalk. Mr. Sandro Costanza said he would do something to prevent that from happening. Director John Livingstone said that the existing walls of this building together with the proposed tile flooring would create a visual buffer that will allow for the safety of pedestrians. A low fence could help define this space. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Zhao asked if a fence requires a special permit. Director John Livingstone replied yes. It would require a building permit that is subject to Community Development Director review. Chair Rodgers pointed out that the economic impact on the Village is an element that is evaluated by this Commission when considering a Use Permit. She asked Mr. Sandro Costanza if he believes he will be successful. Mr. Sandro Costanza replied yes. He said that he thinks his restaurant will expand the people who will come to Saratoga specifically drawn to his restaurant. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Sandro Costanza how his restaurant differs from other Italian restaurants in the Village and area. Does it offer a specialty? Mr. Sandro Costanza: Replied taste is the difference. Explained that he was born and raised in Italy, spending his first 25 years there. Added that when you are Italian you can tell when a place is really authentic Italian. Stated that his chef has been with him for 10 years. Chair Rodgers pointed out that there are four other Italian restaurants, one is a deli and another is a family -style restaurant. Is there some differentiation? Mr. Sandro Costanza said that he would advertise outside of Saratoga and has a large customer base of more than 5,000 in Santa Cruz. Chair Rodgers asked if he would be closing his. Santa Cruz location. Mr. Sandro Costanza explained that he sold that location a year ago. Commissioner Kumer said that this business will likely lead to more traffic in Saratoga's Village. He asked if traffic impacts are considered with this Use Permit. Director John Livingstone explained that code defines the types of use. Parking ratios are set based on types of use rather than on the level of success of that use. Commissioner Kumer asked if parking is considered okay for this use. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Mr. Bob Cancellieri, Property Owner /Landlord: Stated that he is proud and happy to be here for Mr. Sandro Costanza. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 6 Said that he has looked at the menu and sees there is lots of variation. It will be different from other restaurants in town. Reminded that Mr. Sandro Costanza has been in business before. Pointed out the importance of good business people with a good batting average. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Bob Cancellieri if there had been outdoor seating before at this location. Commissioner Kundtz said he thought there had been a bench. Mr. Bob Cancellieri: Said that he is impressed with Mr. Sandro Costanza. Added that people will like to come to a No. 1 Italian restaurant. Stated that he wants Mr. Sandro Costanza to succeed because "we want the rent." Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Bob Cancellieri who owns the alley. Mr. Bob Cancellieri said that he and another adjacent property owner bought it to be able to control what happens on it. Chair Rodgers said that it is available to both pedestrians and cars. Mr. Bob Cancellieri said that while he does not think that the alley is widely used it is accessible. The Persian market uses it. Chair Rodgers asked if there have been any problems with use of the alley. Mr. Bob Cancellieri replied no. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hlava: Pointed out that this is a location that has been occupied by restaurants before. Added that this menu looks fabulous. Said that she has no issue about the future use of a fence to, enclose the patio area. Suggested that the issue of recording permanent conditions should only apply to Design Review approvals. Director John Livingstone said that staff agrees and is recommending that be stricken. It is fine to take it out. He added that if a fence is requested in the future, it could be brought to the Planning Commission if so desired by the Commission. Commissioner Hlava: Said that the hours of operation are not included in the conditions of approval. Said that she would not mind seeing this restaurant open for breakfast too, as there are few options for breakfast now in the Village. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 7 Stated that she takes issue with no closing hour. Suggested that a closing time should be established in the Resolution as was done recently for the wine tasting business. Commissioner Kundtz reminded that the closing time was established for the wine tasting business because of the nearby residential units. He asked if the kitchen is to close at 10 p.m. Commissioner Nagpal said that currently there is no such restriction. Commissioner Kundtz said that it would be fair to put in a closing time. Commissioner Kumber agreed that it would be a good idea to have a closing hour. Commissioner Cappello: Said that he prefers not to set a closing time. Added that he would like to see this restaurant busy at midnight. Stated that being Italian himself, he can eat Italian food seven days a week. Reminded that this location does not have a residential aspect nearby. Stated that he has no issue with hours and prefers to leave that up to the applicant. Agreed with the staff suggestion to strike any mention of recording permanent conditions of approval. Said that on the issue of the fence, he would rather not see it come to the Commission. If there is a need for such a fence, the Community Development Director can handle it. Stated that he loves this project (and its proposed menu) and thinks it is a fabulous addition to the Village. Explained that both of his parents' families originate from Sicily. Commissioner Zhao: Agreed that limiting hours should not be put into the Resolution but rather be left to the owner. Said that the Community Development Director can deal with the fence. Said that she is fine with this application and can't wait to taste authentic Italian food. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land. Said that she is comfortable with the findings and it is great that outdoor seating will be provided. Agreed that the Commission does not need to see the fence request. Reminded that if problems arise regarding the hours of operation there are ways to enforce. Added that she is not inclined to limit the hours. Stated that she too would like to see a vibrant Village. Expressed support and questioned when this restaurant might open. Chair Rodgers: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 8 Said that it appears that half of the Commissioners, those seated to her right, want a limitation on hours while those seated to her left do not. Pointed out that the Village gets quiet after 10 p.m. Stated that it would be nice to allow this applicant to experiment with hours of operation. Reminded that there is plenty of parking at this end of the street that is available in the evenings. Said that there is a niche for this food and that this restaurant offers a mix for the Village. Stated that this location has been a restaurant for a long time. Commissioner Hlava said that she thinks the hours are fine and the applicant can be brought back if there are issues as a result "of.hours. Commissioner Kundtz said that he is happy to go with this as well. Commissioner Nagpal asked fora clarification on the alcohol permit. What is ABC? City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: Explained that ABC stands for Alcohol Beverage Control. Suggested adding the word "fences" to Condition #9 to read, "...such as fences, umbrellas and awnings." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a new restaurant with alcohol sales on property located at 14441 Big Basin Way, as modified by the edit to Condition #9 and striking Condition #13, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #07 -218 (389 -26 -022) SRIPADANNA, 18524 Montepere Way: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor, including removing exterior walls, and construct a second -story addition to an existing single -story, single- family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,942 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 feet. The net lot size is 8,520 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a second story addition to an existing home: Reported that an email was received from a concerned neighbor on Monday raising the question as to whether this home might be historically significant. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 9 Stated that since the home is over 50 years old, staff advised the applicant that they would have to get an historic assessment done and offered a continuance to get that prepared. Said that the historic consultant is currently working on the assessment. It will likely be forwarded to the Heritage Preservation Commission in May and to the Planning Commission after that. Recommended accepting the applicant's request for a continuance. Commissioner Zhao asked if just one neighbor was concerned. Planner Therese Schmidt replied that just one expressed concern based on potential historic significance of the structure. Two others had originally supported this application but changed their minds and no longer do. She added that neighbors are organizing against a second story. Chair Rodgers asked if the applicant wants to speak this evening. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the action requested is a continuance and that it is important to state that the continuance could be for the purpose of redesign. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. and asked the applicant to come forward to state his request. Mr. Hari Sripadanna, Applicant and Property Owner: Explained that he has asked a consultant to review the house for historic relevance. Added that until the findings from that assessment are reached, he does not know what they will have to do. City Attorney Jonathan Witter asked Mr. Hari Sripadanna if it is his intention to withdraw and continue his application this evening. Mr. Hari Sripadanna replied yes. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer asked if it might be for the purpose of a redesign. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that this depends on the results of the historic review. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that there are laws that require cities to process applications in a specific time period. He advised that he needs to hear Mr. Hari Sripadanna say for the record that this continuance is for potential redesign. That stops the clock. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that he is willing to go through the process and understands that redesign may be required. Chair Rodgers advised that she spoke with Mr. Hari Sripadanna this afternoon and encouraged him to attend this evening. Mr. Robert Merritt, Neighbor on Montepere Way: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 10 Thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak tonight. Explained that he travels quite a bit and so he cannot be sure if he will be around when this comes back to the Commission for public hearing. Said that he is concerned about keeping his neighborhood intact. Reported that he has lived on Montepere for 28 years. Stated that it is easy for people to come in and place additional stories that change the character of a neighborhood. Asked that the Commission be sensitive to Tong- established neighbors. Cautioned that the valley is becoming one with high -rise homes that are situated property line to property line. Assured that he would try to come back if this request comes back still as a two -story. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Robert Merritt if he is an adjacent neighbor. Mr. Robert Merritt replied no, he lives .down the street. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Robert Merritt if he objects to the second story aspect. She asked him if these are Eichler Homes. Mr. Robert Merritt said that they are not Eichlers. He added that he is interested to learn if these are historic homes or not. He agreed that his concern is mainly a second story. Ms. Dana Merritt, Neighbor on Montpere: Said that she is Robert's wife. Explained that she has talked with a lot of her neighbors. Said that this two story would be very large and look down on adjacent properties. Reminded that there are floor to ceiling windows at the back of these homes and that neighbors would lose their privacy with a second story neighbor. Said that she is not against new neighbors coming in if they go with a single -story addition. Ms. Linda Ho, Neighbor on Montpere: Identified herself as the neighbor next door to the applicant. Said that award- winning designers who were students of Eichler designed these homes. Said that there is uniqueness to these houses with a floor to ceiling window design. Advised that the lots are not rectangular but rather are different shapes. Therefore a second story would overlook everyone's backyard. Added that there is a topography issue with each lot having differing elevations. The applicant's home is at the highest point of this cul de sac. Stated that she is against the applicant's design for a second -story based on Findings A, B, D and E. The home would intrude on privacy, would not preserve the natural landscape, is excessive in bulk and is not compatible with the community. Suggested that the applicant chose to add either through a basement or expansion of the first floor. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Linda Ho where her home is located in relation to the applicant's home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 11 Ms. Linda Ho: Replied that her house is located on the left side of the applicant's home if facing the applicant's house. Added that with a second story, her family would lose all of its privacy. Pointed out that there is a big lot to allow expansion with a single -story addition. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Linda Ho for the lot size in the area. Ms. Linda Ho said that they are generally 8,520 square feet and that most lots are approximately the same size although some neighbors have a double lot. Planner Therese Schmidt advised the Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Ho were originally not in support. When the applicant agreed to plant trees, they later signed a letter of support. She asked for verification from Ms. Ho that she is withdrawing her support. Ms. Linda Ho said that she is not sure they ever signed a letter of support for this project. Ms. Margo Nitis, Neighbor on Montepere: Said that she has resided here since January 1970. Reported that she was once denied a two -foot height increase for an entry expansion. Added that she did additions on a single -story format. Stated that she is against second -story additions in her neighborhood. Advised that people across are building right on the creekside. Said that these homes are all windows and most don't have drapes. Explained that this is a nice neighborhood and she wants to keep it that way. A nice, quiet, one -story neighborhood. Added that she has wonderful neighbors and everyone knows one another. They have a block party once a year. Suggested that this neighborhood be kept as a one -story neighborhood. Clarified that the lots differ in size and she has a double lot. Mr. David Ho, Neighbor on Montepere: Said that he is an immediate neighbor. Stated that he is against second story additions that would have a huge impact on this neighborhood. Suggested that this is a good chance for the applicant to redesign after hearing the comments from the neighbors this evening. Offered two suggestions for alternate designs, a basement or single -story expansion. He said that a basement is energy efficient. The lot is also large enough to accommodate a singe -story addition. Reported that there is somewhere between 10 and 20 neighbors who oppose a proposed second -story addition with three of the five houses on the cul de sac included. 41/ Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. David Ho if he had initially provided an acceptance letter for this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 12 Mr. David Ho said that he has never been in favor of a second story addition. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. David Ho if his objection is the second story not being in context with the architecture of the neighborhood that includes homes with floor to ceiling glass. Mr. David Ho said that this is a unique neighborhood and that a second story addition is not appropriate as it would intrude in the privacy of the neighborhood. Ms. Sasi Murthy: Identified herself as the wife of a very sensitive architect who is the applicant for this project. Said that she shares the passion for this style of architecture. Explained that they have lived in a two -story Eichler for 10 years now in Santa Clara. Reported that they are a working couple with two young children. Assured that they have made a best -faith effort to work with neighbors. Stated that the reason for a continuance is to consider concerns and issues raised. Added that they don't want a jumbo house. Advised that they have also received some enthusiastic support. Ms. Kathryn Nomof, neighbor on Montepere: Said that she lives next door to the Ho Family. Explained that she has a bad hearing problem and has not heard everything said tonight. Reported that there are 12 signatures on a petition against allowing a second -story addition. Those signatures represent 10 households. Chair Rodgers thanked Ms. Kathryn Nomof for coming and asked her if the story poles were helpful. Ms. Kathryn Nomof: Said that she made up her mind when she saw the poles. Explained that she originally signed in support but has since rescinded her support. Reported that this matter is divisive of this neighborhood, where she has resided since 1964. Added that this is the first time something like this has come up and started problems. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Rodgers asked staff to verify that there is n� single -story overlay in this area. Planner Therese Schmidt replied no. Chair Rodgers asked Planner Therese Schmidt to explain to everyone what a single -story overlay is. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 13 Planner Therese Schmidt reported that there is one such overlay in Saratoga. It is located at Saratoga and Prospect. There are only two to three two -story homes in that area. With the single -story overlay, the rest of this neighborhood is restricted to single -story. Chair Rodgers said that this overlay requires a change to zoning. Planner Therese Schmidt said yes. While it has the same zoning designation there is also a single -story overlay applied to the zoning designation. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Design Review Approval (Application #07 -218) to allow a first floor remodel and second -story addition to an existing residence at 18524 Montepere Way, until after a recommendation on any potential historic significance for this structure is forwarded to the Planning Commission by the Heritage Preservation Commission, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers explained that the Heritage Preservation Commission meets on the second Tuesday of each month. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #07 -101 (397 -08 -027) KRIENS, 18940 Monte Vista: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish a single- family residence with attached garage and construct a single family, single -story residence and multiple detached accessory structures. The total floor area of the proposed residence and all accessory structures will be approximately 6,331 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 feet. The net lot size is 56,018 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a rather large and intricate project. Explained that the project consists of 6,331 square feet that includes a primary structure and several accessory structures. Informed that the owner of the adjacent property also owns this subject property. Described the accessory structures as including: o A second dwelling unit with basement. This basement required geotechnical clearance and received it. o A detached home office. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 14 o A detached study with garage underneath that is not considered a basement but rather represents floor area and includes a wine storage area. o A detached workout room with basement. Stated that this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Said that there is one protected tree that the arborist has recommended be retained through redesign of one detached garage facility. Stated that the site is adequately parked. Advised that staff supports relocating the garage to preserve that tree and is working with the applicant to relocate, redesign or eliminate that structure. Said that building materials will be sympathetic to the materials of the abutting property. It will include the same colors, stonework and architectural design. The design is Tuscan in nature. Reported that one cannot tell that these are two separate parcels as seen from Monte Vista. The project has been designed to be integrated into one large area for a single family. Recommended approval. Chair Rodgers clarified that this is not a merged lot: Planner Therese Schmidt said yes. She added that if it were to be merged the applicant would be limited to 7,200 square feet of floor area. The applicant is choosing not to merge parcels. To keep them separate, the applicant must have one single family residence on this parcel. The applicant is constructing one with a basement. Chair Rodgers asked for verification that a height exception is required for the accessory structure height to above 15 feet. Planner Therese Schmidt: Replied yes. Reported that this added height is possible if the Planning Commission can find that the added height is necessary to honor the architectural integrity. Stated that staff can make those findings to support the added height. Pointed out that this a parcel with a seven percent (7 slope and that there would be no obvious appearance of a second story. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that if the project were less than 6,000 square feet it would not have come to the Commission. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes. She added that the trigger was that the square footage exceeded 6,000 square feet on a parcel. However, the height above 15 feet would require Planning Commission approval. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Scott Kriens, Applicant and Property Owner: Thanked the Commission for its site visit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 15 Said that he has nothing to add to Planner Therese Schmidt's report. Said that he would be available for any questions. Explained that there are 34 trees on the property identified by the arborist. Three of those trees are dead; 29 are protected and they propose the removal of two trees. Described the trees he requests for, removal as being one 12 -inch oak, which the arborist supports its removal, and one 16 -inch black oak, which the arborist wants to see retained. Reported that the value of the two trees is $24,000. Reminded that this project matches the house next door. Commissioner Hlava asked if there is any way the garage can be pushed down a bit. Mr. Scott Kriens explained that there is a setback line and it can't be located any closer to the street. With relocation there is potential that other protected trees could be impacted. Commissioner Hlava asked if the carport could be eliminated. Mr. Scott Kriens pointed out that the entire canopy area of the tree needs to be protected and not just the trunk itself. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Scott Kriens to verify that he wants to see approval of the plan as he proposes. Mr. Scott Kriens replied yes. He said that a proposed 48 -inch replacement tree in addition to 13 other new trees would equal the value of those two trees he proposes to take out. He added that he is willing to plant larger trees. Commissioner Hlava said that sometimes it doesn't work well to bring in trees that are too large. