Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-28-2007 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME �/ a« bt-t. ADDRESS / d' SUBJECT _z AGENDA ITEM NO. -2--v DATE TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 1 /�Lv✓4 m 7,1ELEPHONE NO. 31 _i CITY OF SARATOGA T TO ADDRESS TIDE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME 2 L' ADDRESS — SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. ! ATE TELEPHONE NO.-�� TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT_ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE ELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT 7 i 0 j) J (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. • CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME (1 f-lj� C 1�'� 1 I U ADDRESS SUBJECT ` U AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: / ,�/ CITY OF SARATOGA TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ADDRESS A U U � \ 1 " '�/� W (w _ 5&vy--Anq�x- • �a t 85a !'r1 V SUBJECT I AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 3/49'*�/0-7TELEPHONENO. 37 -200 ✓ TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO /TIESS THE CITY COUNCIL ADDRES SUBJECT�i -D /,) - --;"!Z Z AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE !` TELEPHONE NO. `l9 ZG' TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 7> fl"l r .1. • CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS / SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 DATE TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT TELEPHONE NO. $ -b (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. • CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL U(J [-4 ADDRESS /. SUBJECT , �• �'✓ d 11v if / <A... AGENDA ITEM NO. 21 DATE 7 Z� _ TELEPHONE NO. (-fC,d` `" �70— 3� / TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: n CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME ADDRESS / j SUBJECT �L AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE kEPHONE NO. -°25 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: ' 2- 9, �Q G F_ 1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, March 27, 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 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #07 -250 2. APPLICATION #07 -101 3. APPLICATION #07 -218 CANCELLIERI 14441 BIG BASIN WY KRIENS 18940 MONTE VISTA SRIPADANNA 18524 MONTEPERE WAY 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. PAPC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007\SVA 032707.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 28, 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, 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 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 March 22, 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 -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 existing approximately 1900 - 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) 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) P:\PC Agendas\2007Wgn 032807.doc 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 strictures. 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) DIRECTORS ITEM: - None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, April 11, 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 March 22, 2007 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 plannine(Dsaratoga.ca.us • P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 032807.doc MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 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 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 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. 0 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 30th 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 morel 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: • 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 lives 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 giuestions. 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.m. 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 0 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 re.quest.to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square -foot addition and construct asecond -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 them 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 Nag pal, 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, 1.8935 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 • 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. 0 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 B'hatt presented the staff report as follows: • 'Repor_ted 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.. hi hest oint is located. Commissioner Nagpal asked where the g p Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 14, 2007 Page 19 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 that 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 properly 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 • • • • Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07 -250; 14441 Big Basin Way Application Type: Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant in a CH -1 Zone Applicant/Owner: Sandro Costanza/Robert Cancellieri (Owner) Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner Date: March 28, 2007 APN: 503 -24 -008 Department Head- CA yx, John F. Livingstone, AICP � ..� t 1. •'p'� "'" � � �+ r • �� v ..,a_ , e ;Tw:`•'a;,t'i ':" u � l F�� � - ti � � ..� a.a u,� ; � � '^ P / ... �•'t / , � /� °ca /. • 'o.; I.o.e AC. xEt (!,'h.:�,•� ° ,4`' ,M `s PCL. 2 KL 1.03 I Ac NET '. �E �'�'•.�t ?B 4.y\r zz C.V.W D- : V lj � •".tier . K o.! iyj lH ";Y_`_� + � +• c, � �.,, _ _ - µ`,'7C _ s�:r�A :',� d'S ??+ ti • 6• ^s ,.y a e --� a ..L �Li•• _ sry '^ "y 9PaP 0. �/ ffiA __ Q! ;E.41 s� c u ,s. .r... "0" rGiip. �.' uyytnxcsl l.. _ n `'V 6 YPS,', M sq, 9T0 vi axaAxr ' `� � L � FM t r Ta P.M. Et iy .s�•s � G *.i Tar Fj 4O•# —" }s• ., - -"trsi`c;s t� — .j�'::xn , x ,I • •,• • �_c� r a 3 Nm ��a'QA9 ''-97071:3' ;i I 0.EET Subject: 14441 Big Basin Way - . j v APN: 503 -24 -008 I ' 1 500' Radius I ° ° •• _ _ t~ 14441 Big Basin Way File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 02/02/07 Application complete: 03/06/07 Notice published: 03/14/07 Mailing completed: 03/09/07 Posting completed: 03/22/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish an Italian restaurant in an existing commercial space. The proposed tenant space is approximately 1,900 square feet in area and is located in the Village on Big Basin Way in the space formerly occupied by Tapioca Express. Establishment of a restaurant or intensification of an existing restaurant use in the CH -1 (Commercial - Historic) zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 15- 19.030 of the Municipal Code. The proposed business, "Ristorante Da Mario," will be open daily and will serve alcoholic beverages. Live music may also be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. PERMANENT CONDITIONS There are no permanent conditions recommended for this project. • File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH -1 Commercial Historic GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 4,408 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Tan exterior. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). • File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Background The proposed 1,900- square foot space is located in a vacant tenant space surrounded by numerous businesses, including Gilbert Dupont Studio, Rose International Market, Extravaganza Catering & Deli, and Gallery Saratoga. This space has been owned by Robert and Shirley Cancellieri since 1991 and has been used as a restaurant for many years, first as a bakery and sandwich shop and more recently as Tapioca Express. Approval of this project would allow this location to continue its tradition of providing restaurant service to the community. The proposed floor plan includes table seating for approximately 50 customers inside and 6 customers outside in the front patio. The building frontage is being repainted in beige to complement the adjacent buildings. The patio dining area will be renovated with concrete flooring, in an earth -toned stamped slate pattern to coordinate with the interior, and new planters, which will be filled with flowering plants (Attachment 2 shows the frontage, the interior of restaurant, and the proposed patio layout). The style and color scheme of the patio will suggest that of a Mediterranean outdoor cafe. Nearby outdoor dining is also provided at both the Rose International Market and the Extravaganza Catering & Deli, located on either side of the subject site, along with Karin's Place and the Buy & Save Market, located across the street. All exterior changes will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Conditionally Permitted Use Establishing and operating a restaurant in any of Saraloga's commercial zoning districts requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. This process acknowledges that this use may be permitted if findings can be made, and allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions to ensure that a project is compatible with surrounding land uses and in compliance with applicable: City regulations. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit shall be based on the findings stated in City Code Article 15 -55. A discussion of these findings is provided in this staff report. This application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for intensification of the use as it has been applied to the previous restaurants in this space. Although there will be minimal changes to the interior and the use as a restaurant will remain, Ristorante Da Mario will be intensifying the existing use by serving alcoholic beverages, offering live music, and adding approximately 175 square feet to the current dining area by providing sidewalk dining. The outdoor dining will be comparable to existing neighborhood uses and the music will be subject to all aspects of the City Noise Code. Correspondence, Comments and Neighbor Review All neighbors within 500 feet of the project site were notified. Staff has received no written comments from the public at the time of composing this staff report. The applicant has shown the plans to and obtained signed neighbor notification forms from several businesses • C_M File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way in the vicinity. All comments on the neighbor notification forms were positive. All notification corresponded in attached to the report (Attachment 4). Hours of Operation The proposed operating hours are from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm, daily. In an effort to ensure that the applicant has flexibility for the operation of the restaurant, staff has not added a condition of approval regarding hours of operation.. Parking and Circulation The zoning code stipulates that parking requirements be assessed at the time of initial occupancy or change in use of a site. However, a new ordinance in effect since February 18, 2006 stipulates that all parking requirements in the Village be relaxed. The new ordinance specifies that no off - street parking shall be required for applications that are deemed complete between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009. The parking ordinance identified a parking surplus that would accommodate either construction or intensification of uses. The proposed establishment of outdoor dining qualifies as an intensification of use for this restaurant site, due to the additional 175 square feet of outdoor, dining area. If the Planning Commission approves the proposed conditional use permit, square footage equal to that of this additional space (175 square feet) would be subtracted from the currently available 37,059 square feet, which would leave 36,884 square feet to remain for future applications. Therefore, no additional off - street parking will be required for the proposed restaurant. An adjacent alleyway connects Big Basin Way with the public parking lot at the rear and will provide easy pedestrian access to patrons. Economic Impacts General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." If approved, this project will continue to support a long- standing .tradition of using this tenant space for restaurants and similar food service businesses and, therefore, no adverse economic impacts are foreseen. USE PERMIT FINDINGS The proposed project supports the findings for Conditional Use Permit approval; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a restaurant may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CH -1). The City Code encourages a variety of uses within the commercial zone "to promote stable, attractive commercial development." The proposed use will increase the diversity of dining choices in the Village and benefit the surrounding uses by promoting additional pedestrian traffic through the use of both indoor and outdoor seating. The restaurant will be open for business during normal business hours. File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Findings. can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The proposed restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable Building Codes. Exterior improvements to the patio are proposed with this application. The location, of the outdoor tables and chairs will be subject to approval by the Community Development Director and will not encroach upon the sidewalk. Cleanliness of the outdoor dining area will be maintained by the applicant. Conditions will be placed to ensure compliance with Code regarding maximum allowable noise levels. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Findings can be.. made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with' code requirements. • The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed restaurant may attract more visitors to the Village and therefore may result in additional customers for other businesses in the general vicinity of the subject property. There are no residential areas in the immediate vicinity and the site is located in close proximity to the public parking area behind the building. Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15- 55.010 of the Saratoga City Code. The proposed: restaurant is not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor is it expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to restaurant uses. • File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit application number 07 -250 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Photos and drawings of proposed patio layout, interior subject space, and proposed sign (sign is not subject to Planning Commission approval) 3. Tentative menu 4. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels and neighbor notification letters 5. Fire Department requirements 6. Tenant improvement plans, Exhibit "A" • Attachment 1 • File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -250 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sandro Costanza); 14441 Big Basin Way (Property Owner Robert Cancellieri) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Conditional Use Permit approval to establish a restaurant with live music and alcoholic beverage service in an existing tenant space located at 14441 Big Basin Way, which is located in the CH -1 (Commercial Historic) district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes establishment of a restaurant is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This exemption consists of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 55.070: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a restaurant may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CH -1). The City Code encourages a variety of uses within the commercial zone "to promote stable, attractive commercial development." The proposed use will increase the diversity of dining choices in the Village and benefit the surrounding uses by promoting additional pedestrian traffic through the use of both indoor and outdoor seating. The restaurant will be open for business during normal business hours. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The proposed restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable Building File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way Codes. Exterior improvements to the patio are proposed with this application. The location of the outdoor tables and chairs will be subject to approval by the Community Development Director and will not encroach; upon the sidewalk. Cleanliness of the outdoor dining area will be maintained by the applicant. Conditions will be placed to ensure compliance with Code regarding maximum allowable noise levels. • That the proposed conditional -use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. • The proposed conditional use will not adversely, affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely' affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed restaurant may attract more visitors to the Village and therefore may result in additional customers for other businesses in the general vicinity of the subject property. There are no residential areas in the immediate vicinity and the site is located in close proximity to the public parking area behind the building. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07- 250 for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The` Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional. Use Permit and may, at any time., modify, delete, impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2.- The restaurant shall operate as represented on the plans marks "Exhibit A." 3. Any intensification of this. use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 4. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to; -but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 5. The owner /applicant shall contact Santa Clara County Health Department and verify required permits. The owner /applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department I showing proof of compliance of the proposed facility with the Health Department's requirements. • • • File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way 6. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner /applicant shall submit to and obtain approval from the Community Development Department for a business license. 7. The owner /applicant shall maintain the cleanliness of the outdoor dining area at all times. 8. An encroachment permit will be obtained, if required. 9. The location and appearance of the outdoor tables, chairs, and any other additions to the outdoor area, such as umbrellas or awnings, shall be subjectto approval by the Community Development Director. 10. All noise levels will comply with City Code 7 -30.40 regarding noise standards and 7- 30.60(8) regarding music. 11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability. of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought .in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's 'action with respect to the applicant's proj ect. 0 FIRE DEPARTMENT 12. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (See Attachment 5). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 13. There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date on which this Use Permit became effective 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. • File No. 07 -250; Costanza; 14441 Big Basin Way . PASSED AND ADOPTED by . the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of March 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary; Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or .effect unless, and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby 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. Applicant (Sandro _Costanza) Property Owner (Robert Cancellieri or Authorized Agent) Date Date • • • Attachment 2 • +� � 1 ,� s� e ' k � } r y 4 t i 'S .. "� -. ,.i _f 4 k d �n � xd9 ✓ lti a � ' � Y � r� _P ,` .. Wen fir: ,� 'e. .., •��7 .,� , a;* ap ivy 'r 7 f zl _ w;yy� @' £ £ d 4 `nl �"' h q a `r+� ^�:.i,.l + ,t P.,� ?, : "4 ' �tt�. " ;. .. ' . >, �:,',:.;• .fit �, tf4+..` r R n i $Y' ,r {,era ' +`p r-'n r� i •%..ie ti a -,1 "v<.:N t s v ,ga N <.;:' ':.``y, ..4: 4 }P .F r sf•,ti. �;c x, i. G14 gs.. �. { p 3easge ux7 pm .. - _. � C -`x t N ,� X "�vt , W+. hn13 vw t ' •' rr� T 1 , ,t yi, `a,'..: >ti.ej.mr. ,!n 3f j . ^;z. ,:' .'.,a' n+� }. =f" "'^^". "'% .r .?'d .:,, . t s r .:E'. r« 4, ,,¢4 a 'a :rrC .'f ,µ l v.��; " CN Fk �•.` � 4 _`]� ,�.. '�' i �' i .;G,1' �' � F'.!+• ( 1P ) . �� A tf! v�<..;µ � Y diy_. b r �� � n JT''> '(Yi x3 ,) ., .'. ;�, ;t ! tra• , rr.;' , 4 :. -•s . ..1. '„.dn. .. uz z. ,.e "'. -;re,.• s., ,::? i,;„ ly s ' U ^, '° Auz„�?s r..:a )n; 1,, ,.. � . ✓. "+ -..3_ d 4 k- C . r. „r P•: 4 t . a z n. 's,'�x tz7f ,_'� 1�'�.� ,x ron4` ,.v r^3% z , � _,,. a ' � �:x • t war.' a t 's, h v, °�t��, t �{ 4, g fA rrU,.t r., ro t" �^a °< : , F 2.�s,r ':,�„ :u _�,.:• r.� . ' .,, . i . ; ;,(�.,„t ,t, v . l ' � a �' f . . "z.� ....:. � . 1: . l.,v ,.. <a°`. -i . ':ar.a ;.. - Pr^�c ` '�j?: '�, @ •n; ,S. - e � � ;;+eex,. 'xn. 'r - •s . . , re, ,nS. re ,. ,:.•.r a ' 9 n°�, �. "" : rv#_ : = ,n :: `, . "a ' r m r« � �- ,�_ z .,... �,,I§,rc, _ .,c'a: � .�.n . re� .pp « E , ' . . 'a� '� + ,. ! .3n �.� . :':..� ,.:, :„. . la zr' r - ;.Y .. ' .l 4gFF y �� E >t , . r P � . : � S . ' r� r.;°, , Y-?-"r7.. c r'i r , . :: n `i 'Y r wr;a+ x , i r � ,. r r, :,'!" . 2' Y. . .a,.4 c'. d ^ k a � w r +� ' 9, ` .,i ,� .":G .N , t t 'aY r t . ,'c' V .,��'u� :,>�.. ," � ,° . � p €t , m z ,:�r. . , „ �. y+ ,� �z.',.t�,; i. z . tr, ;.y +t . ,4 ''„ � a 'vi�... f h° . S � ',.'` ,.. , r'�l . , -ir t i v 2iwx ' : ^ . a> , � Y t^ .�'' zv{ r `� ,i t 'i ys ,� . . & c t, « - -3:z, . z.'' 'n� :'` t� ,� ^F a, l � q?' •p ) t n . t,t n%r;i n'�,. ,� . ��' t k.�x�S ht"c+.: .'� y . ': ' rre r ? a `^v a *5 J� , � c re , , n, t Aw” vr x * r � ..N rtt µ ) ", . " k u�-.'w t v° 1+� ..*r, . R , ':r � ie d 5'� d � . �r r. ;;s. '�iS� ,"a, e ^a, v °S ,. " x5l�l., n .0.' .,,.,'erK . aar , e ,"r a t r ' ip k� , y�cysf .^�� `.�is,;.� ��• �b 4 ,¢',�s : �-,7 r':� ": 'e .. ', � � ) ; 7,.� . a �r}?:::, +� .�,x4, � £ s wa „ , • �'FP, r:° ;,.; y. - . .I : i'i`+x t z1 s, �” � � e : °�i t fir, l 1.Y $� �..s �, �•" r`�a� �r .�_ „� ; Yn� "�..a ,�y,.� r us t•"l,tl. .) t ,.�. �P'i �?,�','?'� �' � £ �'.'� � •�' 3`� r t!F'0 '� a . n h�°� n ,� """ � '.qtr;:° t"r{ r �''�„ k ` �9 �', .n ,�14 y sr .c r rp a � ��w. ,'4.. ��', �; ,.+•� T 1'. , a a reT may,s� 3• , rte' }':,' ,�""i t+go-y. tt'.ir as ;. !”) ',a a d w'`� r 3`' ..... t .aye, 1. ,nf J4 M. , L 4 '4 Ye 'i rkf .,grmr .r•.n � � }'�,hs. rw. „ti^ " '`?'N'�ya �''.; r t4',Y:,'* ° d4Y`' a,,� }.,Y'#a�z ���" r ;�"S`Z r�25 P' , s',?£Y �k ta`�� � z ,Y x .�i ',� %N gIx {� �� `M � �, ST � �,,, ! �1•: i,�k '�� y8 / � � �, ^'� r k !fit �£ � �S A , n• 14.0 li n �a t•� �tk rt;':i��t, * '�;,r'1. ' x�='Y.r� >- ' . y '�!.{i;� du�s� x � "` "" y�.;£.;{. „� , `. ✓., s. :._ . �': .. p+: G_•. �,.. ... ? tr: ,� 4.,. " .?3 :. .a�. l 'fir. ,... °j'` t' ������ �( a .7 {��: ��w'd ?, pa.. � g .v t � ,: !'fix ;j'.uq��t .� %�i x•„• $�.,^, "Y. a v4�4•s"� ,. Z �• �. rwaEr.. , -> ,�''-1 ,� ,c!^,,2 ', ..�c� „�t'• ' `� e 2 .�..'- ,,, , :> a,. @ ., .r.r. )a •',+wtt.., ..:. ' �• % _ „u *, +a';,,:.: TM .' ,, : x n, .r°' e' � , %; a ��,” h 'v � •s:a €d,���� a�� �� , ,x,N„ w '�'�:ePl:�k � a: >,,:re �,.s� x ,S .�:;, L � gg t, rt X. •a.: "ai. -7!7. F ",. ,1� a :.d t� r;1 eyn ' „"Y•.si} p �15� p K�lrm8 d ,5, h�''F F.i',�'S +P 4 .{ja �:'� wfM e��.. dY,y,:.i * y, v a , kr r �.. �, o..? r�du jx,. ,a � {.,M �';v ;;.: »�i r.. ! n>•r`1° 4:~� � .�"� °. ,n . ,.1 �•t6+:m.'�\ � ?�;:,'� t �<v;�"�"' :..�. a=?h et:-z: t' �4:!'' ran ,.-.: � `,�, ,, ^..:. a , ..,w. � ,�.. M 'i .;ry „� , � "'� �'•I r „, �.'.h FS. ?� ,, n. ,,., , r . r. „ � w ,, rr,n .t s ,� � ,, P, , ,.:, r, tx ,..•v� ,, , '*n^s�°�, :.. ! , �: , , c . , � .�,..., '+�, a F �,3 z -- •a- -,�'*” ��, i, az ,.,[ <x... ,>F+a ,. �., ,,. .,,.: �.,. r. 1 �C-p.. �., �.. u{•l ., , �' ,,,,.. n .,... .+".� N r. vv `£. n vex s��v >,,. �,�.. ..:�... i ,..,, ,.J. u..b. �, v .% ... •..._ a :�.,_: , €>" � ,:.. ,� sr �, r< :. .. r zr�'..'n,.,�' q ,. r. ��,4'S' � ��. - C;Y� Y"t+;1lr `N:,. x gx '1` ., ar:{ -..:�F �,�.. d � l r.,.'jt1S 1'� �,k . e. gin, t Y.�ry F ,.- 5. w..y, a,.. ,,:: �..« "� u` a; '- 4kr`�r �.. Y,r:. F.!th F ,,,; :. .;r a.!�,. r ,.,�, ... ',' �` yu >, : � • "��.4F.'�i, �,�.r�!.. ,,} k¢' k+°."... ,'wn.t n:'An .: ,Y,. �°S N {y+ ,y; •: .,�. .r" sJS�. i ��@@ „,,� 'y AYS:r.d .. <. .. },.k,<.:! „�.,,T �' ",,: k'`„ -.,.. ' ^tt '�t:'�'. •,.:.. ,} f,''.;r�i ,+^r r.: �' t�;: 9.j. ,%$� )if,�. "' �,�°{+' 9 ",zt. p„dN., ``,°)2, *aJ +.. n , �, ,. tt...v �, ^'7' �'1 ��,, .,.,. S' u� 'S..,.n 6 =t .�; >: , :,.,...,., ., .r n. ,:. , .,. �4i ,< :1a �, J' . ,�`.< . ,d... �rx „`Y�a' '�*'' •..� k„a sPv �iW:�+ 'e .wA , -� .,.f ,,a,rt!�+�i.x ''rit+,. .r`R',a� :+..+t '•i:..r>* .�7, ,..,M; c4r.... ..ra`.z,F'. �,' ,fir -a r �� a` S�`�.�it. A t �, , /.. �,» �•?���� sP^';' +; .i.- _ 4 s�,Dt , "l^r .a �;d .3�• y � __ ,� S sa ,. „�,`�,, .r sff., � .,, ;�', :: l� e� .��,��r 2' .: - ,� u„ _ • , ,: �,� � a i .,� +�.ti ' A, .y,, y� � � ' �N 1 lr. ,«-" F7` . ,. t , .:�: n a. , ,. ,.. 'n+P- .t ,w,. ,�p�•, „: ... ...,., yy,, ,•',�iv sS.;:n, P�.'�`•F S N±.ti. k":�tu,_ >, ,)... .a . ,.a ,. ,.:.�..,s .�..: -° !a,„_. al. _, ra-� •� ,:-. „•:�. U. r ��:�< _k.�.- '4. r'A� t"'�..,n .t, sr t.:, v{ { v .,�:1 .,�.'�. � ,3 , .. v, :. 1t, emu. ? : „y,., ..ic” 5, • - „`S'�..t".. �4. . , s. J .�.G„ , .a,..' ga . , .x. X� : ., -' .c. n •�':': �,br..- ,.,� a.¢ f 5'd , ..: � ',* Y �n "�' ^ ,t r.. .: r s, .d.w.u,,.,. -.. •k <. dit, .... ,. �' „ ". :.., ..,. ...+..:. ..e )C ";cV.>~i.. .. ,h,, :. ,; .. a.. ...,,.• X. 1.. wt + �.,,.,,.,,:. �..,., ird�a.. ;r,.....�:w�...�-tia,r..:x.�,a). ��n..,�r�t�,a��?l�,'..., �.,t_.....>w.�.�,.��,.���.»�,. � .$�k.�4.. ✓s.a.,,,..... � ,..�..,:, .0 „'�:.:..�.,.. . {.�.�5,w.:��r...��.�n.' t,,Au . �.... �. I,:. ae_. e:+ ��. a .N.t.,_:.�,�ad,x���te�.a�s�.,.. -- ,'i1i s9 b .a"T?. .,5f=..,.... .F.4 ,t ,b. -,�v.. .., .,1... k,C „r' .. 'PY. r. 6 Yk •, 3k. ea u e k 1 .m ". ' „ "a6Y, '., ... ta, "3, -, �, ..yi ^,P'S�e Y1H`V'•.. xP -, � w . , � �.. :, ..r � ,' �.'l, t;z ,r�£1. 05; t...$"_; •,. .. .. .- a.l..r� ,.,•. ;,ut'�,,'�, a.. t „n+r Y c. v� rYN yE,�.,: r.;£.; -.. r:fl ra� } -5:�. :.,.>v' ,�s ✓ ,,'M" :;:.,.r. `�° >rtr �.: n a,..+e+"•F 'a.':',a �,°',.rer. ..,�µy�.+.�tsr '`:w.ynr �rw�,�. t ;rte,„96,, "�' � gi .kar_ . - ..✓ ' 'h t vr't �.a';"ia�E '#'..n�d, Lrsiji`'.. t yv �: tir ��� �f. .me�sw '�. t '$�` � "'�i xfi a '�34�� � .� a'��.k ,� � '•'? � M"�' " '�` ; �� t b " r xk �s a � �� 1�e � r�r r*��,wa i�'s�"a,'3 -. ��' �k u +YY} ys . -a {"7i 1''�tR` 3 1 ji.^ to zr. azid'tis'^�t`'F4i, t�xM Y ^£ }"'F„N{ {'� `i�.%: `"F'�'. F�”, a 'P�,c�„ {♦ aS•nz;^r,:� m� � � •` � �'1 �� "� '1 4 k �vv ae �`Ky p?\,d 1r � ��4� +u S� ,y� : � 3i. l x ] 1,� £-iw ,>r*W� �£`4a �,t � +a r, t ate• ",," 41 £i �� ,r'r��^,4 s t>z �. �r e' a Iro5 �� rte,, ' t 1-4 �mm MOar= M.— IN 77 VIM 0-,RWOMRO��l • • Attachment 3 • ANTIPASTI & 1NSALATE (APPETIZEKS & SALADS) SAL)uONE AFFV)IAICATO $ 9.75 HOMEMADE FETTUCCINE IN A CLASSIC CREAM SAUCE, WITH CHICKEN OK PK'x'WNS ADD $ ATLANTIC SMOKED SALMON TOPPED WITH FRESH DILL, CAPERS AND LEMON VINACRETTE 4.50 BRVSCHETTA . $ 4.50 ROLLED HOMEMADE PASTA STUFFED WITH FRESH (;KILLED VEGETABLES TOASTED CAR,LIC TOPPED WITH FRESH TOMATOES AND FRESH BASIL AND MOZZARELLA CHEESE IN .1% MARiNAR.A AND BESCIAMELLA SAUCE. CROSTINI Al FVNGHI $ 6.50 HOMEMADE CANNELLONI STUFFED WITH VEAL, RICOTTA CHEESE AND TOASTED BREAD WITH MUSHROOMS, PKOSCIUTTO & FRESH TOMATOES SPINACH SERVED IN A MA.KINARA. AND BESCIAMELLA SAUCE CAPRESE TRICOLORE $ 9.50 HOMEMADE FETTUCCINE IN A. FRESH CREAM OF SPINACH SAUCE IMPORTED ITALIAN BUFFALO MOZZARELLA, CHERRY TOMATOES & AVOCADO ANTIPASTO DI VE4ETALI (FOR. 2) $ 11.50 MARINATED FRESH (;KILLED SEASONAL VEGETABLES CARPACCIO $ 9.50 THINLY SLICED R.A.W MIGNON TOPPED WITH EXTRA VIKCIN OL.IVE.OIL AND PARMESAN SHAVES BRESAOLA E PECORINO PEPATO $ 9.50 CURED BEEF, SPICY PECOKINO CHEESE, SAUTEED SHITAKI MUSHROOMS & TKUFFLE OIL INSALATA VERDE $ 4.50 OKGANIC MIXED GREEN SALAD SERVED WITH EXTRA-, VIKGIN OLIVE OIL AND BALSAMIC VINEGAR INSALATA DI CESARE $ 5,50 TRIAD ITIONAL ITALIAN CAESAR: SALAD INSALATA STAR BENE $ 7.25 BABY SPINACH WITH PECANS & PAKMESAN SHAVES IN ;&, TKUFFLE OIL DKESSINC ZVPPA DI CALM -AARl $ 7.50 CALA.MA.KI SAUTEED WITH TOMATOES, MUSHROOMS & WHITE WINE ZVPPA DEL GIORNO $ 4.50 SOUP OF THE DAY KIDS WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PREPARE A CHILD'S DISH FOR. YOU (12 AND UNDER PLEASE) )UST ASK YOUR, SERVER! PASTE ( PASTA PENNE MASTRO CICCIO $ 13.50 PENNE WITH PA,NCETT). AND MASCAKPONE CHEESE IN A LIGHT MARINAR.A SAUCE FETTUCCINE ALFREDO $ 10.50 HOMEMADE FETTUCCINE IN A CLASSIC CREAM SAUCE, WITH CHICKEN OK PK'x'WNS ADD $ 4.50 41RELLO VECETARIANO $ 15.25 ROLLED HOMEMADE PASTA STUFFED WITH FRESH (;KILLED VEGETABLES AND MOZZARELLA CHEESE IN .1% MARiNAR.A AND BESCIAMELLA SAUCE. CANNELLONI DI CARNE $ 15.50 HOMEMADE CANNELLONI STUFFED WITH VEAL, RICOTTA CHEESE AND SPINACH SERVED IN A MA.KINARA. AND BESCIAMELLA SAUCE FETTVCCINE STAR BENE $ 12.75 HOMEMADE FETTUCCINE IN A. FRESH CREAM OF SPINACH SAUCE WE vSE 99 %.ORCANIC PRODUCE SPAGHETTI PVTTAN ESCA $ 11.50 SPACHETTI WITH ANCHOVIES, CAPERS, OLIVES IN A SPICY TOMATOES SAUCE SPAGHETTI ALLA BOLOGNESE $ 13.50 SPAGHETTI WITH CROVND TOP SIRLOIN AND MARINARA SAUCE FETTVCCINE SILANE $ 15.50 HOMEMADE FETTUCCINE WITH MIXED MUSHROOMS AND TRvFFLE OIL $ 18.50 SPAGHETTI PAESANI $ 13.75 SPAGHETTI WITH ZUCCHINE, EGGPLANT, MVSHROOMS, FRESH TOMATOES SAVCE AND PECORINO CHEESE $ 18.50 SPAGHETTI DEL MARE $ 16.50 SPAGHETTI WITH MIXED FRESH SEAFOOD AND FRESH CHOPPED TOMATOES SAVCE SPAGHETTI ALLE VONGOLE $ 15.50 SPAGHETTI WITH CLAMS IN A WHITE WINE AND EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL SAVCE PENNETE ALLA VODKA $ 14.50 PENNE PASTA, VODKA WITH FRESH AND SMOLKED SALMON IN A LICHT MARINARA SAVCE WITH A TOUCH OF CREAM PENNE ALLA SICILIANA $ 13.75 PENNE PASTA WITH EGGPLANT, FRESH CHOPPED TOMATOES SAVCE AND ACED RICOTTA CHEESE GNOCCHI ALLA TELE $ 14.50 HOMEMADE CNOCCHI WITH YOUR CHOICE OF PESTO, CORGONZOLA OR MARINARA SAVCE RAVIOLI DI SANTA CRVZ, $ 16.50 diHOMEMADE FRESH SEAFOOD RAVIOLI, WITH SAFFRON AND WHITE WINE SAVCE RAVIOLI DEL GIARDINO $ 15.50 HOMEMADE RAVIOLI FILLED WITH VEGETABLES AND RICOTTA IN A LEEK AND PECAN CREAM SAVCE PASTA D IAVO LA $ 15.75 HOMEMADE FETTUCCINE WITH OYSTER MvSHROOMS, TIGER PRAWNS, SHRIMP, FRESH TOMATOES IN A LICHT SPICY MARINARA SAVCE SECONDI P1ATT1 (ENTREE) POLLO SALTIMBOCCA $ 17.50 SAUTEED BREAST OF CHICKEN ROLLED WITH ITALIAN PROSCIUTTO AND FRESH MOZZARELLA CHEESE IN A SAGE AND WHITE WINE SAVCE VITELLO DE1 PASCOLI $ 18.50 FREE RANCE VEAL SCALOPPINI MARSALA AND MVSHROOM SAVCE OR A CAPER, LEMON AND WHITE WINE SAVCE OR BREADED, TOPPED WITH FRESH TOMATOES AND MOZZZARELA COSTATA ALLA MARIO $ 18.50 PORK CHOP STUFFED WITH SPINACH, PECORINO CHEESE AND PINE NUTS, BREADED IN DIJON MUSTARD WITH BRANDY, PEPPERCORN SAVCE SALMONE ALLA LVCIANA $ 18.50 FRESH FILET of SALMON PAN SEARED IN A FRESH DILL, WHITE WINE, CREAM SAVCE 0 ZVPPA D1 PESCE $ 19:$0 FRESH MvSSELS, CLAMS, ROCK SHRIMP, CALAMARI AND SALMON IN A LICHT MARINARA, GARLIC AND WHITE WINE SAVCE ASK ABOVT OUR DAILY SPECIALS! ment4' • • • • 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 9`h. day of March , 2007, that I deposited 65 Notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to -wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15- 45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 503 -24 -008 Address: 14441 BIG BASIN. WAY that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Z < r Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408- 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 28th day of March 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #07 -250 —14441 Big Basin Way APPLICANT: Ristorante Da Mario (tenant)/ Cancellierei (property owner) APN: 503 -24 -008 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a- Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant in an existing_ approximately 1900- square foot vacant tenant space, 'which was formerly occupied by Tapioca Express. Alcoholic beverages will be served. The site is zoned CH -1. 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 Monday, March 19, 2007.' This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 5.00 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of -date information or difficulties with the U:S: Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project.. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested_ in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Suzanne Thomas Assistant .Planner. 408 - 868 -1212 MARCH 9, 2007 WNERSHIP LISTING P ABED FOR: 503 -24 -008 RISTORANTE DA MARIO 14441 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 397 -22- 014,020 CALIFORNIA STATE OF P O BOX 23440 OAKLAND CA 94623 397 -22 -068 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH OR CURRENT OWNER 14370 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5953 503 -23 -025 EVELYN JOHNSTON PO BOX 53 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0053 50313 -049 (FANCY E KESSLER DR CURRENT OWNER 20626 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -24 -008 RLJ LLC 19510 GLEN UNA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018 503 -24 -038 3CVWD 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 503 -24 -051 YVES G & ANNETTE CASABONNE ?O BOX 247 3L VERANO CA 95433 -0247 397 -22 -015, 067, 069 397 -22 -066 SARATOGA FIRE DIST OF SC COUNTY UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV OR CURRENT OWNER 395 OYSTER POINT BLVD 225 20473 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 - SARATOGA CA 95070 -5909 1930 503 -23 -023 EVELYN JOHNSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 20611 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -23 -027, 028 WILLIAM L & VIRGINIA HIGGINS OR CURRENT OWNER 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5800 503 -23 -052 PATRICK BROCKETT OR CURRENT OWNER 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -24 -009 ROBERT & SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI 14860 CODY LN. SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018 503 -24 -046 INN AT SARATOGA INC OR CURRENT OWNER 20645 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -5867 503 -24 -054 TONY A & JULIET JARRAMI 30 OAK GROVE AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 -7021 503 -23 -024 SARANGAN RANGACHARI OR CURRENT OWNER 20613 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -23 -029 HUGH A & GLORIA JACOBS OR CURRENT OWNER 20510 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5800 503 -23 -053 DAVID S JOHNSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 20616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -24 -034 RONALD W & BARBARA WORDEN 1232 PARK ST 300 PASO ROBLES CA 93446 -7236 503 -24 -049, 050 GEORGE PAYNE 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS CA 95032 503 -24 -057 DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATIO PO BOX 6000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 -6000 5 058,060,061 503 -24 -059 503 -24 -062 3 HAM FAMILY LP LOUELLA M SULLIVAN BERNARD A WALLACE 1010 MOORPARK AVE 111 20570 CANYON VIEW DR PO BOX 1060 3AN JOSE CA 95117-1804 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5876 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 -7060 503 -24 -063 CNY PROPERTIES INC 12504 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 503 -24 -064 SOO G LEE 1138 NORVAL WAY SAN JOSE CA 95125 -3434 503 -24 -067, 080, 081 503 -24 -070, 072 JAMES I &_ARLENE ROSENFELD JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA 14219 OKANOGAN DR 235 LINDEN ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -5549 SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 -1019 503 -24 -073 JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA 475 W SAN CARLOS ST 10101 SAN JOSE CA 95110 -2633 517 -09 -011 RICHARD SERMONE 14620 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -2446 517 -09 -014, 015, 046, 047 FRANK BURRELL' 4010 MOORPARK AVE 111 SAN JOSE CA 95117 -1804 517 -09 -020 ANTHONY J & GEORGIA ELLENIKIOTIS 14451 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5624 517 -09 -025 JAVID J SALEHIEH OR CURRENT OWNER 14501 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -09 -042 JOUNG S & YOUNG KIM 7221 SILVER LODE LN SAN JOSE CA 95120 -3356 5.17 -09 -065 TED A & PEGGY MCKIBBEN OR CURRENT OWNER - 14463 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -10 -006 RONNIE L HELM OR CURRENT OWNER 14516 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6087 503 -24 -078 SUSAN K CUNNINGHAM PO BOX 2230 CUPERTINO CA 95015 -2230 517 -09 -012 MARTE FORMICO 14480 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6095 517 -09 -017 7. ELIZABETH KLEAR 20387 THELMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4946 517 -09 -021 MAHNAZ KHAZEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20490 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5911 517 -09 -026 RICKY & RUBINA RATRA 1597 TURRIFF WAY SAN JOSE CA 95132 -2351 517 -09 -063 DALTON FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER K 14467 OA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -09 -066 ROBERT K & LISA BUSSE OR CURRENT OWNER 14461 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -10 -007 GARY H & DIANAGAY ESPINOSA OR CURRENT OWNER 14510 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6087 503 -24 -066 JOSEPH C & MICHELLE MASEK OR CURRENT OWNER 14467 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6093 503 -24 -071 SAM CLOUD BARN 85 SARATOGA AVE 100 SANTA CLARA CA 95051 -7300 503 -24 -079 DENNIS M CUNNINGHAM PO BOX 7 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0007 517 -09 -013 BKOFAMERNT &SA PO BOX 2818 ALPHARETTA GA 30023 -2818 517 -09 -018, 043, 044 ATOGA LLC 4367 CLEAR VALLEY DR ENCINO CA 91436 -3317 517 -09 -024 DAVID L SORENSEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14493 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -09 -027 THANH LUONG OR CURRENT OWNER 14515 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -09 -064 STEVEN L MICHELI OR CURRENT OWNER 14465 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -09 -069 POLLACK PROPERTIES II LLC 14500 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6076 517 -10 -008 JOHN N ALLEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14500 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6087 • 7 517 -10 -009, 015, 034 OUR LADY FATIMA VILLA #0 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD TOGA CA 95070 -5927 517 -34 -002 PRASENJIT BARDHAN 1648 MARIPOSA AVE PALO ALTO CA 94306 -1026 517 -34 -005 JAMES A ELLS OR CURRENT OWNER 14537 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 517 -34 -008 DAVID J SPLAWN OR CURRENT OWNER 14525 OAK ST H SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 • C7 517 -10 -011 517 -34 -001 SARATOGA LODGE NO FOUR TWO EIGHT TRUDY GRABLE PO BOX 54 1238 CORDELIA AVE SARATOGA CA 95071 -0054 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4212 517 -34 -003 SAMUEL SCOTT 922 BICKNELL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2112 517 -34 -006 GARY D ALFORD OR CURRENT OWNER 14543 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 503 -24 -016,18,35,36,47,74,76, 503- 26-044 397 -22 -018 517 -10 -012, 13 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Suzanne Thomas 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 517 -34 -004 BRIDGET M ROMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14545 OAK ST D SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 517 -34 -007 CHUCK B KASPAR OR CURRENT OWNER 14527 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 i' I [ � Cl d WOMEN'S MEN'S ' El RESTROOM RESTROQM ❑ ❑ 0 E:1 C BOOTH KITCHEN OFFICE olaPr.c ` WAWA HEATM II ll rol 7' 1 9. .D DA MARIO FEB 2.2 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA 24� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 24` Q � Q ®r's"o OUTSIDE O Q SEATING DINING AREA TO +6OUTSIDEE ,� cu 1 {ava d O O 0 Q D f I LWIVIc 1 ® 1 COUNTER 1 1 1 t L - -- 1 _ J D • aim rata Pool anr4203M. rrCULA BAR ' "°''°""""'m tIars" rotuw lPm D A l I n_ 11 O�OOUTSIDE. I-ID Q V II SEATING 14441 BIG BA51N WAY, 5ARATOGA, CA 35070 FROM DRP, INC. (! -1.2 -2003) Gam.- --- ----� �--- -� G XMt w. l'Q J. • Vol, c� 4? �g 2 2 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFN; City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification :Form D PROJECT ADDRESS: 16- PA-�SlN 6 2 Z ZUU7 EEB Dear Neighbor, CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. 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, 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Date: 2 &Z- f0 Signature: Neighbor Ad re : M354 3(64*4 11I 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): Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 JLfnrintnch NTl• Tlmrc• cnni% rn/ �l i• T) ocbtnn• NoiohhnrNnti frntinnFnrmT/nrintoil City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: �` Q, w FEB Z ZZUUi CITY OF SARATOGA Dear Neighbor, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. 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, 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Date: _!�,2/ �/c,ZQQ % Signature: w Neighbor Address: 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): W0_4 wi, Applicant Name: Date: 0 Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 AiTnri»tnch T7n•T/ core• cnnrlrn�i�i• Tl vclrtnn• NvinhhnrNntifirntinsvFnrmTlni lntail L City of Saratoga r Neighbor Notification Form li I PROJECT ADDRESS: I k I �; us 4. 'wC FEB 2 Z [uU l yy Dear Neighbor, CITY OF SARA 100A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN 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. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project., These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and maybe 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbo e: ;�1%l0 Date: Signature• C Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: Va T 0-0 7U 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: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 iLlnri»tnch T- TT)•TTcnrc•en» ern/+ Fi• 1) ocbtnn• NviohhnrNntifirntin »FnrmT/nilntoil 11 • C" • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: I Y ti 1< k l3 Gs h 4yc -, Dear Neighbor, FEB 2 < M/ CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. 