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if the arborist's recommendation had been discussed with the applicant. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes. She said that staff had suggested redesign but the applicant chose not to do so. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Scott Kriens if he felt that redesign would not work or was the saving of the black oak not seen as worthy. Mr. Brian Peters, Project Architect, said that they did do redesign work on the residence of this project to protect another grove of oaks. He assured that they took tree preservation very seriously. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that this Commission takes the arborist's recommendations pretty seriously. Mr. Brian Peters advised that it is hard to save every single tree and that they had made considerable changes in the interest of tree preservation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 16 Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mr. Scott Kriens for his time on the site visit. Chair Rodgers asked if additional garage space could be installed under the study or would it have to be counted as square footage. Planner Nagpal reminded that the maximum allowed is 6,340 square feet. Planner Therese Schmidt said that it could be relocated but cannot be built as basement space without a structure above it. Mr. Scott Kriens said that the garage is related to that residence. He added that it is tough to move both the garage and related residence and still save all trees. Chair Rodgers asked about eliminating the carport and the one garage bay located beneath the tree or relocating it somewhere else on hardscape already existing. Mr. Scott Kriens said that if moved it would be difficult not to compromise another tree. Chair Rodgers reminded that the arborist's recommendation is to eliminate the carport and one bay of the garage that is closest to the oak tree.. She asked if he is resisting that even though there is covered space for five cars. Mr. Scott Kriens reiterated that he is happy to do extra tree planting and plans to spend a lot on landscaping. He said that the project is down to one last tree. Chair Rodgers asked again if it is possible not to build the carport and last bay to the garage or are they important to the overall design of the project. Mr. Scott Kriens said that it is important for the design objective of this project. He reiterated that 32 of 34 existing trees would be retained plus additional plantings installed. He added that he would be happy to work with the arborist to set the appropriate placement of the replacement tree. Mr. Hal Lipton, Neighbor on Monte Vista Drive: Said that he is a 35 -year resident on Monte Vista Drive. Stated that he is not concerned about the proposed structures or the project appearance. Said that his only concern is that the roadway not be blocked. Asked that construction trucks stay on the north side of the barricade where the steps are located since the street is not large enough to collect garbage if the road is partially blocked. Mr. Scott Kriens said that this is a reasonable point. He suggested that the construction vehicles could park on the private road and not on the public road that Mr. Hal Lipton is concerned about having blocked.. He agreed that it is up to him to make sure that any blocking of the roadway by construction vehicles does not happen. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 17 40 Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Zhao sought clarification that the application before the Commission includes the removal of the black oak. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the recommendation is for redesign or removal of the carport and retention of the black oak tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether an arborist report would have been required if this application had been handled administratively. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes. She said that since there was a request to exceed allowed height for one accessory structure this item would still have come to the Commission. She added that there is a requirement for an arborist report if there are any protected trees on site. Chair Rodgers: Pointed out that this project is creating an effective merger of two parcels without any of the restrictions that would come with such a merger. Added that the applicant is receiving extra square footage and additional height for one accessory structure. Said that it is clear that one oak proposed for removal is important to the City. It is an old and rare variety of oak. Stated that she had hoped for some flexibility on the applicant's part regarding that oak. Agreed that there is an incredible amount of greenery on this parcel. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that if this were simply a request to remove one tree, it would be denied because it is a healthy tree. However, this removal is part of a development of a complex project with multiple structures. Said that a site with 34 trees, being down to discussing just one tree removal is pretty good. Questioned the idea of 24 -inch box replacements but advised that she recently saw some 24 -inch box trees and was impressed with the growth they had achieved in a relatively short period of time. Stated that she hates to go against the arborist's recommendation and she also hates to redesign here during the meeting. Admitted that she would like to hear from others on these issues. Chair Rodgers pointed out that the concern of the arborist is that this is a rare tree. She added that there is plenty of parking on this parcel and places available to park elsewhere on the property. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Scott Kriens if there is any way he can accommodate saving this tree or does it require changing too many things. She said that she hates to see a tree go. However, healthy trees have been allowed to be removed if they were located in a footprint for a new house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 18 Commissioner. Cappello: Said that he appreciates the trees saved on site. The project is down to one tree. Said that the issue is priorities between the tree and a carport/garage bay. Advised that the tree is more important to him and is a high priority. Informed that he supports the project with revised drawings to save Tree #16. Commissioner Hlava: Stated that this issue is really hard. Pointed out that there is no great big huge house here but rather a beautiful designed single -story. Added that requiring a redesign because of one tree when they are saving 28 or 29 other trees seems tough to her, albeit this is a nice tree. Commissioner Nagpal said she wonders if Arborist Kate Bear would rather give up another tree for this one. Commissioner Hlava: Cautioned that this option would require major redesign. Reminded that there have been lots of design changes made between staff and the architect before the project even gets to the Commission. Said that she does not see why this applicant needs such a humongous garage but he does and it is not our call to say otherwise since it meets the rules. Reiterated that the only issue left is one tree. Commissioner Kundtz suggested deferring to the applicant to consider whether it is worth taking another look to accommodate this black oak or is his design frozen at this point. Mr. Scott Kriens: Said that he might offer one other option that could be considered. Offered the possibility of root pruning the tree and moving it not too far away. Added that there is documentation stating that there is about 95 percent confidence that the tree would survive the move but not an absolute guarantee. Advised that the process is not cheap and would cost him about $20,000. Reiterated that he does not know for sure if the tree would survive the move. Commissioner Kundtz said that the question appears to be whether all alternatives have been exhausted to save the tree. Mr. Scott Kriens: Assured that they have tried. Advised that the project has been in the works for approximately a year, first with Planner Lata Vasudevan and later with Planner Therese Schmidt. Stated that changes now would compromise the design objectives of this project. Said that the only alternative now is to work with the arborist to move the tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 19 Commissioner Kundtz agreed that it might be worth taking a chance. He asked Mr. Scott Kriens if he has any location suggestions. Mr. Scott Kriens said he did suggest the right side. He added that even if this tree is relocated he would still plant the 13 proposed new trees. This tree relocation would be in addition to, and not instead of, additional trees being planted. Commissioner Zhao asked if any of the new trees would be black oak. Mr. Scott Kriens said that he is not yet certain what species of oak but he would be happy to specify black oak. Commissioner Nagpal suggested editing Condition #16 to retain the requirement to consider relocation, redesign or elimination of the carport/garage bay and leave the option open for the relocation of the tree. Commissioner Kundtz said that when he reads Condition #16 he reads a requirement to actually revise drawings to relocate, redesign or eliminate the carport. Commissioner Nagpal said that the options for the re- location, redesign or proposal to relocate the black oak could be evaluated and approved by the arborist. Commissioner Zhao said that the applicant has tried options to save this tree and could not. She said that she does respect Kate's opinion and would be willing to leave it to Kate to determine the feasibility of relocating that black oak tree. Commissioner Kumer said that the applicant has done his due diligence. He said he likes the idea of moving the tree as it solves a lot of problems. Commissioner Nagpal asked Director John Livingstone for his feedback. Director John Livingstone said that he is not aware of such a high percentage of success in relocating a tree. He said that he does agree that this applicant has given his word to try his best to save this tree through relocation. Chair Rodgers suggested adding language, "if the arborist approves trying to move the tree." Director John Livingstone pointed out that if the arborist disagrees on the tree relocation this matter would have to return to the Commission. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #07 -101) to demolish an existing residence and construct a new single family, single -story residence and multiple detached accessory structures totally 6,331 square feet on property located at 18940 Monte Vista, with the following amendment to Condition #16: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 20 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Chair Rodgers replied yes. Condition #16 Prior to issuance of final zoning clearance, the applicant shall either submit revised drawings for review and approval by the city arborist illustrating either relocation, redesign or removal of the detached garage and carport to ensure survival of the black oak tree (Tree #22) or relocate Tree #22 to a location approved by the Community Development Director. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Responding to List Serve Chair Rodgers advised that an opinion drafted by City Attorney Richard Taylor has been distributed regarding Council participation on List Serve. Council has made the decision not to respond to List Serve to avoid the potential that people obtain feedback from a quorum of the Council on a serial basis. One person will be designated to respond. Commissioner Nagpal sought verification that it would be okay to read the information just not to respond. Extension of Two Commissioners Terms for Month of May 2007 Chair Rodgers advised that. Council has extended both her term and that of Commissioner Nagpal for one month (May 2007) to allow the agendas in April to proceed with a quorum of the Commission available. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the new Chair would be selected after May. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Hlava said that she would be here for the April 11 Planning Commission meeting but would not make the April 10 site visits. Commissioner Kundtz said that he would not be at the April 11 meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 21 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that he would be on vacation that week. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item 1 Application No./Location: 07- 192/20720 Leonard Road Type of Application: Modification of Approved Plans Applicant/Owner: Angelo Orphan (Applicant Owner) Staff Planner: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner Date: April 11, 2007 503 -19 -036 Department Head: John Livingstone, CP, Di ector APN: Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan CASE HISTORY: STAFF RECOMMIENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 12/08/06 Application complete: 03/13/07 Notice published: 03/28/07 Mailing completed: 03/29/07 Posting completed: 04/05/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their August 9, 1995, hearing, which consisted of construction of a 5,132 sq. ft., two -story, single family, residence with attached garage. The proposed modification would allow for a second -story balcony, modification of exterior architectural features, and an addition of 74 sq. ft. to the structure. The lot size is approximately 1.2 acres and the site is zoned R -1 40,000. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Modification to a Design Review Approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. 2 Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan PROJECT DATA: STAFF ANALYSIS 3 Approved Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Home Garage Cottage Hardscape TOTAL PROPOSED 3,318 sq. ft. 832 sq. ft. 5,106 sq. ft. 3,392 sq. ft. 832 sq. ft. 5,106 sq. ft Current Code Max. Allowable 18,295 sq. ft (35 Code at time of 9,256 sq. ft. (17 9,330 sq. ft. approval Max. Allowable 15,682 sq. ft. (30 Floor Area: Home Garage First Floor Second Floor Garage Existing Cottage TOTAL PROPOSED 2,716 sq. ft. 1,814 sq. ft. 602 sq. ft. 832 sq. ft. 2,790 sq. ft. 1,814 sq. ft. 602 sq. ft. 832 sq. ft. Current Code Max. Allowable 7,200 Code at time of 5,964 sq. ft. 6,038 sq. ft. approval Max. Allowable 6,300 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front Rear Right Side Left Side Front Rear Right Side Left Side 30 ft. 60 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. No Change Current Code Min. Requirement 1 -story 2 -story 30 ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Code at time of approval 30 ft. 60 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Height: Proposed Residence 21.5. ft. No Change Max. Allowable 26 ft. Basement 900 sq. ft. No Change Not Calculated in FAR Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan PROJECT DATA: STAFF ANALYSIS 3 Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.2 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9% GRADING REQUIRED: Grading has been done per approved plans. No additional grading is required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single- family residences. PROJECT DISCUSSION City Code Section 16- 05.035(c) (2) requires modifications to plans approved by the Planning Commission be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their August 9, 1995, hearing, which consisted of construction of a 5,132 sq. ft., two- story, single family, residence with a basement and attached garage. The proposed Modification Approval would allow for a second -story balcony, modification of exterior architectural features (change -out of windows, removal of front columns, change- (ut of decorative railings, and removal of decorative features), and change the proposed sq. ft. of the structure by adding an additional 74 sq. ft. to the first floor kitchen area, all of which have been constructed. The applicant has not been issued a Final Occupancy permit. The applicant would be required to remove any modifications not approved by the Planning Commission. Project History The original Design Review Application, consisting of 5,336 sq. ft., 23 -ft high, two -story residence with an attached garage and retention of a cottage, was presented to the Planning Commission at their June 14, 1995, hearing. The Commission continued the item to allow the applicant to redesign the proposal to better fit into the character of the neighborhood. The applicant returned to the Planning Commission on August 9, 1995, with a modified design consisting of a 5,132 sq. ft. 21.5 -ft high, two -story residence with an attached garage and retention of a cottage. The Planning Commission approved the application with conditions. (See Attachment No. 4) 4 Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan During the course of construction the project was sold to the current applicant/owner, which created major delays. However, the current applicant/owner has renewed building permits and has an active building permit and is moving forward to finish the project. A Condition of Approval required that the applicant remove an illegal carport attached to the existing cottage and remove the kitchen from the cottage, thereby creating a guest house. The applicant has removed the kitchen as well as the illegal carport. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant circulated the City's Neighbor Notification Forms and has submitted five (5) completed forms, none of which indicate that there are issues or concerns regarding the proposed Modification. (See Attachment 3) Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance is not required for the proposed Modification. Trees Protected trees will not be impacted by the proposed Modification. General Plan Findings The proposed modification would not impact the original General Plan Findings and the proposal would still be consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed changes to the approved plans will not substantially change the bulk and mass of the building, and would not impact the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. As condition, the applicant would meet the intent of the Policy and is consistent with the City's General Plan. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The structure's existing height of 21.5 ft is not proposed to be modified as a part of this application. A second -story balcony is proposed with access from the master suite at the side of the existing home and is not visible at the front of the subject site. While the applicant may be able to view into neighboring yards from the second -story balcony, the subject site, as well as surrounding parcels, contain mature landscaping, which helps 5 Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan reduce impacts to views and privacy. In addition, the proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the views from Leonard Road. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed Modification will not require removal of natural landscape. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed Modification would not impact Native or Heritage trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed Modification would expand a portion of the first floor along the side property line and will not be visible from the front of the parcel or the street; therefore, the applicant has minimized the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately one and two -story. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed Modification will not require additional grading above and beyond that which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1995. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff has concluded that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposed modification is consistent with the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find the application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Modification to Design Review. Approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Planning Commission Staff Reports No. DR -95 -019. 5 Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project from 6/14/95 and 8/9/95 with Resolution Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -192 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Orphan: 20720 Leonard Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their August 9, 1995, hearing, which consisted of construction of a 5,132 sq. ft., two- story, single family, residence with attached garage. The proposed modification would allow for a second story balcony, modification of exterior architectural features, and an addition of 74 sq. ft. to the structure. The lot size is approximately 1.2 acres and the site is zoned R -1 40,000; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 16- 05.035(c) (2) requires review by the Planning Commission of proposed modifications of approved plans when the original approval was granted by the Planning Commission and there are any material changes; 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 proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single- family residences. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Modification of Design Review Approval, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy. 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed changes to the approved plans will not substantially change the bulk and mass of the building, and would not impact the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. As condition, the applicant would meet the intent of the Policy and is consistent with the City's General Plan. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Modification of Design Review Approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed two -story dwelling is 23 -feet 8- inches. The structure will be approximately 30 -feet 2- inches from Arbolado Way, 101 -feet 4- inches from the rear property line, and ranging from 23 -feet 10- inches to 35 -feet 11- inches from the side yard property lines. The proposed footprint is in essentially the same location as the existing footprint with a small expansion to accommodate the proposed reorientation of the garage entrance. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the views from Arbolado Way or the privacy of abutting neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. One (1) protected tree is proposed for removal and fourteen (14) other protected size trees could potential be affected by the proposal; however, as conditioned and mitigated the proposal will preserve the existing natural landscape. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the proposal, as conditioned, would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials as well as incorporating varying rooflines and exterior building materials to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately one and two- story. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, no grading is proposed. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. WHEREAS, this Resolution shall supersede Resolution No. DR -95 -019, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1995. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: 2 Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Modification to Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL None CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped December 8, 2006, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted m writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. These conditions shall be in addition to the original project conditions for DR 95 -019. 2. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 3. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to :reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 4. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 5. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 6. 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. 7. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 8. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any 3 Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 9. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. FIRE DISTRICT 10. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. PUBLIC WORKS 11. Applicant shall comply with all Public Works conditions. ARBORIST REPORT 12. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated May, 8 1995 and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with the tree protection measures. CITY ATTORNEY 13. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of the original approval, which was March 22, 2006. 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. 4 Application No. 07 -192; 20720 Leonard Road/Orphan PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 1 lth day of April 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date Attachment 2 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES 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 29` day of March 2007, that I deposited 61 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: addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar 3 Advanced Listing Services APN: 503 -19 -036 Address: 20720 Leonard Road that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces a public hearing on the item described below on: Wednesday, the 11` day of April 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. The public hearing item is: APPLICATION /ADDRESS: #07 -192— 20720 Leonard Road APPLICANT /OWNER: Angelo Orphan (Both Owners Applicants) APNs: 503 -19 -036 Description: The applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their June 14, 1995, hearing, which consisted of construction of a 5,132 sq. ft., two -story, single family, residence with attached garage. The proposed modification would allow for a second -story balcony, modification of exterior architectural features, and a change in the proposed sq. ft. of the structure. The lot size is approximately 1.2 acres and the site is zoned R -1 40,000. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please contact the Community Development Department at 408 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, April 3, 2007. 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. Therese M. Schmidt, AICP Associate Planner/ 408 868 -1230 March 29, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 503 -19 -036 NNGELO ORPHAN 20720 LEONARD RD 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4251 503 -16 -005 FOHN W BARBARA TREMOR DR CURRENT OWNER 13525 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4216 503 -16 -008 7,HU CHANG DR CURRENT OWNER 13575 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4216 503 -16 -011 1ENRY YEN DR CURRENT OWNER 13630 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4257 503 -16 -014. LEHUEN DR CURRENT OWNER 13570 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4257 503 -19 -034 VIICHAEL DURKET DR CURRENT OWNER 20701 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4201 503 -19 -073 V1ILDRED.M PERRY DR CURRENT OWNER 20615 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4201 503 -19 -083 VINCENT CIRIGLIANO DR CURRENT OWNER 20600 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4205 503 -19 -122 S ANDREA PLANT DR CURRENT OWNER 13175 PARAMOUNT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4249 503 -16 -006 MALHOTRA OR CURRENT OWNER 13750 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4239 503 -16 -009 SESTRIERE LLC OR CURRENT OWNER 13605 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4258 503 -16 -012 ROY ANGELA EVULICH OR CURRENT OWNER 13616 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4257 503 -16 -015 KRISTIN V MINOO BAKKE OR CURRENT OWNER 13540 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4257 503 -19 -035 PAUL SCHUYLER OR CURRENT OWNER 20711 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4201 503 -19 -074 WILLIAM KATHERINE DUFFY OR CURRENT OWNER 20637 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4201 503 -19 -119 JOHN E LINDHOLM OR CURRENT OWNER 20682 RICE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4226 503 -19 -143 RUEY KAO OR CURRENT OWNER 20680 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4205 503 -16 -007 MEIYEE F KEN CHAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13561 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4216 503 -16 -010 CHUAN -JEN TSU OR CURRENT OWNER 13625 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4258 503 -16 -013 RUDY Y JUANG OR CURRENT OWNER 13600 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4257 503 -19 -033 BARBARA DAVIS OR CURRENT OWNER 20681 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4201 503 -19 -036 ANGELO ORPHAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4251 503 -19 -082 LAWRENCE D CYNTHIA CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20646 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4205 503 -19 -120 MICHAEL PHYLLIS SHEA OR CURRENT OW NER 20660 RICE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4226 503 -19 -144 TODD VANESSA ROTHBARD OR CURRENT OWNER 20654 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4205 503 -19 -157 LOH 2006 FLEMING AVE OSE CA 95127 -3640 503 -53 -035 JAMES C JOAN CAROTHERS OR CURRENT OWNER 20778 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4811 503 -53 -038 GARY J ALFREDA MASTMAN '0R CURRENT OWNER 20777 RUSSELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4808 503 -53 -041 WILLIAM L ELAINE REVELL DR CURRENT OWNER 20823 RUSSELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4808 503 -53 -045 DANIEL J JENNIFER FRAISL DR CURRENT OWNER 13500 SARAVIEW DR 1 TOGA CA 95070 -4849 i0 -4 020 FAMES R RUTH MILLER DR CURRENT OWNER 20625 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4809 503 -54 -028 fOHN W LJEPAVA 340 S HENRY AVE SAN JOSE CA 95117 -1625 503 -54 -031 ZOBERT Y DEBBIE SHEN DR CURRENT OWNER 20600 DEBBIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4827 503 -54 -056 YITAO YAO DR CURRENT OWNER 13510 MANDARIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -4847 059 HAN TENG DR CURRENT OWNER 20703 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4813 503 -20 -093 SUNGJIN SONG OR CURRENT OWNER 20767 SEVILLA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4823 503 -53 -036 ROBERT Q VIRGINIA LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20750 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4811 503 -53 -039 WILLIAM R JANE KELLMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20795 RUSSELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4808 503 -53 -042 DAVID N SANDY MO OR CURRENT OWNER 20835 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4812 503 -53 -046 CHARLES LITA ASKANAS OR CURRENT OWNER 13460 SARAVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4849 503 -54 -021 WILLIAM C STEPHANIE WEIDERT OR CURRENT OWNER 20647 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4809 503 -54 -029 ANDREW NALBANDIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20617 DEBBIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4827 503 -54 -054 JOSEPH B DOROTHY REAGAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13554 MANDARIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -4847 503 -54 -057 VENKATESH HARINARAYAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20669 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4809 503 -54 -060 DONALD J SCHARE OR CURRENT OWNER 20715 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4813 503 -53 -034 MADAN DEVIKA VALLURI OR CURRENT OWNER 20794 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4811 503 -53 -037 YUEH -O YU OR CURRENT OWNER 20751 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4813 503 -53 -040 PAUL LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20811 RUSSELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4808 503 -53 -043 YIN ZHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20847 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4812 503 -54 -010 CYNTHIA LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20587 DEBBIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4827 503 -54 -022 CHESTER FLESHMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20644 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4810 503 -54 -030 IRVINE FAMILY TRUST RAEFAIL 11 -6 OR CURRENT OWNER 20622 DEBBIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4827 503 -54 -055 YI ZHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 13532 MANDARIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -4847 503 -54 -058 STEPHEN P GEORGIA SCLAVOS OR CURRENT OWNER 20681 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4809 503 -54 -061 DAVID L JOY JOYCE OR CURRENT OWNER 20737 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4813 503 -54 -062 HOWARD LYDIA LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20749 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4855 503 -54 -065 CLAY LOANN CAMPBELL OR CURRENT OWNER 13539 MANDARIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -4807 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN:THERESE SCHMIDT 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 503 -54 -063 MANOJ A MANISHA HARDIKAR OR CURRENT OWNER 20727 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4854 503 -54 -066 GENKUN J YANG OR CURRENT OWNER 13551 MANDARIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -4807 503 -54 -064 ROBERT H ELSA KEITH 4203 AMAU ST HONOLULU HI 96816 -5002 503 -54 -075 HENRY P MARCIA KAPLAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20745 SEVILLA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4823 Attachment 3 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form i2 PROJECT ADDRESS: C Z Dear Neighbor, 1 am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, your may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have14 the preliminary project plans. Neighbor 14:a' in-e-:'PCNO t.A.. Date: Z. C dcle' coo Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: Signature: Neighbor Address: '2 C 1 (1 .ic� t� Aitb C Z Z3. q. 2 tc- 1 o C 4 Neighbor Phone If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS:2—D '72_0 L 0 0,i 4-v___0 1ID Dear Neighbor, 1 am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, yod4 may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Y4 jE' TO `i Signature: `C X Neighbor Address: Date: If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Date: Neighbor Phone b 7 C.' 9 5 J Application Number: //30/0 7 A City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: 47 a „7,2,0 Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. 1 ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have review the preliminary project plans. A Neighbor Name: Signature: Application Number: el 7 4-4 Date: V-, 7 Neighbor Address: 4l If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Phone 16 r M7 -f Applicant Name: Date: City of Saratoga Planning Department Attachment 4 Anted On .m.vc.e,i OAP, C� o� R `N`s 13777 FKUIT \'ALE A VENUE: SAR VI'o(;: CALIFORNIA 95070 1408) vii7; :)438 Planning Commission M E M O R N D U M TO: FROM: James Walgr DATE: A "quet 9, 1995 SUBJECT: Design Review *95 -019 MOSTAANJ 20720 LEONARD RD. Associate Planner c1rt: von. MEMRI ICs: Description: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,132 sq. ft. two -story residence on a 1.2 acre hillside parcel currently developed with an o32 sq. ft. one-story "cottage The property is located at the end of Leonard Rd. and is within an R -1- 40,000 Overview: This proposal for a new two -story home at the end of Leonard Rd. was presented to the Planning Commission at the. June 28, 1995 public hearing. Based on the perceived incompatibility of the proposed home with both the existing cottage and the other residences in the neighborhood, the Planning Commission directed the applicafLs to prepare new plans addressing their concerns. The June 28th meeting minutes are attached for reference. The revised plans submitted to staff include the following changes: The garage /carport attached to the existing cottage is now shown to be removed and the cottage is proposed to be remod- eled to match the new home. The total building square footage, including the cottage, has been reduced from 6,168 sq. ft. to 5,964 sq. ft. and the structure has ben reduced in height from 23 ft. to 21.5 ft. with these two changes, -the application no longer requires an exception to the building height -to -floor area reduction rule. The house has been shifted slightly to the northeast and architectural revisions to the building's elevations