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, 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Gl &L Date: Z 2 - 0-7 Signature: *4� Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: ( 0 V / y� 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: f "\Date: 0 Application City of Sarat6ga Planning Department Revised 10 124106 �lilnri»tnch FTT)• TTcvrc• cn» drn�iF• T) vc& tnn• NoinhhnrNntifrntin »FnrmTlnilntoii y` & City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification :Form ^� �ECE yjE( PROJECT ADDRESS: f 4 4 `t t ' ti ew., Ui-t FEB Dear Neighbor, CITY OF SARATuGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. 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, 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. .Neighbor Name: S /o fi i� ��ri✓w /o�� (��jeS i Date:. .2 �-2--� Signature: Neighbor Address: 1Py Neighbor Phone #: S WI'Gt la ac—, C 4 Gi'. 56- %o 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: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 IL1nri »inch NT)• lTcorc• cn» i1rnF/. �• T) ocbtnn• NoiohhnrNntiirrntin »Fnr»vTlnilntoiT • t City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, FEB Z [tour I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to pr TY OF SAK;y� -ri E�WRY A` OPNEN'i 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 ONL Y 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: .1 L < c Date: Signature: + GR._ �v Neighbor Address: / Lk �L -- 3 < j' ova- -� "y U 3 Neighbor Phone #: P 2 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: 0 Application Number: Date: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 A�Innintnch NT)• Tlcvrc• cnsai% rn% i% i• Tl ncbtnn• NoiahhnrNnti�rntinnFnrmTlni %ntoil i� C" City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 0 �, ,U PROJECT ADDRESS: 144 ; T Q�s ;, i,�` i FEB Z �L LUU1 CITY ORSARATOGA Dear Neighbor, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the` preliminary plans for the project.. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and maybe 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 reviewed. the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: J�`' %� 1 S%�1�c S)l %% Date: °'; 2Z ' b Signatu Neighbor Address: n CA y 9�b*70 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): Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 Ailnri»tnch Nn• Tlcorc• cn» drnl iG• T) oclrtnn• NoiohhnrNntifirntin »FnrmT/ndntorl • • 1.7 Lin i PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 1 � ` ( 9'14, q-511 FEB 2 Z 1uu1 CITY OF SARA i u'-�r,. oV I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to p40UPo w1t %L0PMEhI'. 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, 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor N �� Date Signature: ,` Neighbor Address: 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): Applicant Name: Date: 0 Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 Mm- intnch NT)•Tlcorc cnadrn/�i•T)oclrinn NoiohhnrNntifrrntinnFnrmTlni %moil City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form ", I;" PROJECT ADDRESS: 211UU 1 FEB Dear Neighbor, CITY OF SARA I uur COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the.. preliminary,plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLYand maybe 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Date: Signature: Neighbor Address: C/ 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): Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 Jlilnrintnch T- TT)• Tlavrc• cnnrlrnt SF• 1) oclrtnn• NaiohhnrNntifirntinnFnrmTln�ntorl , )�� •� Lin � i u City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, E C � P. ' i 1. i ; , FEB `z Z tuu r CITY OF bh- commutmTY DEV17109M6! i 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. 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, 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 reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: 1" 1 J 8 r Date: a ` Signature: Neighbor Address: v +�i Neighbor Phone #: al-> 7 I 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: Application Number. City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 ]IAnri »tnch T- TT)•T7cnrc•cn »drnl iii• T) ocTrfnn• NniohhnrNntifirntin »FnrmTlnr /ntoil 0 r� SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Telephone: 408-867-9001 Fax: 408-867-2780 www.saratosafire.org PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE #: 07 -249 DATE: February 14, 2007 # OF LOTS: One APPLICANT: Cancellieri LOCATION: 14441 Big Basin Way PROJECT: Change of tenant from Tapioca Express to Ristorante da Mario restaurant, addition of wood burning oven, tenant improvement. 1. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 2. Existing building has required kitchen hood fire protection system for cooking appliances which shall be maintained per CFC 1005.2.8. 3. Addition of wood burning oven outside the kitchen area constitues new commercial cooking operation. An Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained for the entire building. The alarm contractor shall submit three (3) copies of working drawings to the fire district for review. and approval. The alarm system must be installed by a licensed contractor. The fire district must issue a permit prior to the installation of the system (City of Saratoga Code 16- 60.010.b.7.ii). Verify with County Health Deparmtent for any hood requirement for this new oven. If a Type 1 hood for grease vapors is required, a hood fire protection system shall be required per CFC 1005. Continue to provide portable fire extinguishers per CCR Title 19. Verify with City Building Department the requirements for exits, emergency lighting, occupant load signs and accessibility. 6. Provide approved fire department lockbox for building access, purchased from Saratoga Fire. 7. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property (CFC 901.4.4). APPROVED: HAL NETTER PLAN CHECKER: HAL NETTER big basin wy 14441 -2 (2) 25"! RISTORANTE DA MARIO 24' • 4' 12, . 36' 24' O ®rss�40 ®rss,4�0 00 WOMEN'S MEN'S RESTROOM RESTROQl1 H ❑ a D SUTM SME � � �m� a o v o 4 D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DINING AREA TOTAL OUTSIN ° �, c� - wa N a som N, FREEZER COUNf�t J �, J I .at�,enr.r. Mme+ i1ea�ars'e BAR � WCHEN wa.Rrasww OFFICE Ito Was Q D 0 SUM 14441 BIG B/L91N WAY. SARATOGA. CA 95070 FROM DRP, INC. (I I- 12 -2003) U sw`mowY =C dft 6" NIL,MQP!s )jjvM3p!s NIBMOP!s JIUMOMS NILMOMS IIUMap � IIBMaPIS )HEMOMS ` f� f'r� f / /`•. �f;f,,F . '} r',! ! r,�/` � fr Tfj��, ; r { f } �.� fff fff'rf r frff`f'rr f r' +f,�}�`f'{�ff; rf ��� /! r'.f`+ I}r`r}r' f r � I rff r"f +f�f { //ff �jy / /'t'f�•f� Jf rr' {rtI'r ve i'` //I f +I r�f'� ! /`r /1 .r r�.f'�r/; f.t f f { } { } / {f f' f f fi • / f V4. r' •r "ff:r!`ri, f' f tr'';.!. f" I II �f Ir /.F�%t�frf O • �,� !`r' /ir,%•f. / f� /1Z f F ! go r} IAA }r <>0 f f ffr`{{F�tftGfr` {f i rf +/ /` f. / / / rjtrFlI` rr trf ,rf rf Ff r/ r fr • r .rr r'� }!f'r +�,r'Jrr f' fI}/`II! r' /`. I }�,fl % �,f,/ � +'rff ' /f ',rr ffr'/ ffr�ff �� !4, f` �J'}'Rrr`f,,� r � +'�,f°� •,•f`},fr �f''ff';! { W3 ZiS (1061 fft%{:rI! fff r` /fir,�,•f{r Fffr{ fr r}f f r` � r � I r rfr� } ` }l J f � ff flfr`% •+f}' f f fr'`f }r'`!`f+.ff frr f'f'rf frlr �r f ! f f' f f f •r,Fj �r'r,t r f ,I rr r fir' f ,F } f/`F }r fr {r< }� ` f/tF C> 4'� r�� r� j`,J% / r{rrlIff'J. Fr rrf IFf{ +',r! r�frlrf f f ? ?fJ !fi f rr�rrlf, +f +f f''fI`•:' fr /r f +rrrfr`. . %F� f +F. , f,�t} f f . r rfr.•' !,'F ` jr ;fr + }, i!•. }./` I ,r f^ f fr%,fl r.. }rrf }. �.irrflflrr f�' /,}rIrr�' f FFj•, }f�%r ";. {f +f• } jjj ,/ f }' ` ,� • JFri rr } frF£rirfrf %/F`f fJi +r/ff • + F r`f ,,irrrf f f+irrrf r r+f{+rrrf F fire �f r` + %�ff l4 fI ��✓` ++ r'f fr l f � r' � rf �! / {f}f}fI +J /}/ �i r ! ffr+ /ff fFFlf %F: .ffF% +}F � 'r F,!rf rr �%r�� ,rf .� r r. f `'r'`/ f /f t {�r f� ll. �r'.r r �f ./! !r F } f`rr',r f'lfrf`ff/�, }`fi'� �f�f''�;�r�f''`rF �rrrF `r'��I"ffrflfrff``r'fr'`f�` f�rfi ft ff`f/I`�'.-f'�f, +; '`r f f! � �r,ff+rf�` /' +.;' r{r`�•r �fi •!`fr rff ?I`rf.'Ffi�f'r:!, .�`i;}r� r` {i'r�f r'rif f ,/Frrf /fr`/` .`if!'riirfra 4 101 CS l,l l II M Item 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP Associate Planner MEETING DATE: March 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Request for a Continuance Application No. 07 -218; Design Review 18524 Montepere Way, Saratoga, California The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor, including replacing exterior walls, and constructing a second -story addition to a 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. Staff received an email correspondence on March 20, 2007, from a concerned neighbor regarding the potential historical significance of the structure proposed for remodel. The 51 -year old structure is not designated "historic" on a local, state, or federal list. To address the neighbor's concerns the applicant has requested a continuance to a date uncertain to have a Historic Assessment prepared and to present the Assessment and Design Review Application to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and comment prior to returning to the Planning Commission. Item 3 is REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: 07- 101/18940 Monte Vista Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Scott and Joan Kriens (Owner /Applicant) Staff Planner: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner Date: March 28, 2007 APN: 397 -08 -027 Department Head,�o John Livingstone, Director � "T A j ; •' ,..., Mr' . ,> r � .� Subject: Al tltl �. " PCL. 4. / jyq �! ; a ROgp ., 18940 Monte Vista B3 /ly��t39>�_ +` i 4 " " a4` APN: 397 -08 -027 •. " - ... 500' Radius E4 b ... ° „�, --,.. sor,a _ _ °'- - - -_il ,'AW tip% E 34 36 L832AC 1• reL` ti,�b /. C r e• -in 1.60 AC. 9 _ r ZI `y j0 o c 33 L2 / 1.12 ac r,A.. .t' 77 q. n., � ":.. s, oo, _.� — d ny, w•r�,+,,z� .�% a,u d° 1 1.277 AC "F o "' iSTA DRIVE `E ... AC. ! .n�' "i,. •"�T" E v _ a h 2 M� n +� ,iero L50AC t,A]A 6 'r ne. .hl lo•(Ik Ica 44 LISS v ^ r 25 26 2� 5 #1 4, r Q. o r 0' ' `s �s 6 y � Y P I nz,r 1 ,e 192AL PCL.3 116ACG0. : 1 I$ sAC- I N. ,;1 MONTEWDOD o 100 1.3T k. II C, 0 « r.0 •� nro, I J9 27 t -C'c, i Cr. In CL Sl P.2 1 w1.09AC. A IAi "aa 1 i �` M 59 1 �6 IO.S,�;l,a,a L5. x29• r,en' , p.e e C I 19 -1 _ NNYSiDE •w <. +T JO7 74 - I 'y J' S5 54 a r ..:° 011 5 i C. I.li AG 1 -0J94 64 ^ , 1 . A,K +2r BS �8 408 AC. ' y0 u..y 23 °T . to AC s- HrF V/ ,nz ^ PSVE ��; `0j�/i:•z' 1 � t .53 i e�< � •4;- 'JO? SAR T NJ oGA S1 25rAI �` `� LOS $2 GArOS' i - M3 .66 -M -49• 'N • • • • Application No. 07- 1011Kriens CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 09/14/07 02/16/07 03/14/07 02/27/07 03/22/07 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Permanent conditions of approval are not proposed. 2 Application No. 07- 1011Kriens STAFF ANALYSIS PRn.TF.fT DATA - 3 • A Proposal Code Requirements Lot Maximum Allowable — Coverage: Buildings: 5,944 sq. ft. Hardscape: 13,715 sq. ft. 19,559 sq. ft. (19,606 sq. ft.) TOTAL PROPOSED 34.9% 35% Floor Area: Maximum Allowable — Residence 899 sq. ft. Home Office 381 sq. ft. Study 4,37 sq. ft. Workout Room 575 sq. ft. Garage Under Study 2,009 sq. ft. Wine Cellar /Storage 660 sq. ft. Detached Garage 1,320 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 6,331 sq. ft. 6,340 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement 1 -story 2 -story 1 -story 2 -story Front 30 ft. 140 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. Rear 50 ft. 180 ft 50 ft. 60 ft. Left Side 20 ft. 62 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Right Side 25 ft. 62 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Proposed Residence 13 ft. 03 in. 26 ft. Study 17 ft. 11 in. 20 ft. with PC Approval Home Office 14 ft. 04 in. 15 ft. Detached Garage 14 ft. 03 in. 15 ft. Workout Room 12 ft. 09 in. 15 ft. Wine Cellar /Storage 9 ft. 05 in. 15 ft. Basements: Residence 899 sq. ft. Workout Room 575 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 1,474 sq. ft. I Not Calculated in FAR 3 • A Application No. 07- 1011Kriens 0 ZONING: R -1- 40,000 • GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 62,726 sq. ft. (Gross) / 56,018 sq. ft. (Net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7.18% GRADING REQUIRED: 3,637 Cu. Yd. Cut and 501 Cu. Yd. Fill ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The existing home is less than 50 -years old and not been identified as a cultural resource; therefore, the proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 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 Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060(6) requires Design Approval by the Planning Commission when proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the floor area of all structures on the site will exceed six thousand square feet. The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct multiple structures resulting in a total floor area of 6,331 sq. ft. In addition, Zoning Code Section 15- 12.100 (b) requires approval by the Planning Commission when an accessory structure's proposed height exceeds fifteen feet. The proposal includes a two -story, 17 ft. 11 in. accessory Study /Garage. The applicant owns the abutting parcel to the East and is requesting development of the subject parcel as an expansion of use. The proposal incorporates the existing, architectural details, building materials, colors, and creates an integrated landscape design. The two lots will appear to be one harmonious development as viewed from Monte Vista Drive. Generally, staff would recommend the applicant seek a parcel merger since development of a residential parcel requires creation of a primary residential structure, which the applicant currently has on the property to the East. However, if the applicant merged the two parcels Zoning Code Section 15- 45.030 (e) restricts floor area to a maximum of 7,200 sq. ft. in the R1- 40,000 Zoning District. To meet the City's requirement for a primary residential structure the applicant is proposing a single -story 899 sq. ft. residence with an 899 sq. ft. basement. 2 Application No. 07- 1011Kriens Other structures proposed include: a detached Workout Room with a basement, which will be used as a home theater; a detached Home Office;, a detached garage with attached carport; a two -story detached Study /Garage. The Study will cover one portion of the Garage with the remainder dedicated to a terrace with an outdoor cooking area, wood burning fireplace, and covered dinning area. The Garage will contain a powder room, mechanical room and will have access to a wine tasting area, wine display room, and a wine making room. The overall architectural theme will be a Tuscan Villa with strong Italian influences including incorporation of a small vineyard in the landscape plans that will cross over both property lines. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has submitted one signed Neighborhood Template (Attachment 3), indicating that the neighbor did not have any issues or concerns regarding the proposal. Geotechnical Clearance Zoning Code Section -15- 80.035 (d) require geotechnical clearance for proposed basements prior to issuance of approval. The applicant received geotechnical clearance on November 8, 2006. Trees There are a total of 34 trees on the property that are protected by City Ordinance 15 -50, of which the applicant is requesting removal of 5 trees — a Coast Live Oak, a Black Oak and three camphor trees. The City's arborist, Kate Bear, surveyed the property's trees and prepared an Arborist Report,. dated April 27, 2006 (Attachment 4) and a second report, dated March 19, 2007, responding to the applicant's revised drawings. The arborist concurs with the applicant's request to remove the Coast Live Oak as well as the three camphor trees; however, she is recommending a redesign of the proposed detached garage and carport to save the Black Oak. In addition, the arborist is requesting replacement trees of at least the appraised value of the Coast Live Oak, which is $6,300.00, as well as a bond in the amount of $97,580.00 and appropriate tree protective fencing. The applicant has responded to the arborist's request (Attachment 5) and has elected not to relocate, redesign, or remove the detached garage. Instead, the applicant is requesting approval of the proposal as designed. Since the applicant has adequate. parking to meet the needs of the proposed single - family residence by utilizing a separate 1,892 sq. ft. garage proposed under the Study, staff has determined that the proposed detached 1,320 sq. ft. garage with carport could be relocated, redesigned, or removed without undue hardship to the applicant. A condition of approval has been incorporated into the attached Resolution requiring the applicant to work with the arborist and planning staff to either relocate, redesign, or remove the detached garage and carport to save the tree, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. 5 Application No. 07- 101/Kriens General Plan Findings The proposed project 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 proposal will utilize an existing developed building site in an established residential neighborhood; thereby avoiding development of vacant land in the community thus protecting the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga. 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 proposal has been designed to minimize interference with views and privacy of abutting parcels by utilizing the gentle slopes of the parcel. The maximum height proposed for all structures is less than 18 -feet. The proposal meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements. The proposal avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The applicant is requesting removal of five trees and will incorporate grading; however, grading will not be so dramatic as to change the natural landscape. Given the size of the site there will be minimal impacts to natural landscaping. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. As conditioned, only one native tree will be removed, a Coast Live Oak. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposal will integrate building materials and colors utilized by the development to the East; thereby, blending into the neighborhood and minimizing perception of excessive bulk. In addition, the applicant is proposing a mix of building materials, including: copper gutters; terra cotta barrel tile roofs; stone veneer planter walls; exposed wood beams, decorative iron railings and stucco exterior for the buildings, all of which combine to minimize perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed structures range in height from approximately 9 feet to 17 feet in height. The neighborhood is a mix of single -story and two -story single - family detached homes with various accessory structures; R Application No. 07- 1011Kriens therefore, the proposal would not look out of scale and would be compatible in bulk and height. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. Grading will be required as part of the proposed project. As conditioned, the applicant will comply with the City's grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Height Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following findings for a height extension on an accessory structure as stated in MCS 15- 12(b): (a) The additional height is ,necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site. The proposal consists of an integration of two legal lots of record with a single owner. Generally, an accessory structure is subordinate in nature to the main structure, which is usually a residence. In this instance, a residence.was created in order to meet the City's requirement that a legal lot of record must have a7 residence as a primary structure in order to have accessory structures. In actuality, the main structure is located on the adjacent parcel. In this unique situation the additional height of the study /garage is required to integrate all of the buildings into a cohesive architectural design and to help create a sense of continuity. (b) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. At approximately 17 feet in height, the accessory structure will not appear massive or bulky as viewed from the front of the parcel at Monte Vista Drive. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposal is'consistent with the General Plan. C 7 t • Application No. 07- 1011Kriens STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffs recommends the Planning Commission find this Application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Permanent Conditions of Approval are not proposed. . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters. 4. Arborist Reports dated April 27, 2006, and March 19, 2007. 5. Letter dated November 2006, from Brian David Peters, AIC responding to Arborist Report dated April 27, 2006. 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." E:3 Attachment 1 • 11 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -101 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Kriens; 18940 Monte Vista Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application 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; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060(6) requires Design Approval by the Planning Commission when proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the floor area of all structures on the site will exceed six thousand square feet. The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct multiple structures resulting in a total floor area of 6,331 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 12.100 (b) requires approval by the Planning Commission when an accessory structure's proposed height exceeds fifteen feet. The proposal includes a two -story, 17 ft. 11 in. accessory Study /Garage; 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 existing home is less than 50 -years old and not been identified as a cultural resource; therefore, the proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 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 Design Review, 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 proposal will utilize an existing developed building site in an established residential neighborhood; thereby avoiding development of vacant land in the community thus protecting the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga. 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 Application No. 07- 1011Kriens adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposal has been designed to minimize interference with views and privacy of abutting parcels by utilizing the gentle slopes of the parcel. The maximum height proposed for all structures is less than 18 -feet. The proposal meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements. The proposal avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The applicant is requesting removal of five trees and will incorporate grading; however, grading will not be so dramatic as to change the natural landscape. Given the size of the site there will be minimal impacts to natural landscaping. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. As conditioned, only one native tree will be removed, a Coast Live Oak. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposal will integrate building materials and colors utilized by the development to the East; thereby, blending into the neighborhood and minimizing perception of excessive bulk. In addition, the applicant is proposing a mix of building materials, including:, copper gutters; terra cotta barrel tile roofs; stone veneer planter walls; exposed wood beams, decorative iron railings and stucco exterior for the buildings, all of which combine to minimize perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed structures range in height from approximately 9 feet to 17 feet in height. The neighborhood is a mix of single -story and two -story single - family detached homes with various accessory structures; therefore, the proposal would not look out of scale and would be compatible in bulk and height. (f) Current grading and: erosion control methods. Grading will be required as part of the proposed project. As conditioned, the applicant will comply with the City's grading, and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the .applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential `Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. • 2 Application No. 07- 1011Kriens WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Height Extension approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site. The proposal consists of an integration of two legal lots of record with a single owner. Generally, an accessory structure is subordinate in nature to the main structure, which is usually a residence. In this instance, a residence was created in order to meet the City's requirement that a legal lot of record must have a residence as a primary structure in order to have accessory structures. In actuality, the main structure is located on the adjacent parcel. In this unique situation the additional height of the study /garage is required to integrate all of the buildings into a cohesive architectural design and to help create a sense of continuity. (b) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. At approximately 17 feet in height, the accessory structure will not appear massive or bulky as viewed from the front of the parcel at Monte Vista Drive. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 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 February 20, 2007, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board date stamped January 18, 2007. 3. 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. Application No. 07- 1011Kriens b. The following note shall be included: "A maximum of one wood - burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning." c. The following note shall be included verifying building setback: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans." 4. A storm water retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 8. 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. 9. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 10. 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 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. 11. 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. rd Application No. 07- 1011Kriens ! FIRE DISTRICT 12. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 13. The owner /applicant is responsible for all damages to curb /gutter and the public street as result of project construction and construction vehicles. The public Works Director will determine if any repair is required prior to final occupancy approval. 14. Applicant shall comply with all Public Works conditions, including but not limited to, Geotechnical Conditions issued on November 8, 2006, via a memo from Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer, to Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner. ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared two reports dated April 27, 2006, and March 19, 2007. The recommendations contained in these reports are hereby included as conditions of approval and shall be incorporated as part of the plans. Among the recommendations outlined in this report are the following: 0 15. Prior to issuance of final Zone Clearance the two arborist reports shall be incorporated into the plan set. 16. Prior to issuance of final Zone Clearance the applicant shall submit revised drawings for review and approval by the City's arborist illustrating either relocation, redesign, or removal of the detached garage and carport to ensure survival of a protected Black Oak. 17. A bond equal to $97,580.00, which is 100% of the value of the Ordinance - protected trees to be retained, is required prior to issuance of final Zone Clearance. CITY ATTORNEY 18. 