have been made. :I2 i• Aos ;�r Hardscape improvements have been reduced or eliminated. A revised material board has been prepared which will be presented at the public hearing. Both the revised plans and the original plans are attached. The applicants' architect has also submitted the attached letter further summarizing the plan modifications. Recommendation: Staff recommended approval of the application as it was originally presented. The changes the applicants' architect has made do not address the Planning Commission's direction to eliminate the cottage entirely. Noting that the revised plans may not meet the Commissioners expectations for a significantly revised project, staff recommends that a motion be made to either deny or approve the application; a further continuance would probably not be productive for either the applicant or the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval of the application and a revised approval Resolution is attached for adoption. Resolution DR-95-019 Planning Commission minutes Correspondence Existing two-story home map Revised plans, Exhibit "A" Original plans, Exhibit "B" A,. NSEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,132 sq. ft. two -story structure; 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 Planning Commission determined that the recessary findings could be made to support the floor area exceptica request pursuant to Article 15- 45.030 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessary structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the structure meets minimum setbacks and is situated well away from adjoining homes. -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 grade changes are very minimal and tree protection measures are incorperated into the conditions of project approval. -The proposed main 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 home will be largely screened from public views by topography and vegetation. -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 ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the home is proposed at the most practical location in terms of minimizing grading and tree removal and the general massing of the home is compatible with the various types of homes in the vicinity. RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -019 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA MSostaan; 20720 Leonard Rd. Fil '70. DR -95 -019; 20720 Leonard Rd. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mostaan for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. Building materials and colors shall be per the approved material board. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit, the following shall be submitted to 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. b. One (1) set of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution and requirements /conditions of the City Arborist (e.g. tree protective fencing) shall be noted on the plans. 3. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, applicant shall submit the following for Community Development Director review and approval: a. A tree protection security shall be submitted in the amount of $4,052 pursuant to the report and recommendation of the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. This security will be released once construction is completed and it has been verified by the City Arborist that the protective procedures outlined in his report have been followed. Revised plans indicating that the kitchen will be removed from the cottage structure and that thie structure shall not be utilized as a second dwelling unit. FDA No. DR -95 -019; 20720 Leonard Rd. c. Final driveway construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Saratoga Fire District. 4. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the 6 ft. tall redwood "good neighbor" fence shown on the plans shall be constructed along the west property line. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy approval: a. Five 24 inch box native trees, and irrigation, shall be installed along the west property line as shown on the plans. b.` The carport /garage attached to the cottage structure and the detached storage shed shall be removed. c. Any outstanding City Arborist fees shall be paid. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated May 8, 1995 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the City Arborist shall review and approve the final site and grading plans. Six (6) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on these plans with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protection measures. •Any,future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. No retaining wall shall exceed 5 ft. in height. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three (3) feet in height. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 10. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. ;tip File No. DR -95 -019; 20720 Leonard Rd. 11. A fire hydrant shall be installed in accordance with the Saratoga Fire District's specifications, or a fire sprinkler system NFPA 13 shall be provided throughout the entire dwelling. 12. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. 16. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction Beat Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 17. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. 18. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses 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. 19. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of August, 1995 by the following roll call vote: File No. DR-95-019; 20720 Leonard Rd. AYES: Kaplan, Murakami Siegfried NOES: Abshire Patrick ABSENT: Asfour Caldwell Chairman, ATTEST: r. ing Commis on Commission Application No./Loesuon DR Applicant/Owner: MOSTAAN Staff Plannw: James Walgren Date: Cune 14. 2595 APN: 503-19-036 20720 Leonard Rd. Application filed: 3/29/95 Application complete: 5/08/95 Notice published: 5/31/95 Mailing completed: 6/01/95 Posting completed: 5/25/95 Request for Deaign Review approval to construct a new 5,336 sq. ft. two-story residence on a 1.2 acre hillside parcel currently developed with.an 832 sq. ft. one-story wcottage'. The application also includes a building floor area exception request. A public hearing is required for this proposal pursuant to Chapter 15 of the _City Code. The property is located at the end of Leonard Rd. and is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. tamp RECOMMDATION: Approve the Design Review request, with conditions, by adopting the attached Resolution. A21202510=1. 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-95-019 3. Two-story home exhibit 4. Arborist Report dated'5/8/95 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" j(ATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior finish painted off- white with "mission" tile roofing per the submitted material board. Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The proposal complies with all applicable development regulations, including allowable building height, lot coverage and floor area and required setbacks. Design Review Analysis: The design utilizes several of the techniques recommended to minimize building bulk and mass in the City's Residential Design Handbook. At 23 ft. in maximum height, the structure's profile is relatively low and the rooflines are articulated to reduce the building mass. Large wall expanses are avoided as a result of the variations in the building footprint and the architectural details that are incorporated into the design. Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: Garage: 710 sq. ft. First Floor: 2,811 eq. ft. Second Floor: 1,815 sq. ft. SUBTOTAL: 5,336 sq. ft. 6,300 sq. ft. Existing Cottage: 832 sq. ft. (5,828 sq. ft. w /floor TOTAL: 6,168 sq. ft. area reduction) Front: 30 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. The residence is located at the end of Leonard Rd. off a private access easement and is largely screened from public views by topography and vegetation. The chosen architectural style of the home is much more "formal" than the existing homes along the lower portion of Leonard Rd. The topography and style of existing homes changes at the upper portion of Leonard Rd., however, which is also zoned for larger one -acre minimum lot sizes. Staff has discussed with the applicant the issue of achieving architectural compatibility with the existing homes in the vicinity. In terms of general building massing, staff feels that the Design Review findings can be made to support the proposal In terms of actual building style, this application is more difficult to support. The slightly "exotic" domed roof elements and curved wall arches and windows are a departure from what one would consider to be traditional architecture in Saratoga. Staff's recommendation to approve the application, however, is based on a more objective analysis of the specific Design Review findings. To date, staff has not received any objections to the proposal from adjoining neighbors. Floor Area Exception Request: The proposal also involves an exception request to the floor area /height reduction rule in order to permit building floor area up to.the maximum prescribed per Article 15- 45.030 of the City Code. The Planning Commission may grant an exception to this rule if they find that; a) there is a predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood, and; b) that all of the necessary Design Review findings can be made. Staff feels that these conditions do exist and that the request can be supported. Tree Protection: The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and his tree protection recommendations have either been incorporated into the site and grading plan or are-included in the Resolution condi .tions of approval. Correspondence: Staff has received a request from a neighbor that' the proposed 6 ft. tall redwood "good neighbor" fence shown on the plans along the west property line be installed amore building permits are issued. This would shield, to a degree, the adjoining home from construction impacts. Staff feels this is a reasonable request and has included it as a condition of approval. Summary: Staff believes that the Design Review findings can be made to support the application. The project complies with all applicable development regulations and is consistent with other proposals approved within the subdivision. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to construct a new two -story home on this vacant parcel. A condition of approval will require that the existing nonconforming carport attached to the cottage, which encroaches into the required 30 ft. front setback, be removed prior to Final Occupancy approval of the main house. Approve the Design Review request, with conditions, by adopting the attached Resolution. Attachment 5 a I a 8 G d 3, 4 1. oielb: 3a� l� lil a 4 1 N d .i: T K am-escrow roal n[90 n .0.0r C 0 0 AWN Nj►6. l /.D2L0 p AI 4wi t Ana swore EpMY.O� ri w+wwn f h 1 .7,767T oval tc g4r1 fr :2O7 2o''9 1:11/N,Q0 If.t.g NOISIA314 I 96 W I 'G.DD0 %On zl.a.GD -T 1, 11 o a S3ivioosSy NOIS3C nolo .5N,�N.MO VS' V/U V X3CINI J a a z J r d Q d t s� j W Z G' .Y /V a'i Z J CO I• Q cxs Z W J U J a U a h IA a C y 4 F a i 1- U ti, Q d f- w W U- .,'Z Z H W h °x W w W O O z 04 y C aa.�U W J W hhwO J F a 1 OJ J CC aa N cou 5O U cLcr0u- DC>>OO O >>D< W zzmo atra w 1... ww o 2 Z JJO� ='O a OaW� o 0-J CAU)Z =Uw OJ-- I WWp1- <zZ1- --1-�- ct O 1- =zOu.1 ZZQ pc 0au ��aapc� pa Q1- ,d maJ ZZOOJNN m66 14 -0-v0 0 0 p CC CC °W Ca (1 (I JU 0 zz Ju.pwwt =l-az 3 (N J E� Z 0WZ o C aJ cc ma U pJ U; I -11 i R: u CO .1.... 00 O T N Cr) d Lf) CO 1� CO 0 Wi y «aad a« a Q as a d a'a wl w ui .W E5 0 OD Z a nos ra A eWtl IS71 a 1 J S3I N 9IS30 Km i 1)- C7 O Z u) Q Z J a cc a a CO u) C0 CO co zpu .CL 1 -1 -J JJJ_I az ti W aaaaaa J0Cr p1- 1- 1- 1-f-1- WW aooz ZWWWW Z J O 01-u.a r oc5 c7000 1-Z m azzzzzz l ib I i i I I T N Cr) •t I!) CO t... r Cpl @7 �l I I R COGO' m u)m a) m u)u) t 0•- PROJECT DATA .1. ww m V g CA tf1 J) CO U) N OON 0 CO co k,•. i 0 M 'i 0 ct 1n Cr} N N T !