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 adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. • Application No. 07- 1011Kriens 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. i PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of March 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 C • • ,:A • Attachment 2 �J 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 27th day of February , 2007, that I deposited 41 Notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to -wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15- 45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 397 -08 -027 Address: 18940 Monte Vista that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail. to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar' Advanced Listing Services • E r� City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces a public hearing on the item described below on: Wednesday, the 28th day of March 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 -101 - 18940 Monte Vista APPLICANT /OWNER: IMENS, (Both Owners & Applicants) APNs: 397 -08 -027 Description: 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. 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, March 20, 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 February 25, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397 -08 -027 SCOTT KRIENS 18940 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA'CA 95070 -6201 397 -07 -055 BARBARA STOCK DR CURRENT OWNER 15249 SOBEY RD 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 3)97 -07 -061 KENNETH & DEBORAH FOLLMAR DR CURRENT OWNER 15261 SOBEY RD 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 197-08-018 - UCHARD S & ALICE ENG :)R CURRENT OWNER '. 9000 SUNNYSIDE DR 'ARATOGA CA 95070 -6242 ;97 -0 &021 )ONALD P & MARY LEACH )R CURRENT OWNER 9075 SUNNYSIDE DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -6242 97 -08 -025 . - UCHARD S FALCONE - 197 RATTAN TER ' . ;UNNYVALE:CA 94086 -8642 97 -08 -032 1RYANT )R CURRENT OWNER 9001 MONTE VISTA DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -6202 97 -08 -046 VEI -JEN & MEI -LIEN LO >R CURRENT OWNER 8787 MONTEWOOD DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 397 -07 -059 CARTUS FINANCIAL CORP OR CURRENT OWNER 15215 SOBEY RD . SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -07 -072 STEVEN D & ALISA LEWIS OR CURRENT OWNER 15279 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -08 -019 ROBERT E & ROSALYN WORK OR CURRENT OWNER 19015 SUNNYSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6242 397 -08 -023 WILLIAM R DANSER OR CURRENT OWNER 15430 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6258 397 -08 -026, 027 SCOTT KRIENS OR CURRENT OWNER .18974 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6201 397 =08 -033 W PELIO 14573 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6801 397 =08 -047 CESARM MAYO OR CURRENT OWNER 18801 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 97 -08 -049 397 -08 -050 'OVE SIMONSEN HAROLD P & ELEANOR LIPTON ►R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 8433 MONTEWOOD DR 15420 MONTE VISTA DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6277 • 397 -07 -060 THOMAS U & NORMA COE OR CURRENT OWNER 15217 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -08 -012 DAVE D & FRANCHESCA NGUYEN 6455 SAN IGNACIO AVE SAN JOSE CA 95119 -1729 397 -08 -020. RAYMOND W & VIRGINIA SAMPSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19045 SUNNYSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6242 0 397 -08 -024 ROBERT L & MARTHA MIROYAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15400 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6258 397 -08 -031 JESSE J CHEN 20010 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -08 -034 W PELIO 15350 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6259 397 -08 -048 GLORIA ANASTASIA OR CURRENT OWNER 18811 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 397 -08 -055 HORMOZ & ROUSSANA NAZARI OR CURRENT OWNER 15492 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6278 397 -08 -056 107iN J & MARGARET MAGILL DR CURRENT OWNER MONTE VISTA DR *TOGA CA 95070 -6278 397 -08 -059 1 R & MARGO TEMPLETON ?0 BOX 3568 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -1568 597 -08 -085 4ELMUT & MARIA LIPPERT )R CURRENT OWNER .9040 SUNNYSIDE DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6242 )97 -08 -093 OSEPH SWEENEY )R CURRENT OWNER 8929 MONTE VISTA DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -6298 ;97 -08 -099 UCHARD B & THERESA BEAM 'O BOX 2415 > ARATOGA CA 95070 -0415 97 -08 -102 VILLIAM L & NANCY LARSON '0 BOX 6043 ,ARMEL CA 93921 -6043 • 397 -08 -057 DANIEL B & JOANNE 0 DONNELL 19135 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6217 397 -08 -074 PASCAL J & SIMONNE ONESTO OR CURRENT OWNER 15467 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6216 397 -08 -091 MICHAEL SHADMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15219 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 =08 -094 PATRICK J & SILVIA OHAREN OR CURRENT OWNER 18935 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202 397 -08 -100 REED H KINGSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 18855 MONTEWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6294 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: THERESE M. SCHMIDT 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397 -08 -058 CHEN FAMILY OR CURRENT OWNER 18810 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6222 397 -08 -083 DEAN V & JAIMIE BOBROWSKI OR CURRENT OWNER 15225 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6268 397 -08 -092 KEVIN & YIANNOULLA STURGE OR CURRENT OWNER 18927 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6298 397 -08 -095 BHEDA FAMILY OR CURRENT OWNER 18955 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202 397 -08 -101 ROUBIK & AGNES GREGORIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18867 MONTEWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6294 • �l • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: <' \^-O Application Number: t)II Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. �ty signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work, and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. CMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Rlel� i -72�-W, & 90/0-1 Neighbor Address: /5� ,95 o1-D1,-7,f t,11s7w ®e Neighbor Phone Number: d S 595 -3 /• Printed 5 of 5 Attachment 4 • • • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 18940 Monte Vista Dr. ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -08 -027 Owner: Scott and Joanie Kriens INTRODUCTION Application #: 06 -312 March 19, 2007 (! " Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 Revised plans were provided to the City on January 22, 2007. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICHAL DISCUSSION Trees have been included in the plans with identifying numbers and tree protective fencing locations around them. Five protected trees, oak trees #1 and 22, and camphor trees #12 — 14 are proposed to be removed. The camphor trees are in poor health and have no monetary value. It is acceptable to remove them as proposed. It will be necessary to remove tree #1 so the retaining wall can be taken down and the area graded for new parking. Its appraised value is $6,300 and new trees, equal to its value should be planted when the project is landscaped. The landscape plan shows that thirteen 36 inch box trees and one 48 inch box tree will be planted which satisfies the replacement requirement. Species are not called out in the plans and four of the new trees should be one of the following species: coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia); valley oak (Quercus lobata); blue oak (Quercus douglasiana); black oak (Quercus kelloggii); big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum); California buckeye (Aesculus californica); Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Tree #22 is a black oak in good condition and I recommend redesigning this section of the project to retain the tree. Black oaks are one of the species found in the surrounding oak woodlands, but are not as common as the coast live oak and other species. This tree is in good health and if this tree were removed and replaced, the new tree would be significantly smaller in size. The eucalyptus trees are not proposed for removal in the revised plans. All remaining trees should be protected with tree protective fencing, whether a bond is required for them or not. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond in the amount of $97,580, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value of trees #2 — 6, 18, 21 and 22, is required. It is not possible to calculate this required amount based on the information provided. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9rh Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This entire report shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans along with the report dated April 27, 2006. The Tree Inventory Table shall be included in the final plan set as well. Page 1 of 2 18940 Monte Vista Drive 2. Design the project around oak tree #22 so it may be retained. Construction around this tree shall remain a minimum of ten feet from the trunk. 3. Owner shall obtain a tree protection bond in the amount of $97,580 prior to obtaining building division permits. 4. Owner shall plant replacement trees equal to the value of $6,300 to compensate the removal of tree #1. Acceptable species include the following: coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia); valley oak (Quercus lobata); blue oak (Quercus douglasiana); black oak (Quercus kelloggii); big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum); California, buckeye (Aesculus call fornica); Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). 5. Tree protective fencing shall be installed around all retained trees at the drip line of the canopy as shown on Sheet T -1 of the plans. Once installed, it shall remain in place until completion of construction. 6.- Show all utilities and trenching for them on the final building plans. These include, water, sewer, gas, electric and irrigation main and lateral lines. 7. Final landscaping plans shall be designed to show the following: a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Locate valve boxes and controllers outside of drip lines of tree canopies. b. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. , c. Design lawns so that there is room between them and the trunk of any tree; confine lawn areas to the outside 20 % of the area under tree canopies. d. If oaks are included in the landscape design, plant only drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks under the outer 20% of the canopy. Do not include lawn within the drip line of any oak tree on the property. I recommend placing mulch under the canopy instead of a lawn. e. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees. f Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for weed control. g. Establish bender board or other edging material proposed beneath tree canopies on top of existing soil grade (such as by using stakes). C7 Page 2 of 2 oS SAR9� Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califomia 95070 18940 Monte Vista Drive ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -08 -027 Owner: Scott and Joanie Kriens INTRODUCTION Application #: 06-312 April 27, 2006 Prepared by Kate Be ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A The property owner of 18940 Monte Vista Drive has submitted plans to demolish his existing house, pool and tennis court and build a new conference center with an office, fitness room, guest house, batting cage and putting green on the property. A total of 34 trees on this property are protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 and were inventoried for this project. They include thirteen coast live oaks (# 1, 3 -6, 11, 15- 19,21, and 28), six eucalyptus ( #23, 26, 27 and 32 -34), four Monterey pines ( #24, 25 29 and 3 1), three deodar cedars ( 0-9), three camphor trees ( #12 -14), two redwoods ( #10 and 30), one birch tree ( #20), one valley oak ( #2) and one black oak ( #22). Data for each tree is compiled in a table at the end of this report. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy of the Topographic Survey dated August 2005. The plans reviewed for this report include the Topographic Survey dated August 2005, by Jeffrey M. Barnea, and Sheet IA, Preliminary Concept Plan dated November 11, 2005 by Kikuchi and Associates. This report is preliminary. Another review will be required in order to determine the bond amount and values associated with replacement of trees to be removed. Site Observations, Plan Review and Technical Discussion The concept plan does not show existing trees. They must be included on the Site /Concept plan and clearly shown if they are to be removed. Plans should use separate sheets to depict new trees to be installed and existing trees to be removed. Two protected trees, oak trees #1 and 22 are in good health and have good structure. The concept design appears to show them to be removed. I recommend retaining both trees. The car port and circular parking area can be made of pervious materials on top of grade. This would also require no grade changes within the drip line of oak #1. To preserve oak #22, the low walls with pillars should be moved to a position at least ten feet from the trunk of the tree. The walkway to the putting green can be relocated to the south by two feet and created out of a pervious material such as decomposed granite on grade. 0 Oak tree # 28 is not shown on the Topographic Survey and should be included. It appears that the owner wishes to remove all the eucalyptus trees on the property through this project. A landscape plan showing species recommendations for replacements must be considered in order to determine if this is appropriate. Page 1 of 3 18940 Monte Vista Drive Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount equal to 100% of the total appraised value the trees to be retained, is required. It is not possible to calculate this required amount based on the information provided. Once a plan clearly showing trees to be removed is provided a bond amount will be calculated. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 91h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS .Design This entire report shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be titled T -1 (Sheet L3.0 is acceptable) Tree Protective Measures. 2. Design project so that oak trees #1 and 22 may be retained by using pervious materials for carport and pathway, and locating footings for wall a minimum of ten feet from the trunk of oak tree #22. 3. Site Plan must clearly indicate all existing trees and show those to be removed. 4. All tree locations must be surveyed. Include tree #28, a coast. live oak that was not included on the Topographic Survey. 5. Landscape plan showing new trees should be separate from site plan showing trees to be removed. 6. Utility.sheet must show undergrounding trenches for power so they can be evaluated for tree impacts: , 7. Design the project so that trenching for irrigation, lighting, drainage or any other aspect of the project remains outside of the drip lines of tree canopies. 8. A grading and drainage plan and a utility plan are needed to assess impacts to trees. Tree Protection Measures 1. - Tree protective fencing shall be shown on the Site Plan` and established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. The exact location of protective fencing will be determined at a later, date. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inch. es into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 2. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond,_ the amount of which shall be determined once all trees can be identified as to whether they will be retained or removed. The bond shall be equal to 100% of the value of retained protected trees. 3. Owner shall replace any tree approved for removal for the project with approved replacement trees. The value of replacement trees shall be equal to the value of trees removed as determined in the tree inventory table attached to this report. This value; shall be spelled out when it is clear which trees will be removed and replaced. Page 2 of 3 18940 Monte Vista Drive 4. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 5. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using shovels. 6. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist or ISA - Certified Tree Worker and according to ISA standards. 7. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the tree's trunks. 8. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachment: . Tree Inventory Table Tree Location Map • 0 Page 3 of 3 TREE INVENTORY TABLE Address: April 27, 2006 18940 Monte Vista Drive u Coast live oak .b II p o o Y b 1 Quercus a ri olia 14 20 50 75 Good R{ N X $6,300 Valley oak 0 ¢ II a 2 Ouercus lobato iQ o c •= o cow O o Good a :? 3 $41,300 Coast live oak i P, U b 3 c e 3 "o 0 c� 4. Wo 4„ W 3 c > 3 Quercus agrifolia 8, 9.5 25 - II II V >, o o 2 3 0 $3,490 TREE Coast live oak II U '0 ° Q- NO. TREE NAME F�: (5 wS x a a > O x �. A c Z c ° a $8;200 Address: April 27, 2006 18940 Monte Vista Drive u Coast live oak 1 Quercus a ri olia 14 20 50 75 Good High 1 X $6,300 Valley oak 2 Ouercus lobato 24 40 75 75 Good High 3 $41,300 Coast live oak 10 3 Quercus agrifolia 8, 9.5 25 - 75 1 25 Good High 2 $3,490 Coast live oak 4 Quercus ag7ifblia 13.5 35 100 75 Good Hi 3 $8;200 Coast live oak 5 Quercus a ri olia 7 10 100 75 Good High 3 $2,300 Coast live oak 11, 11 6 Quercus a ri olia 2.5,13. 40 75 25 Good High 3 $47700 Deodar cedar 7 Cedrus deodara 25.5 40 75 75 Good High 3 $25.100 Deodar cedar 8 Cedrus deodara 24 35 75 75 Good High 3 $22,100 Deodar cedar . 15,11 9 Cedrus deodara 10,8,7 40 75 25 Good High 3 $3,860 Redwood 10 Sequoia sem ervirens 21 30 75 50 Good High 5 $87500 Coast live oak 11 Quercus a rifolia 17 25 75 75 Good Hi 5 $11,100 Camphor 11.5, 9 12 Cinnamomun cam hora 12.5 35 0 0 Poor Low 5 $0 Camphor 13 Cinnamomun cam hora 14 10 0 0 Poor Low 5 $0 Camphor 14 Cinnamomun cam hora 14 15 0 0 Poor Low 5 $0 . Coast live oak 15 Quercus a ri olia 7 12 100 75 Good High 4 $2.310 Coast live oak 10.5, . l6 Quercus a ri olia 12.5 35 25 75 Good High 4 $4.050 Address: April 27, 2006 18940 Monte Vista Drive u 4 TREE INVENTORY TABLE Address: 18940 Monte Vista Drive April 2.7, 2006 Coast live oak o 0 17 Quercus agrifolza 15 25 50 25 Good High 4 $4,350 Coast live oak 18 Quercus ggrifolia 11 20 75 75 0 High it X Ca $4,730 Coast live oak o` aani c a 00 19 Quercus ag7ifolia 11.5 35 O u u U j✓+ O o g O 'O Birch cc TREE Betula endula -00 15 o o Fair � x U. $1,310 NO. TREE NAME HC7 `� �« w Q � �.c 0) v�.o > O v� x a �... "' .ECn o z o as ci ¢ Address: 18940 Monte Vista Drive April 2.7, 2006 Coast live oak 17 Quercus agrifolza 15 25 50 25 Good High 4 $4,350 Coast live oak 18 Quercus ggrifolia 11 20 75 75 Good. High 1 X $4,730 Coast live oak 19 Quercus ag7ifolia 11.5 35 75 75 Good High 3 $5,200 Birch 20 Betula endula 10 15 25 25 Fair Moderate 4 $1,310 Coast live oak 21 Quercus agrifolia 18.5 40 100 75 Good High 3 $15,360 Black oak 22 Quercus kello ii 18 40 75 75 Good High 1 X . $17,500. Eucalyptus 23 Eucalyptus globulus 24 20 75 75 Good High 1 X $13,300 Monterey pine 24 Pinus radiata 15 25 50 25 Fair Moderate 4 $880 Monterey pine 25 Pinus radiata 15.5 25 25 50 Fair Moderate 4 $940 Eucalyptus 26 Eucalyptus globulus 80 40 75 25 Good Moderate 3 $45,000 Eucalyptus 27 Eucalyptus -Iobulus 40 35 25 25 Good Moderate 3 $11,200 Coast live oak 28 Quercus agrifolia 8 15 75 75 Good Moderate 3 X $2,560 Monterey pine 29 Pinus radiata 24 35 10 10 Poor Low 3 X $1,780 Redwood 30 Sequoia sem ervirens 13 15 100 1 75 Good High 3 $6,200 Monterey pine 31 Pinus radiata 34 50 75 75 Good Moderate 4 a $26,600 1 Eucalyptus 18, 1 I 32 Eucalyptus globulus 1 29 25 75 25 Good ModerateJ 3 1 $4,300 Address: 18940 Monte Vista Drive April 2.7, 2006 TREE INVENTORY TABLE J • Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be "removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. • Address: April 27, 2006 1 8940 Monte Vista Drive Eucalyptus 12, Co 33 ' Eucalyptus globulus 16 15 75 25 Good Moderate 3 Co Q- '- $1,330 Eucalyptus 0. ti o 34 Eucal. tus globulus a o o oo ° CU �u kn a fu a a� U ti 3 c 3 ;° ° i 0" 0 ¢ p, v o u �I U �o o 4 3 c TREE '' b ,-. we N Eo M = °D 1 a c U C6 w U NO. TREE NAME C7 w x .o En .0 > O �n x °= a :. v S A o z o .°a a` 0. ¢ • Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be "removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. • Address: April 27, 2006 1 8940 Monte Vista Drive Eucalyptus 12, 33 ' Eucalyptus globulus 16 15 75 25 Good Moderate 3 $1,330 Eucalyptus 34 Eucal. tus globulus 52 40 75 25 Good Moderate 3 $10,460 • Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be "removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. • Address: April 27, 2006 1 8940 Monte Vista Drive 18940 Monte sia D f " c 49 Mepe,3 and 514 and f3lbot ride eeaa and sar+dary esrerper 0 Attachment 5 • _-Il BRIA N November, 2006 DAVID City of Saratoga P E T E RUB J 13777 Fruityale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 n I n NOV 0 7 2006 Attention: CITY OF SARATOGA L,ata Vasudevan r^alINITUnF�M'r� Re: Kriens Residence — Design Review comments 18940 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 l.,ata Vasudevan, Attached with this summary letter are two wet signed sets of the revised drawings incorporating: General Comments: 1: There are several reasons we felt it was appropriate to remove trees #1 and tree 422. a. Tree #1 is at the top of an existing retaining wall that is proposed to be removed. Manipulation of the grade above the wall or below the wall would be harmful to the tree. Additionally, the tree is in the middle of what is proposed to be the autocourt which will need to be a flat area. b. Tree #22 is located within a proposed building footprint. The building can not be moved to the East because it is already up against the setback. If the building were moved to the middle of the site, it would be sited awkwardly. Additionally, if the building was to be moved more towards the center of the site, the driveway would need to be lengthened and there is not enough impervious surface available to do this as the proposed coverage is already at 34.8 %. Tree #22 is at the edge of a larger tree mass, and its removal will not create a void in the overall tree canopy of the site. c. There are 34 trees considered in the ALrborist's Report. Of these 34 trees, we are proposing removal of only two, or just 6% of the total. Of the 34, I O:are in the allowed building envelope. The 8 remaining trees are being maintained and respected. The 2 trees proposed to be removed are at the inner most portion of the -site and building envelope. The remaining 32 trees will continue to provide this same level of screening and privacy on and off site. . d. The two removed trees will be replaced with the approved quantity of replacement trees as required in the Arborist's Report. Many of the replacement trees are proposed to be installed at the perimeter of the site to provide privacy for both the Owners and neighbors. Also one of the proposed replacement trees is a 48" box specimen tree to be installed in the autocourt. 7 4 7 Te m e s c a 1 Way Redwood City. Ca. 94062 6 5 0 - 3 6 6 • 5 1 2 0 e. Sitting of all the proposed buildings on the property has been done with 11. No comment. Fire Department Comments: I . No comment. 2. The portion of the private driveway along the east property lines has been widened from the existing 14.5' wide asphalt to 16' wide asphalt. The dimension is indicated on the plan. None of the existing or proposed drives exceeds 15 %. Additionally, subsequent conversation with the Fire Official took place after issuance of the comment. An approved "tee" turnaround has been accommodated on the plans. The required dimensions and limits are indicated at the upper driveway.. careful consideration for existing trees. The Workout / Home Theater is situated up slope from what the Owners refer to as "the forest" and is even oriented to take advantage of onsite views of the existing trees. The autocourt has been refined and manipulated during the design to accommodate trees #4 and #5 without any disruption to them. The Resid. has been shaped and oriented not only to fit against the setbacks, but also to respect the adjacent tree massing. The location of and the grading for the upper driveway are based on the preservation of tree #2. No grading is necessary within dripline of the tree and the only additional paving is what is required by the Fire Department. 2. For re- labeled Guest House to Residence see Site Plan Sheet A2, Floor Plan Sheet A] 8, Roof Plan Sheet A] 9 and Elevations Sheet A20. 3. For revised egress area from Home Theater Basement see Site plan Sheet A2 and Floor Plan Sheet A] 2. 4. For grades and building heights see new Table on Cover Sheet Al and height diagrams for all the Structures on new Sheet A2.2. 5. References to height diagrams on new Sheet 2.2 have been added to all sheets of Building Elevations. 6. As a part of this submittal we are applying for a Use Permit as previously discussed with Lata Vasudevan for the Study / Garage Building. It will be the only structure on site which will exceed the maximum accessory height of 15'-0" (but less than 18' -0 "). Therefore, even though this building is not the Residence, it will still provide site massing consistent with any other typical Residential lot. 7. For specified fireplaces see Floor Plans Sheet A5 and A18. 8. Sheet C1.2 has been modified to indicate the separate earthwork quantities. 9. For Area Diagrams see Sheet A2.1 — reference has been added to each Building Floor Plan sheet for new Sheet A2.1. 10. The Owner is currently showing the drawings to the neighbors. The letters will be submitted within two weeks. 11. No comment. Fire Department Comments: I . No comment. 2. The portion of the private driveway along the east property lines has been widened from the existing 14.5' wide asphalt to 16' wide asphalt. The dimension is indicated on the plan. None of the existing or proposed drives exceeds 15 %. Additionally, subsequent conversation with the Fire Official took place after issuance of the comment. An approved "tee" turnaround has been accommodated on the plans. The required dimensions and limits are indicated at the upper driveway.. 3.. Plans have been revised to indicate both seats of gates will provide a minimum of 16' clear access space when open. 4. The Building Department has reviewed the condition and determined that there is no provision in the state or local codes that prohibit a vaulted ceiling in the garage. Please see attached annotated response and stamp from Saratoga Building Department. 5. Plans have been revised to indicate street numbers on the columns at the Top of the site Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or need further clarifications, Very truly yours, V Brian Peters, AIA • • 10/13/2006 15:27 6507267677 WT-13-EM 15:10 From:CITY c V*nxm KIKUCHI AND ASSOC PAGE 06 4OW 7BSSS 7 '165ME576677 P,5/5 FIRE DEPARTMENT SAM. A CLA" COUrM 1470 yltmdow MW.. Los G*s, CA 95032.1818 WO'M 4010 • {opt 37&Wa OW • yw .%%fd aq MaW t1�rEw wUwee 00 2466 DEVELOPMOff . VIEW CENTS Pu 07 -101 CMG 16- 15.070 UPC 9,,44 • lv ad d An appWC i, nub tk fife sprinkler stlox�ai pine be�*m Associ ndard # T} and loyal ruvided for the P ag—. a . surge proper x bi w►ri*B tt hd� W ��' mss* drawinse capane > this rcq ' x►ew App numbers ox raddr +� MU be placed cm► all b PmWoat as to be plainly visible �d lVbl+e ackgro%*a: ' PMT. Numberrs shall cc ntmst with their �_ff E313 ©CEO tAM 9>rK gr.Q Wf ,^ -ii 1p.0-✓ aly G�r�,• f, V/hk F:KIAiV VAYII:f pFsTERS AM 9/29/x; 2 Y%sidmul iaev'el4jI meat Ruc w i£yan ]894b tea: V,ig� Qr anianxl as the Santa Clara Caws Csntial firs Pro�Prl;Rm D�trict L�:i4fr r j CWWM �lr Oct 20 06 06:43p Scott & Joanie 4083996186 p.1 irwipr iiikYuIxr? 