�S of Cn CV m d O M m •a u CD m m a m c� a Q' m ri m CD 0)> C o a x o o co EJ O y SOU 0 O o J o G) co G r CA pD CD 0 li t>, m Z o m a m m CO co a p c z" J N o m :13 m rn v 0 n. O co Q). Q <N _I. mLL m r- W 1- a E 6 Ei 8 Y 3 Y 9 O s r 2 aa ill ItilI 1 .318 t CI U p eIa h- a Q i 1 1 C. Ek1 2: CI i-.1 ��,I I�I��� I II We SYMBOLS O 0 m V J 0 m O �N O to O O UO p Z W N W 0 00< 517 CC CONSULTANTS W Z (3, iii W V -J J N O vi., a) co li N Z w^ Od W n -X 0 fn CO O UK)O n j 0 O O>,' W cc O) N` W' o Q' W i O U ..I a rn� Q� M L �N n C- OQ F Q a O O Z cna I.. CO M 40 r 0) EN.< 0 N.0 N CD C) C m r7 W C OQ U O O Q: a 4na r p, 7J O I���1��1I���I� �I I II� uuII II II l 1 O IIII i .VtCIMTY s N. CC 13('(Id Q q 1 Q C of o v. p er,' t_ 1 00 r t amplr 11; 1N9-*1 IMI ran in •ww at -b Asn l9K dorm* 1 Awl twos nn.aasot p.W* IS 83111100SSd NOIS30 HS111,0 mur.of'ipv0 'vBorn.=s LC N.ivuoa7 Oz2Oz vvv zVuvd 's.L 'rW SXINM0 VUVEVIYV L a a 0 01 L. tas-eu non ma Yo •NC 11 V •+a Amy Leto 0a1000.0 1 .01..0 nw+++a Vmpopplmi S3IVIOOSSV MOO HSll,0 v }wo v z8o1vLv� .i O,zo uvv SOyy ztnrvd S.cN -LN SYJNM O V JVSVIYV n 0 l W W m Z Sr QU'N W N 0 N ow p germ oQQa r00 Z 3 N W a 1 `a L o J 1 N 0 0 „0 W N m LL Q 0 W J W 0 U Z W 0 O w 2O Qa 20 3�a N z w 000 0 J W Z Y 3 za Ina W O W W a no n >U ow m a w U 60 ea u n J y a 400 d W 4 w J MUQ J 4 Q70 w 25 00 r Q 0 0 pJ m 0 5 N NI o O O 00 00 5[5469( 169)1 fuuS6 vo '3SM los •'00 A0 0. I( 1 S3IYDOSSV N9IS3O HSm.9 1 a 04' 31 al !JO t1, (u� I J 0 45 00 t smo1 won saw 01 s*r no G 111•9 0 1 a•w sew WNW* wwn.•u t U. p 77V 3 '1 uvvgsoyy 2tn.Lvd s... :SU3NM0 V[[VSVIYV y� 1 30 1 I 9661 ova I Rd '30 umual I P6Z1 a•tl 1 6 MP PO °OZLOZ .941 SECOND FLOOR PLAN V NO191A3t1 I 964»oflSZ ©1 a)eryn3o )3H TONNYla 331Y10O8SY NDI830 HS01O (10 11 in VMS NJ 100i NYS "80 AM (SY0 531Y1)OSSY NDIS30 H5f1" 1 L NOIS30 memo •C 631VIO066V 3 0 v0,11, coinvo '73Bo121.t2)g tQ p.ivuOa7 o zoz UDDqSOJ z%.a-cod .•s cjq os) %JR S2f ,ZNM o vUvsvIhIv m cn 0 Q C N N 0 w 0 W J w c F- Z W 2 w co m SHLOOSSY HHIS30 H 9(59691 :ur �S J.I1.Ir1 1fi s31 N91530 HS(11,9 aon tIAN,i4 ,,f °�e'm My wrs. sago 9: Mlow.i mb lzouwopki 831Y1'J088V NOIS30 HSf110 75 .0,i2 D6, v6a xt.tD,r� 4a‘p:o0:40o1 y u?an soylr zyat s�.�Nito VerVEVI?1V 'enowee non ►a» ra Mot we •ei ewr w►. 9 414...3 mnw Nine ai•..e.o ,aw•V..0 931VI3OSSV N91630 HS01,9 CI O viu..cgyiyva '7J60/v.473S lQ 1 1 0 3103 7 o2zoa uvvlsoyy zp i.cvd %LH Sel3NM O VeIIBSVI e V 7 0 LII 1 w 0 1- 0 ►LESS vp'3SO( NVS 110 AMY 1SK S31VI)OSSV N9jS3U Nsn1,9 109M13 W►1 MS 10 VFW 10/0'41 R*Y II f 1 HMO ww\ mom.) 10.IW1.P0I S3IVI0088V NOIS3U HSQ1J sa0 vtiwofipv�.' 155o1vavS .L p.lvuoa7 02`GOZ uvvlsoJY 21.a.lvd s.iN 7� cylr SeIgNA10 v2Uvs I9 L r LI a 0 N a a a B z ¢a co 0 VS I46 ya '7sar tin 60 AGM' MI S31VDOSSY NDIS30 HS07.9 Ll -1r1 'LH 0- °IG S31VYOOSSV NF11 3Q, H8Q'ip r 2Q.. p b,uo27 QzzO 1cv��soy Z t o O ro �sel� 4r i:1wn '14 WISS SI DOSSV. N»S a xsni,� 1 iitiihofitbaT- Ad 1 02 111Y650,11T J 's. PS' 2 SeigNiff0 VUVEVIY V A <1 o 0 2 1 N 0 04. 2 IIIIIIMEIMEEMEE222 uj w u) o 3=ood 0 mans uj 0 0 0 LLI w 2 0 Cr Eh itiMOIPS PROPIIIRIONINNI NUMMI= IMAAPIIIMIMMMINIMMMailiaMMULAULIUSIUCLAWOUNEM 21Y4 EX. 1, 2 1- re o 0 v. 0 1. re 0 2 0. 2 14 M10 GOO 031N1Vd 23210 auvtorin aaroe AO (13.1141 oNunnow NMOIID 83210 3111 3114 ON113NYcl (300A1 02083 3111 911119133 ON113NYd COM S21011/11/1 ON11i3A03 111% WHOA 'clA0 0311111fd 83149 3111 3110/23a lANIA coont .213H10. 3111 3111Y,I133 9N1410011 13001,4021VH 311NYNO :•13,1v3 M OL.M 2 0 n. 0 0. 3 `7. zo 4 '4 4 0 0 0 0, 4 0 a 0 8.: 0. b b b Z >1 .0 0 b e4 4 EGIMILTIMPZIESTOEVe re b 0. 2 b 4 0 0. 0 ="2 00 3'6 .0, ao 001 z. :Ea 0 0 1,3 0 <1 a 10 :0 O 0 0. t `i e■ la 10 0 0. 10 40 re 0 8 0. 2 0 0. 2 1 4- Lc 2 0 0 8 Og 1-0 10 40 N N 0 10 41. 3 8 a to 2 0 0 11 10 1 0 4 4 0. IJ 4 41 0 0 0 5 0. 8 0 2 10 .."5t 1.1 '0. 2 2 4.■ 2 -0 2 8 ta 4 ore rz 1 1 1. 1 rt:4 8 tn3 md 9 NM 13 'UM t0,5 531Y0050 N915311 HSf1 1 9: 7,..;17si: pi :1lit Wti4:41 440 7 kr mow tau MD oar. cue 'b Apey 9999: 9 94Pa 91Op PP+.00' 1 0.0041 S31VIDOSStl N8IS30 H8O1P 733.1u0f2713,9 6o7v.1.v,3 LC p.cvuoa7 o 902' uvvgsoN z%n.ivd •S.LN .cyy :SWINA40 VUVSVI?IV Y 0 0 1 0 L 0 0 99z RHO 10 'ref NYS "90 A9W0 1109 S3LVDOSSV N91S1Q ",9 u q 4 d ti OL H$1 NON *AN Y7 Mq 111 'q km UM &promo t Aka MOPS WNW** YetloK•tl 831Y10088V NOI830 H8010 D2uloji1D9 'DBOrDIDS is prvuoa7 OZZOZ uVD }soy(r ztin.r.Dd •s.g •.cyy j SYMVA1M 0 x V UV E V 1 JV S 0 a O cS II S,2 YLtSB n 3S0( NYS "so AIM MO S3ripOSSV 01530 HSH 1.9 4 1 r •�E;', IIH� I /l1r i o ..d I o 3 7 gi N N i I 11 i v?,u.ioti7va iogv.hos fifFafl 4015 tales YO *sir es '+0 ion me .1Q PlvUO ozzoz .y. wrwa, MMO 6 nieiwea ?oauo�au ag 531tlI00SSY 966t uo t ga I .p -.1 J/t MWSI I uootsoyt •d "M"OI I 1 WI 6 MP'EIOOZLOZ nM� INTERIOR ELEVATIONS E d 0.,s I NOICIA311 I CI a� uvv�soN ZUL2td 'S1jJl 4 'ley Nfl1530 HSQ�O a d SeLYNM O V21VSVIhIV a o J 2 ozi 0 o W 3 159.691 (9 92196 Y0 '3S0! NYS "80 9941 150 9 5 S31VI)o sy N9IS10 HS01,9 .OZ i 0 aY. f t z T F R I NWJ 6 u 4 a zf W NI00?I DNIAI'I 01 ON1 AHiu3 v I 1 �I�_ 1' .zt 11 1 1°E1 i M H0013 .I tZ r Ndt L. 0 a I MB a IIi�i I� 11 y 8 z .OZ 9 f �a w zo 3 S1 y 1 .9 i FALSE T �T PANE NE L- ORA 3LAND ''I'i. U I O i n U o m 6 O 0 qi HOOD ,LKOH3� HOI�Id?I.LNa 9 �I��1'�` 'RIC TOP —N lag n [IMO 01 Ple NM Z m &i:MN .1 Sim a w =�I I WOOD SHELVES W ®C7 x x T e -.z E. cn u 1 2ST FLOC, V l3NYd 3 V.1 Z i tille li ME I KNEE SPACE A KITCHEN DESK w y 1 r 1 I1:1' dal 000M ,ol _r 5z z t E o O 91 y .91 1 1 a 0 .Z9' I' FLOOR M tom 1 M 1 Ii —\r_— .S t Z a. w z l a 9 .Z z 0 W o li In a I 6 N en Z LL P•11 v.:.\\NIN. 'i 44 O O W N W zZ UY 2p W b4 0 4 A Al a n, al uwwm Dav09 L&0 .z /t ,9 „0-.v z tl j� O I I I I I 1 o F� DS O. VI c j W W K al 03 noa3in V D 1807 NOUVJ. aolva3 LOPEN TO WET 807 FLUTED SIDING s WC Uh' JVING ROOM LKG. TO DINING ROM I'' U m 111 m E. 1 `1I!!0S °o �B tl l DINING ROOM/ j Z a. O 1 H I i J. I_- W F. ...I at L NY! lel z 43 3 4 E �U �VI 2 9 y 1 ::.1 2 G o V1 R2 �c W O Q'. v m' fir y7 ,....k....___.. NM t aa o FWa NC Z O o o W om ii i Q O Iii NI IMI a FLOOF NI I I 0 6 W 1 1 1 v 1 9 .8l .f I I It 0 LiI1I!4 z o= N� W es. ao x z w i .6 ,r WM nin l en I siortma ow Y3 '4•88 we 'xi kw um %sum 9 Om &owe wed.» 'mammal $31.VIDOSSV NO1830 mop m,u_toinv 'T)6olv21os p.riouoa7 oazoa uvulsoAr zyLvDd sijv 41 :S?1,V1010 V2:117SVPIV 38 VdS 1 ..tZ '9 .9-.6 .9 1 I h I i II i I g 871 'I li i 5 'igs I! ig i 3 !I! gi .4:','7n 5.1. 1 P. ig 11 i4 :.:1 1 1 11 F .z.. i i 4 1 88 11 ni 1 11 9 1 1 li ii 74„ 0 I ii 1.4.1 :15I. 1 I q.p. qi OB 0 :3' 1 2 1-g 5 iP ;EZ hl 2 1 .13'3.i 1 11 1771 1 11pssi-811-4 1 E 2 :1111 ki831!1!;177 hi IS7.3tal t i E hlIgfagn 1 I ii! 1 WNW 0 s ill "I. 81, 3 i Y. Et A A g 3848==g 11 1 i 1 i iiiiill ii iliIlliiIl 9 8 q E Nil 2 t 9 tt 1.! 1 8 il i .uJiii I?! *1141 IA '?I!! t 1 Al 1144n Ali II .7 ::■2 1 A 8.tt: t I 1 1.1 1 1 I I IIIII A 111131E111 I- 1 I ig k i 1 l• 9 li 'il ki!!! 9 4 2 1 IIII:I li 2 84 4 4 11111 ii.....,... 8 Dth 1 2gMbin :2 l 8..7 g! ;i 1 lijilijj11 1 1 6.,d, ts :c.a... i it g ri— ail' a 81 atiis 1111141 13131374 69 _11492 61 rnss vs isor ors .so Amy tsps S3IVDOSSV N91530 95919 P. C A LII w ��4114 �LC- D}uLO ti D l l.1 O O�D1DS. K .yc P.LDUOi OaZ0a. ufow am row roMa �w'a �r un y A t _I awe Immo% U D Dgso jV z7.(I,LDd •s-IN J' .LW D 9661 'Rol RB=71/ 1 A .L l •1TM'+s' I u°coon •d MmnJO� L 4621 R =RI 6 .Wp•SLVOZLOZ m4 ARCHITECTURAL L DETAILS N0181A38 1 1 d IVO N I 1 631YIOOSSY NOIS H8fl1 49 :SeIgNM0 VU VS t�I N o 1 1/682 MO) /ZIS6 Y3 3S0( NVS'tlo ASO ISO% s31VDOSSV N9101 Hsm.9 h �k :.8 i i cW 2 g� 3 F" 1 f g N i u 0 Z O VI i N 111 r *2jlililitilii �2i�I2 t m _1? F �°o i 0 g�3 1 m oa 41 Boor oN modem L� i Til y a 1 POI !iilli 1 yy 211E N pi li a 3! P 0,11P1 e 0 si ni Iv -Ails 'R,A ig 3111191 3101111!31 7' r-1 J M T 3111 STRIN Z. WSW 30■211313101 1 1::'(.1 0 4 8 E7 -L 0 313x3 r_-- -1 1Vh Q 7• O S °v 144 3 O b Z i g k�� CY h 0 1 1~ w Z i �z3 0 a cc LAJ c :1l.!. 5 10-41. 10-41. Q o ny I 3y 0 o (/7 g w Q E a z v a 3 1 I J 3 9 ell �p W s1ei��p 8 S t z 1 a i I! i i I it t a E v E` y 1 z 4 s pyy D� "1 11 A 4 1110111fr i i Ili. 1 cad' s �Ue.L. -ot 8 i 61 g 11 14 g lE el 1 pqp Qa 51 PI E 1ia11ai 8ulppng 0 73 1. uaia�uoD G i as E S iii 1 11 1 1 1! i f 1 1 x I R g y W 1i; P iit F- a slia l! I 9 s p a 1 1%2 I E� g� 4 l 1 a' a lj� e0�en 1 J III Oil I WO C qq III "i s a 9�4 w M� E Fw 1� H II i 412+' tor l 4 1 .t .D /llIP�ap._ l Ai.' ilh iilRHh 11#ffn 8 i1 �i Ail 111111 1 1111i iii si ifi WI W Weil 11 i f E E hi !Ps Mplidi.s. 42 11114114:111111111 i j a t d E 1 E 1 °p E is ;ISI; $aia tFalfl ilillill D i leuollewalul Jy wlu,oaa, A.ryp(sgnr v I `a Uo!1enl�o IeA3 O9� tiiiiirifiij A i2 il Sl a co o� 3,t1 .6 '1 r ;1 MI L itlililiti1j i�ingiiiitil 'T21lit�l�tiillitilniti y F g m u v. '3 z 6 3' JOIST OR BOTTOM CHORD O' INSULATION HOEDOWN GYPSUM WALL BOARD METAL WALL STUD INSULATION EAVE DETAIL j d y` •Oi S Q b O p 1 1 11 I'tiiiiii_liii ifii SSi mr!_ Q r J a s 3 b y i 3 3 `o V NF� €NFT b ua c� g o g da V 4 b J u� m s g< W U I a t. rY n n iy N lyi gg 3 t otoo<oc roar moo vo *Kt wo 'm Rmw o 0 uoww Im mo v4o•iwe S31VIOOSSV NO1830 HS01D 1Y12LO1?,7v0 '15 6o7v.cvs aQ pavuoa7 024,02 uvv7soy zyt...md 's2W 8 -SLY S2I ZNM 0 vfvS'MI I bZt 6 1/17501 NVS,' °ky' NOS S31VDOSSv N91S30t 1 0 0 a 0 0 I ta ¢a a c 3 El G L a 0 o I 4�� Iu 111 o Ill 11 gli X11- s w q m 11 9L4iOW WOr1. MN SO '�f w4 eueww0 OM ew n Diu.i.OJ%7va 'z 5o�vav, q MW MS c p�2iuoa7 OZL02 tu�wp�u —t uvv4soyy n,.cvJ s.Lfl J -Cif z?. HS TM SI NM V s �I� m c a 4 y o S a 1; f a N o 0 r•• y u Z w OD/MOSSY W93O S b 4 m 5 m y o ii z z o W z s w g o t J t 3 8 3 O J 4 3 p F j i o 5� V 3 6 0 t w W <d W g hg j epa 4< O¢O LL u.S W w mg qq i w KJ S i m b �a m LL Ft.? W O N y p w FF w ww h S :b �w� :S O ,'2h p rc R_ W QQ go?, u W 2 y b >Z Z 2= o WJ oa w 8w m ah o x F o g p S T O g s g O li Q a 0 zcwi Op z y F W Z 2 5 r j0 LLJ V iu 0 �i z w� 11 p �bZ O aC of F a Im w g° b0 �w 0 a o w i �h P a w o a? w uw� x a w ..0p, p, 'r p ;i .p M N i n s n ¢wo Z 5 w� o� >ao U iI; N w w Cy w zoo 10, O ww g °5 "i w_ A° N wo D� w w po z n u0 z �'x S WFU Q F�i 7h J¢iw m y 2rZ1 W3 Z H° ioo c$ -w z O o r owa N V 4: 0 V O m y -pJ y r a' $i z a o m 5 x S S y j E °o1 ah w w Z= ZG1 O�t b a m w g u Z Z lm amp 3i C t }S Q U Cb Z o wu O �+ah a( S °a J OO K Fao O pp p p pa> b G 2 N °oo o a z a io Q ai�mw N m z o w g 2 o OE m u O< O 6 w� y i b a b a a 8 S a y� �O O oh a� u p< U 3¢ ah g w N [q ZK m U w 0 Y wE b CC Q Z, a j 0 S °a 050 O 0 U Z y 7 w g O ttF 0z b0 w o t N St w o 2 Q w N O O b< t i m w 0 S w SY g y m a S o Q$ x KR Z i yy V N a 8 8 y z 0 ooa 3 '3 po w o a z YY 0 h d mi KKK N U p O O 2 0 ph.� Q W p t7 O Z b ID S,> a� 8 8 s g o �W wo ox o 2 h z w a° 0 wh o N W '0 IL9�B9 06) tans v., VS "AO AAWtl MS g S1VUOSSViN! IS3a emm. LL c m 33 w m W a b w O m O j i i LL O z x z 4 O m o w b vwi m Z ,1 5 R O y O S m 1V W t U E cQ p> z o u K° O a O V op o u_ o ih .a L u c? V ZZ N gz w y 0 Z F z w m �jO x H N a '5g o r, N 3 UI W N, 'ayg 3 �'W 2� 4 U9 p]] Ow E W H gg q q 3wa ws o uw o oh pgayu q aiu 4 0 p �aLL ,1, p i y. 3 y< �O b 6 uw Eh i'J i5 W g z w. az2 0+ �w Og 1 aF g w s a r r g8 wJ i O o G QQ a g u 0 v 2 O FF o Z 5 n w o V Z Z O Q LL 5 b h ya s N u� q o 7 o m 2 S K i o F g mw wb za 5 g F o LL g v i wz n a rc rc o.a h n h a a K op f g 3 Q w v Y W o m u Q�z wa a w 2 y q w u z o c- y z p O i v y d u V b U) z 0 n d 2 8 `yi n z ry xU Q T V °w LL t2� yp b J 3a o q c 8 O ww r m 0 t w o o E' F a Zz 2 3 1Q g r 6 7 a z� a w '8 ur y w i O K h 2 W n Ina 9 co o xm 3 a °z f w i o $5 7 p d a z m Qo rc 13 d a m F o i� ri. c¢-i S w g 0 6 d a t l u w LL a ai o ry w ,42 6a PA U Na ZR O Zv ¢2U L. x2 0 K a ti -'O is w 6 W 3 m L0.6 of O W a 3 Ox y¢ i rc 5 w O p m 0 pp o u o_ o u 3 u w 5- o o J g i wi N yog i o m w QN a U 3 i w a s b r< g 6w� i J� p6 =N O 3 5 u i u0 f OF 6h 5 >i UT R 2 U 72-2 gi rc w s a a0 2 i .yW b2 ya h w2-oas 2 o w a io qi t 0 m z i000 m g o o u 4 p V g o lw a of u i i E 3 2= 5 b 6 x Z =u�b j o t N W $w �c= °gyr y u o i a y a ,u i h z g o o a w .8 °f� w Z 4 p 3 LL t,'"27 y 3 3 i i 8 af� w a°o >sx. H w« K. LLo G 4 g ai a 3 .Y, 6,vi m u z w, a x 'a izq o ?b wa,.s m u d w 6 1 0 V 'i2 J O g a aim 0 Oz §gw 1 w R F r' nF p K 7 2 m �j?J2 z d R W0 3i� ig >m z t o o f w i i oo W� uw °s o i w o w i o; zx l p 2Gy' PO n u W 0i p Fh h �WQ �2 m oyhp N J mO Q Z U mo �K Z gLL =U Ko O 1x-57 Z w6 a zg a m. zhJ rc q p Z7 u o w z i qg J Q wawubig b b 6 22* oz S� i u! s 'w k iz SU `1 !h i gw g !�o u io'i °z 4 o w €O oW 4i F o z z s u z F wm w rc o w tX iiW a o igt R 28 g_. 6 LL J a u x a° 3 g K b y O Ow"' uz w NG i-zm 3s f� Fx r`- h p x Q o a �WW -s. 1 uo o` 22 U,. 6 4 o <U gZ< v1' 32 =OU V N g o7F rc a i° i w h4g43o 3; bh a law I w W° O h= y �m0 g �s K J m au� LLo u g o o "o!°�Q� 'a 5qi y w a6,5,'1 ri xg 5i z� a gi ccq g g N c°i e K r?i h i za?w 11 VOW O< Xy x a° p gh O w i�( tw iO g 'a g 7 a G 1 hF.w m li i i I al b r g i a 4 F r g w a w.� U ua o f g zm B gx o'. g N �3 oz a o 0 2 Z z p u rca �N O °a Un C' l W x I7� O h()h 2 u w 6 azm w ZZ i g y/ p C o. t x!+00 W z O O ZL :!W V xo 020 o g Q °u p�p� x o G b i N= g f0. h d h Yw u Eg ..06Wg io F O �n u7 zd K d a y Y� b bG�s z�o F 8 �6zw� h$uyu. °8 y E {}�9 U o W N O F aUw o�. r(2 a Z q 3a U _S K gig gi bmu Q8 au3 ado g ow P$ �Z o w a a Ow uiw t ZZ F �.O z4 J �t g o� "1 i 'g ga a N °v a m a is �n i c�h sin u 5 w i wwi z wZ z pp U aoa Z 6 W Y 5 s u i oa o WY l a tuo 9 Us 7 g iN2 wz g zx J W a h E �W O yx P i rm z o vi y F. i ow e A C K �w i 'i i uo w h h ox m� a xaz w uo K`S y g hU i0 a w bz nO `��pg o 'buy €o w '8§ z�w 0 z l' m F b oo G! J o F N h �w 4 U.. t O p� S J m r i LL E >m 8 w uw N O myti o! C m° o K 'J z b K y w u b� a LL U ''32 J w Na 2 3'' K g z a u y g� io QmO.a ?1 E F g 3 m o 'E o g 5 p q 6 2 S 5 v. fC Z yyQQ o C< C oi g Q g E A l j SS °X J u ;',2 r _g w'5w `34,1q, o Vx K 4g 2 R i �g go¢ 8w0 wFw �og K m w o w X520,, a- n gy v, AE; yyu� g w cJ� °g 5 ;g008 E Fu nn 5 r m g i' ipt{� Z Wg �m 0 m 0 U g r p Z W y w O d U 0 i6 1 U E.: n g 8 E >m a h i goo E y §i? O K 2 w 2w O Nat. K �F('� i J w 0N K hd y J F 3 oxwSo �i' a F 4Q a �S °w o2w WI. a 22 O. x'd 4 y FF s o 8 u 3 0 W y b '.y El Poi O b LZ6 a boa. d 'n i t rc g N I -4 a h 3. n i a w hi 0 3g z io �F �S z6 yzb� <y 3z o o i J a ioo O U DD 1-.° Y Zp; ww h o u K mO a�i Z b O h 0 o MI p U Fx? c a 5z 6g Kd y. 3 al r '�W J a 62 .8. H S$ p 'i g g' 3 3 1 5 u 6 w i zig e i 3 ali s z w x 2 f a .U N S 2 z�' M a a t g 2 Hi 'W JU 1 11111 k o m OS p a 04 f o b b V x,, 9R-, E a hg 6.i ;y 16 p 3i3E g id k �.r 5 Jig y �F w non z g$ u� vvyy F '''"'SSSSSS? 5 52' 2 O ^w FY zk y W� p ye NW at 2 R° g W F.a B 4 +irp .ii 5 w 3 s aa W 0 t' c W !03 Ez z a a -Jz d8 za o� Reg o n 4 �x a Z.11z6 x5 p QvmiUQ n 2 0 .n W Q m ¢I°Z o z a u. r .J a 0. W O Syia o o a rc gFQ� O <z 6 x g a z g u i 2 Jb o W u A$, i 1 i z °z r J p 6w "S m 'a a ai J 2 0 my i m g a U 1pt 4 s oa g a No !m 0z 25+x, t' z Z o O A ca 5 Z "i g..'• K g' 01 6N illlll l p l C'7 R 0. i. gg o 6.. r Ii; rp'SIN' X) V7 9190.905 19011 fA99 'MW MI AWAY 1999 rn eu90.u00 9 �ma awn nw 9mwa b9+vwu 4 i °q 9311 /100NY NOM34 H801,0 a o D2u.bo1i1DD 'D6o1DJ,Ds iQ p 0�� 02 U.DD1SOJ7 Z1 L LDd S.b� 08 '-LP/ j� T SSHSNA110 i� Q i' 1 V I Ci m m m Q W. c o a j A A'; O o N' H Z F .0 u a z n 1 2 q W w o r w (wl 0700 Zo j OU Om i� g,&' w Q30z DWU in m 0 o� w *'w 2 *$S 3 o 2 ?zd Um o ¢00 o U g< S 8 n 8 2K0 i 8" 0, W a z ui w a w o WOdg x s O� LL r i 3 ¢utf! 2 w J °OgN m Z S E m p w g a "I' o i m w m W w 2 iy 2 F P a O a w Z� a a z y tl 'g 2 O w g O O r LL f i F O Z 0 zd o f 2 1 o ��uu aq 5 m r 3 w r e r z p ow i F i 5 m l N W i N w F ,141 W w m w r, o f g O m ,7 t. O m g w u, r O a E' R o P g 1 a ww z s JF O p J o f ro S '�u d g Z o f 0 a0 w w o 4 1 4 22m 1 O O f',-, j *66 60 0 E w u a OW HQ g .8Z wz° o u ¢Y w$ a z o i I g z< w 22 g r r z �s ik ?m2 ?g n r m w Q B w w m g w c� I m w 1w x r1 zg n A w y y ur w 1 u j. LL o- zd< a 3 gN W u1 12156 1']'3SIX. S 1YDOS g (1 Z 8 w y o O~ wO ii Z I i iR t° SJ ii [594 +f SIB d' z f9O/) 10 AOV v /49Is3n HSO19 g C m w w a 6_-5- I 0 o g' Fwi o w z z 1 p E 4gg8 V q 6 ru Pmp 1 o tn�., V z PiwY dm z O >pN C> o a °m f a i s. 3 g <m 2 J or m O i g6 '°zd m g U 7 as m v w w W g �Y o u g zW z g LL h LL w3w zY n w W z m 5gN gi x 5 °5 g m Y_m S___' m 5.. a m u W z g0 rc d T, w p o 7 5 O 5 r a ;ii W w z a m and I 0 W w w F m n L'"' Wa w 0 m S5 PrF O m Vi p tt w ¢i' C 2 W 2 J a Z n ;ii n O. n n m W L U w 0 a V T m n w 1- 2 m u w u g `d p W u z 1" y i 1 Z I gi U n 0 1 j x z .1 o f i b I `1 F O F F C z i i g rc rc u� X o t 5 o o b O a g 4 g d n m m U m i u o Z 6 3 Z 0 i 3 w O u Z w 4 z a m yy N Z O n O w U O m� y -C a W m0 ttq +,2 P Y 2 p �a Y a ag§ zg i'%� W 5 8 o wgao g o Cbaa ugq ss pp m k' n rc i '-aa x r- a Sam° L... L.. L.. w m vA x z g V N �z 0 i Q a 2 g w 6w O p$ n a W ZLL O o F5 o d w 0 4 w S mo rc i mN O(7 z l o� pW a l� n a s a N QOw y ,T,Og a Q a5 'd8 3 °a oo iz g�� r w j O w 10 0 0 N gW u r °4 2 0 ?i a O 0 "O w Z U' t Z m Z w O Oa J u ppp a0 O O a g m w Z u FJ ZK a n 5 w am o S� p O gg f a cv m q2 c,., a7 j w�V :a? o >p aOU oni w p¢N "�Z 0w$ U Ja i` 2i mN p 0. �a $g -3 Y'o m�P f¢ U g iii pi ¢W z fw 2 j2� k `G' ?w Z g i o a� W O u B z �a E,'., O w m z i J r 4 u 5 O C 'Coq O a4 W W w ip 0 K 8 w$ a N2 win rq w 3i 3O rc" Or a aw i o F O 3 3 [x W O Q z 'oa as a y w O m t g VI F g u O W J z I K iW Z 55 g Po 2 L r+ u a 0 m O S g R ww w L' g g S< a m u w o P n F g om 0 g aww a 1- g:t O w P SNW8G 3 W j '''''H w 0 o y ��w rc a o W p ww i s a QQom m Ow X. wW p W m &Q Sz w 5i pw2 i° 0o y P ex g pZP W g N NW a y" g i i°W, O 0 Z arWLL o O D O N O Y O O LL. �S g a g o s g:8tT 1- w pet, F gg id g. w 1 1 o 2 p Z a o a ,PE F 4 K ��u F p p 0 p Z p y Om <pam m G� CI u m "i S j it 5 O W W Si�j U� 11 �a r S i P r'' 8 yy i o g z° i 8 3 m s oFw� �g. z x o dS C w w c a V X 0 0. pp 55 Y �w 2E a m I 4 Ow pp w a F LL O a i a2 yy m 0,0._ Y E N Q Gl U aSb W�e< 4,i 0 o N Y Z g i< w m i o w I- z m v 8 0 F j i w w b u '1 O nF 2 m a 0 �z p w 'O 5 i'�f K I w z 1 �w W v g 2 O i §,2 O o s o 0 4 z Fa o ','5 ¢O 8 ma 3 W- y 'il. Z mm K I Y w wY Zli-m Z P i Q IOC 2�O XQ O u8 �g l y W y [J H fag g ro a -h 1 0 O y �a yu u t x m 6t of a 0' "m E. w y VI" �FiZ Q r �z w �o �wm gg p 40 <rc w �mm5 °aW C 0 0 u g gq g S wa w5 i U w u VV p m x�Cr' Q zf w w¢ Z O pp o wh Nm< oa Q x3 y am..... _�Y„2 g i iN 8i Eli Fl 6 o 'v u°-zz3w Sf[ww¢ *£ma 0fw°t 3o j2 �LLg t z r KgmLLyO �w S ON Um w c O 2L K W a m6 p p 2 Z g 4 g aw o� O V WO O qq =N.UUU 6 w tt uux �n e g o X att J V mo o °z o J W i U i w Z g 12 z o v w i to 3 0 U 1 a Y2 g C x C 6 gW g i d F p 42 3 O w WS is m 1. F w "fi a i i� `i Gw z w� F O 2 K W g h P S K a a0 0 g O �i .o Q rc g W K 4 E 01 t� g w 8 51 1 W 1 W K °w Z go w 88 5 yq g Q ate g g E Y g $30 P Cm w p p a0 v8 x p m ,A '1 -r l a .!z q WJ g m :ag a gc 0 T u W o° 2, W g :°-2 O� a g O gg° r a g zd 4 a m 1I!IIi!II Q W `r g R K 3 '0 a 40 m 0 0w g w w V a r j i2 a° Q J v w W i u 5 a i 'v in r w a y g y g H f a_ O V o u d z g E f I 2 V F p a YW a W m U g g r P. o 8 4 p ,'C 0 'Ulg 0 5 O 't O Zh mm g w i q f w w .r wm g� c O 0 gu n 4 p O a F j Y W .g ..g W g U SY o 7 4E i, v z t r w o w u- S 4 iN ih g W8 y s yyy5 yy V i wa 0g] om 1 i t y x V z a 'w °6 W� N NF m O P m ii o aid gg Ow KP w0. aO q g W'ie °y 0 d a. E U e l m N 0 0 FS w 8K J? a i Q D 'tq 4 2.9- fw y o q Z d,p 80 g o 'S °o o ry �z m rcm 5i m '�c9. OyW C9 g 0. 6 Obi Z OW O zz Fim I j F m" o o 3� LL o a a °da< o a. I R U I HI JJI I G i u zS m g Q g m o o z O S c m x t q Y N w J a 2 nw b e J o y 4 O S 0 w O O J U p 6 p o w O t 3 V 0 4 Y O C �3 a y .pi g'i U v o ow 8. 1 I cO j O 2 *AMP ttS6 vo 'Mt NYS 'titl AMY MI $31.1 N91S30 n11,9 oar 11) tILt 4---- V 9 e 0 0,4 1111 C ;at 1 TV I P.. 1 r a M q w A Au N N 0 y �q -a 0 xm IN u u G mq ?,-.1. F u q ya a ro q q> E y w LH a 0 0 k.,, O W F U m a b ..a4 9 C C' tl 0 q p .-1 q N '0 a '6 g ma vp OW qp u,..!: 2 u A' O t 0 b a O Y m 0 y 1 tit m 00 'ry 0 a'N w G m p T f,7'., �•O >1 U1 0 M1. b M b r 'I' ..r0 "$m u C Bt,,`' Q am 9L90d1i qon 00 ref 41„'4 4.714 .1900 7:41111,49.3 411.1 6411611 *MUM 1 630100$9 NOIS30 14801,0 Dw Lo,r%7v0 !v6O V.LVS r4 pyvuoa7 OzZOz vvv7soyy Z L.Lvd 's2W •.1N SX,7NM 0 VIIVSICI V 0 a ul i i 4 _p i 12156 YJ: 740( NYS "60 ABWtl 1595 S31V1)OSSY NDIS3a vzur.of'i7v,O 'v8o ;vsv. /Q,.. p.cbuoa7 oa4o uvv7soyy a;crisvd s.u)T i? :Sy,VNM0 9236 n I s0 Nws ewv 15'4 SJVDOSSV N91saa H5(17.9 S311/1000ff N01$30 Hefty$ ourwe aon +a s pia r n !oq; wro agrmuer. f uit"op. q p.LD Oazoa .UVV ON z .Lvd `srn t:c SW N410 V JV ITV ofqin■Fpo oiosa.,0.9108.:01°."°, 831,V10 NO163. a HSOTP IY4 11.567 aff P.4; '0Z40?. PTqsollr z.1 1 (0 1 )e .•OH V IN., .:S8gAtin:0 VUVEVIYV. V g w LJ z cn LIJ LIJ 0 0 z 0 0 0 w< 0 t1.1 5 .z Ll...,,,,, t 2 d. 0 01 !T 2 A r- m, q z C) k g p Fet,5> •,2 0 .PS 1 0 i. :C./ .L,, 6.73 'i Y- 0 Lt— j5 P ,e, 0 x 11. e ws '8" L'3i •tig .,S L.1 z r u ,e5, E l If E` 006 li .0 .RE- •.r .4 ,.222.. ',.,,5. w 1/3 ,I A ,,•h'8 01 CIO? clOcip1 r S 0 t' ,1 E 2 z CAI Cf) LJ L59 IIIS6 ISM tws "40300 1504 SilVDOSSY ND1530 o LU w 2 a. od 1 CC w w 4 0. 8 d m I r a9. MRS a DRIVE MOTORCOURT SECTION 11 1 4 3! 0 fi�w N6 2m 0. co S31VIOOSSY .NDIS30 Hen1,0 703u.c0f'V /7 13,5O V,zti p2vuoa ,OZGOZ uvo7s0 zin,.cvd sc %LAT •SYYNA10 V. VUVEVIUV z /I E 1 T ah m cnrsnn .'.c+m- ocncnau wu mm l r dR Zri0 1 2 g1 1 f °gym i i z 0 a W N 0 0 CO £$L96 Pa. 6ea! uos S£Z£Zixoq wd r #"°14(1suoa u6lsep •{writ #arrays bu�Jeeui6u3QU )ivzaoa� .p02 zcx)P zue trod '�StI�NMb> riFT sa IL (!51 6 .90 ONII. H �5{uR3!^suoo �o4ri nJ {s. taou 1 i!1 Bat ,MIR ion NI mum ora nee` ill in 6Z,L0 $9,t 904 £51s6 na asaI uos .SttTZ' go q .d :vzu.tojnv0 "D66�v�vs. ;cQ jri ozzo 1LDDl,SOf:::Z2(E.LT)a 'S.LgI-..- 'J.F1t VYVSTAIeIV 5 £5196 oo ±.aso! uoffi 9£Z£Z xo9 o'd siuoyjnsuob ub}Sep DJn pnuys., 6uIJeeu!busold rotiv.4.oi yv,9 o5O mLwS ,4 (7 "p. oaa uiyolsoyy zncva scyy "ryy1 :S2ISNM0 VIV S VIa V 'Ilk k 6Z 16 99£ 901 £5196 'DO 4,S01 uos s£ZE2..xoq o d s4_uo4Insuo5 '••uB1sep y9.4nynn4s Bupeeu!3u0a vtiu co�iyro� .'ti8ogti iv s .ca p.cvuo7 OZLO vvvlsoyy zyn,va scyY %IN SS2TNNA40 J V V E V P V P. 2 b2 L6 89£ 809 Es 1g6 'DD 'esot UDS SFZ£Z xoq 'o•d s+u cunsuoo uBjsep IDJn }onAs Buuueeui u33I J vyuaott7D3 'osolioJDS aQ pavuoa7. 02402' U2)93LSOR7 Z'ULaDtf sayy 'ayy SHZNA10 VIIVSVIUV 1 0 o a 3w 0 0 1 r 0 cn Ol 6Z l6 S9£ 900 vcist •oo 'esol uos S£Z£Z xoq •o•d syuoyynsuoo Lr6lsep lo.in}ortuys Bu!Jeeu!Bu33a VtU.O/t7V3 'p6o ;navy ',L P. 0ZZOZ W D SOyp zyLend %LJ :SWZNA10 VV21VS VIETV OR J J 0 3 L W 1- 2 V J Z o 00 0 J 4 0 LA- J 0 1— kpi g It Ft 0 zg 4 A 9d k 0 d 2 co 1 z 0 A 4 2 P ID It 4 ?pD 25 e9 Ym alb low g k Ed 1 2 t 1! nt FLOOR FRM'G. 9 .C6 19' To .091V 1 .1r 19' 1 'TO.L/ �i 90 ..L/ 1V 1 90 .011V 90 .01V NO I 9Nrth'N W016 1- '19.911V R.Wix 99 90 .011V %MOS Y9 Of 9 19 919 0Na176 Y9 0! 9 I 0.01V 042976 Y9 OI '9a .4 6A900 V9 01 "90.619 g.6Yx Y9 01 Z .W 0.06 Y9 Of '99 .Z 1V 06909 V9 01 9 1 0 r i >o; GROSS BRACING WALL SCHEDJL N4 10N6 91f 111101 (x61 TWIN 1115 r .01V 19 r11 L 1✓ L1 L f VI 91V 'o .919 I 9. 1 1 0 .L 1V Y9 09 9.0906 x o n R A A R >q C n R A R 4 1 o i 9 R 19 8 g$ 8 (z 9 as 99 41 (M9N/ 21V1.1109910 .91 9 .91 .91 9 .91 4L z .4L .91 .49 74' x 74' .009 .06 .09 9 .06 (115 19' 09) 99.9 91.094 WNLLS 19 91 r .9 Y9 4! 9.4 1- 9941 Y911 Y9 91. .9-L i 9947 I 1i 99419.9-9 N7�5J� Y9b1 W QS r «aa Ol 6Z l6 S9£ 900 vcist •oo 'esol uos S£Z£Z xoq •o•d syuoyynsuoo Lr6lsep lo.in}ortuys Bu!Jeeu!Bu33a VtU.O/t7V3 'p6o ;navy ',L P. 0ZZOZ W D SOyp zyLend %LJ :SWZNA10 VV21VS VIETV OR J J 0 3 L W 1- 2 V J Z o 00 0 J 4 0 LA- J 0 1— kpi g It Ft 0 zg 4 A 9d k 0 d 2 co 1 z 0 A 4 2 P ID It 4 ?pD 25 e9 Ym alb low g k Ed 1 2 t 1! nt FLOOR FRM'G. 616 S9£ +809 £S t46 •oo aSoJ-uos. SVZ£Zi xoq A" sjuo4insuoo. uBisop. Ioun4OnJ4S 6upoe1Ji8.U33 101,'U,.1.OJ4V 'DGO ;DIDs 70J491b Q27OZ u n z141.1. J ;s 2 8 'hYY :SH3NMO VLTVEV fv 4 3 01 tsi a M a CI 82 18 .5.9£ 204 8S LS6 'D eso! uos S£Z£Z xoq 'o•d syiuoylnsuos uBjeop io.nyon.gs c� p.xvuoa7 nag uvvgsoyy zi.n..LDcf s.iyy .iyy V ?VS VI hJV mP'0 llilla I1ill■ II 111111101111®I®IIIIIIIMIIIl•/f/ ENINIMP4111111.1, 7 11I ®Ii1MIN110iIME11®I•'® ►iii iumE ®'N I ¢aeloiIII ININMI BENMEI A IN 1 1111 !ice I sis Es' am BON 7EIli11mlil lle: INN SIIIIESEIMMENNI ANNIMPSAI iiAnkv I g Ar v \Nk 2 ©D C.D r 0 f nit AirA4\ W Q w a ti) m I J w C7 6 1 4 sten —J w CD BZ18 +495 •9o4 £SlS,6 'P e90! ups sacz :xad o,d, eluol{nsuoa NBlsep .canyon. {s 6‘11ieeu!6u3Oj 'm2'U.40 '?;p4JD 'v 660).cvS• '17 R4,vvoa7 D2'GD Serg/V.M D ValVSVIUll 4D 0 Bit O_ w w V3 C) CC LA cr CC 0 0 0 —J i— w C] a et qt u. psi R i 6Zie G9£;,.984 >`n. .'k'SS iS DJ .850 GDS siuo4Jnsuo6,. u61s :p toanio.n.is v2 u.,i.oi'i 7V 'v60-7v. a.Q p QZzo uvv¢soyy z2a:4vd s..4 W VglfSVIYV A s�sioew -E Jwia 'MOM raw Emu a r m INEIP maw AIM mm1 o pam m 0 ao 4 0 h A siuoinsuoa u6!sep i0Jn4on. ;s B Upeeu!Su33k! L 6L 1.6. •904 tS146'•oo ■ssol uos 94Z4Z xoo •o'd, !7 4u —5 t tig 5 v1u.do17,7v3 '1.!6(41.,'4, •La'. 7)rvuoa7 004,02' 11/'101 S oft/ z %rLLvg 'sLf .T 2N :S2f3NA10 VfVSVIUV P LL k k r 2 f