1956 Aileen Kao Kathleen King Norman Kiine Nick Stre Ann WaltonsmRh October 13, 2006 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Scott and Joanie Kriens 18940 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 18940 Monte. Vista Dr.; -Application No. 07 -101 — Administrative Design Review Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kriens: This letter is a follow -up to your planning application submittal of September 14, 2006. The Planning Department has reviewed your application and found that there are some issues that must be addressed: At this time your application is incomplete. Prior to continuing the processing of your application, the information indicated on the following fst.musi be provided. It is always difficult to identify all issues at this stage of your application, and there maybe additional information requested by the Planning Department during the review process, 1. I see that the City Arborist has reviewed your conceptual proposal and has recommended the retention of trees #1 acid #22. Is there a specific reason why the plans can not be revised to preserve these two trees per the City Arborist's recommendations? 2. Please re =label the guest house to simply say "residence" to establish the primary use of - the lot ... and ' the fact that the other proposed structures are accessory to this main structure. 3. _ 'Ensure that no lightwells — such as the egress area from the home theater — are greater than 4 feet in interior width. The egress area from the home theater shall be reduced mi width to no more than 4 feet. 4.- Pursuant to City.Code Sectionl5- 12.100(b), the height of accessory structures cannot exceed 15 feet in height, and can be a maximum 20 feet in height subject to the granting of a Use Permit. On the cover sheet, please state the height for each proposed building in tabular form in terms of i. Lowest existing elevation pt at building's edge. ii. Highest existing elevation pt. at building's edge. iii. Average elevation.pt. of i and ii. iv. Top most elevation point of structure. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARA,rOGA, CALIFORNIA 9507-3 Aileen Kao Kathleen King Norman Kiine Nick Stre Ann WaltonsmRh October 13, 2006 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Scott and Joanie Kriens 18940 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 18940 Monte. Vista Dr.; -Application No. 07 -101 — Administrative Design Review Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kriens: This letter is a follow -up to your planning application submittal of September 14, 2006. The Planning Department has reviewed your application and found that there are some issues that must be addressed: At this time your application is incomplete. Prior to continuing the processing of your application, the information indicated on the following fst.musi be provided. It is always difficult to identify all issues at this stage of your application, and there maybe additional information requested by the Planning Department during the review process, 1. I see that the City Arborist has reviewed your conceptual proposal and has recommended the retention of trees #1 acid #22. Is there a specific reason why the plans can not be revised to preserve these two trees per the City Arborist's recommendations? 2. Please re =label the guest house to simply say "residence" to establish the primary use of - the lot ... and ' the fact that the other proposed structures are accessory to this main structure. 3. _ 'Ensure that no lightwells — such as the egress area from the home theater — are greater than 4 feet in interior width. The egress area from the home theater shall be reduced mi width to no more than 4 feet. 4.- Pursuant to City.Code Sectionl5- 12.100(b), the height of accessory structures cannot exceed 15 feet in height, and can be a maximum 20 feet in height subject to the granting of a Use Permit. On the cover sheet, please state the height for each proposed building in tabular form in terms of i. Lowest existing elevation pt at building's edge. ii. Highest existing elevation pt. at building's edge. iii. Average elevation.pt. of i and ii. iv. Top most elevation point of structure. Oct 20,06 06:43p Scott & Joanie 4083996186 p.2 5. On all of your elevation drawings, please show the height in reference to the average of the highest and lowest point at each building's edge as discussed in item #4 above. 6. In terms of height, please ensure that the study / garage structure is no higher than 15 feet (or 20 feet subject to Use Permit approval). 7. Specify which fireplaces are gas and which ones are wood- burning. City Code 15- 48.030 specifies the limitations of wood - burning fireplaces. 8. On the table on sheet C1.2, please separately specify the earthwork quantities for the basements that are under the workout and residence structures. You should also separately specify the earthwork quantities for the study /garage structure which is not a basement pursuant to the City zoning regulations. 9. Please. provide a small- scaled schematic diagram of the floor plan to indicate the areas that were used to determine total floor area. Bear in mind that any area enclosed by three or more walls and a solid roof counts towards floor area_ 10. Please show the plans to surrounding neighbors and have them fill out the neighbor review form that was provided to you. 11. Staff will require that story poles or at the very least staking of the ground occur a minimum of 4 weeks prior to the public hearing (not yet scheduled). Please prepare a written response addressing each item above to accompany your resubmitted materials and exhibits. I look forward to working with you on your planning application. I understand that geotechnical review comments will be forwarded to you shortly. I am attaching the fire department comments for your review. Should you have any further questions regarding your project, please contact me at 408 -868 -1235. Please re- submit 2 sets of plans. These drawings are not needed at the planning review stage. The Municipal Code is online at www.saratoga.ca.us. Regards, Lata Vasudevan, AJCP Senior Planner Fire Dept. comments • Oct 20 06 06:43p Scott, & Joanie 4083996186 FIRE DEPARTMENT a F SANTA CLARA COUNTY RE `� 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032 -1818 (4081 378 -4010 • (408) 378 -9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org CO ATFSY+SC*VKM DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC UFC AppendLy [1I A l fi�C 9022.4. U^rC 902?.4.1 SHEET I NO.I REOUIREME I" p.3 PLAN REv1EW NUMBER 0 6 2466 BLDG PERWT NUMBER FILE NUMBER 0 7 - 10 Review of site plan for aproposed new 380 square foot home office, a 487 square foot study with a 2669 square foot garage, mechanical and wine tasting use below, a 575 square foot -workout room with a home theater below, an 899 square foot guest house and a 1320 square foot detached garage. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing; any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. • I 1 Required Tire Flow: The fire flow. for this project is 1750 gpm at 20 psi residual (pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. '-. 1Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a nummum unobstructed width of 14 feetpaved/2 ' feet unpaved, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, and a maximum slope of 15 %. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D -1. Revise drawings to show a driveway width of 16 feet at both driveway approaches. 3• Ernergeno Gate /Access Gate Requirements. Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G -1 and, when open shall not obstruct any- portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to i installation. Revise gates to show 16 feet of clear width in the open position. STG ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 _ SECJFLOOR I�AREA LOAD NAME OF PROJECT SFR BRIAN DAVID PETERS AIA Residential Development 18940 Monte Vista Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Sonic Clara County and the communities of Urnpbeli, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan HIR, and Saratoga DATE PAGE 9/29/2006 1 OF 2 IV _Rucker, Ryan a Oct 20 06 06A4p Scott & Joanie 4083996186 p.4 i GLA t? oG� FIRE Cnnarecr + scnvM FIDE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032 -1818 (4081 378 -4010 • (408) 378 -9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT :StiiC 16- 15.070 L' FC 901.4.4 • PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 4 6 2 4 6 6 BLDG PERMR NUMBER FlLE NUMBER 07-101 4. ' Garage Fire SRrinkler System Require An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. Revise drawings j in writing to reflect compliance with this requirement. s. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. I i I I I City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS I OCCUPANCY CONST''PE AppllcaMNwre I DATE PAGE STG ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 BRIAN DAVID PETERS AIA 9/29/2006 2 of 2 SECJFLOOH AREA ILOAD IDEscsiv oN By NAME OF PROJECT SFR Residential Development 18940 Monte Vista Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the wrnmunities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos. Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos, Monte Serino, Morgan H01, and Saratoga Rucker, Ryan Attachment 6 'i • PROJECT DATA: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION 397 - 06-027 ADDRESS OF PROJECT: ITEM EXISTING ((O BE REMOVED) PRPOSED BUILDINGS (FOOTPRINTS) 3,797 SF 478 WORKOUT 480 _ 575 SF STUDY /GARAGEIHOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2,669 SF WINEMAKING AGE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE: APPROX. 45 YEARS OLD HOME OFFICE 8.2 381 SF ,GARAGE (PER SURVEY 82.06) 1,320 SF RESIDENCE 1266 AC = 56,1318 SF 899 SF TOTAL: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPEEVIOUS 5,844 SF BUILDING LIGHT WELLS 0 SF 94 SF CARPORT 0 SF 421 SF UPPER AUTOCOURT AND DRIVE 0 SF - 5,098 SF LOWER AUTOCOURT AND DRIVE 5,312 SF 2,573 SF SPORT COURT 4,841 SF 0 SF POOL 673 SF D SF PAVING, STEPS AND PATIOS 3,499 SF 2,987 SF D.G. / GRAVEL 709 SF 961 SF < BOCCE BALL COURT 0 SF 1,529 SF FOUNTAINS ---O -SF 52 SF TOTALS: 18,831 SF 19,559 SF RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN (33.696) (34.s %) /) �0 ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA CALCULATION, NET LOT AREA: 57,000 SF (ROUND FRACTIONAL PORTION UPWARDS) 6,000 SF + 20 SF FOR EACH 1,000SF ABOVE 40,000 Sr 6,000 SF + (20 SF x 17) = 6,340 SF ALLOWABLE Kri*e.ns Residence 18940 Monte Vista Dr., Saratoga California ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 397 - 06-027 ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 16490 MONTE VISTA DRIVE 474 SARSTOGA,CA95070 OWNERS NAME: SCOTT & JOANIE KRIENS 478 18974 MONTE VISTA DRIVE 480 _ SARATOGA,CA95070 EXISTING USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: R1 -40,000 AGE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE: APPROX. 45 YEARS OLD LOT SIZE: 8.2 GROSS LOT AREA: 1.440 AC - 62,726 SF (PER SURVEY 82.06) 6.9 NET LOT AREA: 1266 AC = 56,1318 SF (PER SURVEY 82.06) 3.8 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPEEVIOUS 0.8 SURFACE: 19,606 SF (35% OF NET LOT AREA) 126.0" AVERAGE SLOPE CALCULATION: AVERAGE SLOPE CALCULATION FOR 18940 MONTE VISTA DRIVE, SARATOGA CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE A. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (M) CONTOUR LENGTH (INCHES) 472 0 474 8.8 476 21.0 478 17.0 480 _ 16.2 482 11.3 464 10.0 486 9.2 488 8.2 490 .7.3 492 6.9 494 5.5 496 3.8 498 0.8 500 0 TOTAL 126.0" BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY ARCHITECTURAL Al COVER SHEET ITEM EXISTING (TO BE REMOVED) PRPOSED T1 EXISTING RESIDENCE 3,797 SF LANDSCAPE PLAN C0.1 HOME OFFICE 0 SF 381 SF C1.2 STUDY 0 SF 487 SF C2.2 OPEN DINING TERRACE 0 SF 0 SF C2.4 WORKOUT ROOM 0 SF 575 SF A2.1 HOME THEATER BASEMENT 0 SF 0 SF A3 GARAGE (BELOW STUDY) 0 SF 1,892 SF AS GARAGE POWDER ROOM / MECHANICAL 0 SF 117 SF A7 HOME WINEMAKING 0 SF 610 SF A9 WINEMAKING STORAGE (UNDER STAIRS) 0 SF 50 SF All DETACHED GARAGE 0 SF 1,320 SF A13 RESIDENCE HOUSE 0 SF 899 SF A15 RESIDENCE HOUSE BASEMENT 0 SF 0 SF A17 TOTALS: 3,797 SF 6,331 SF VERSUS 6,340 ALLOWED A19 RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN A20 RESIDENCE ELEVATIONS / SECTION NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.1 FOR BUILDING AREA DIAGRAMS 2 S' ->mA rr SARATOGA FORMULA A0229 (2) MIS) 9.233 ' 7 18% AVERAGE SLOPE 1286 AC NET 1.286 DRAWING INDEX ARCHITECTURAL Al COVER SHEET SP1 SITE SURVEY T1 TREE PROTECTIVE MEASURE L7 LANDSCAPE PLAN C0.1 NOTES CIA GRADING PLAN C1.2 GRADING SECTIONS AND VOLUMES C2.1 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS C2.2 DRAINAGE PLAN C2.3 DRAINAGE DETAILS C2.4 MANUFACTURERS DETAILS A2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A2.1 AREA DIAGRAMS ' . ©A2.2 AVERAGE HEIGHT DIAGRAMS A3 HOME OFFICE' FLOOR PLAN A4 HOME OFFICE ELEVATIONS / SECTION AS STUDY / TERRACE FLOOR PLAN AS GARAGE LEVEL PLAN A7 STUDY /TERRACE ROOF PLAN A8 STUDY / TERRACE ELEVATIONS A9 STUDY /TERRACE SECTIONS A10 STUDY /TERRACE SECTIONS All STUDY /TERRACE SECTIONS Al2 WORKOUT FLOOR PLANS A13 WORKOUT ROOF PLAN A14 WORKOUT ELEVATIONS / SECTION A15 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN A16 GARAGE ROOF PLAN A17 GARAGE ELEVATIONS/ SECTION A)8 RESIDENCEPLANS A19 RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN A20 RESIDENCE ELEVATIONS / SECTION c0�� PROJECT DIRECTORY ARCHITECT BRIAN PETERS, AIA MAR 2 12007 747 TEMESCAL WAY BRIAN up AT COMMUNITY ®8Vra.OpM DAVID PETERS 650.366.5120 PHONE A I A I 650.368.5312 FAX 747Temeecel We R.W. 0 rAy, Ce "M 660- 360 -6120 PROJECT INFORMATION WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH: 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (1997 UBC) 2004 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (2002 NEC) 2001 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (2000 UPC) 2001 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (2000 UMC) 2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING REGULATIONS VICINITY MAP Q WZ U° J W< 0 0 c�r/� VJ Q NW L.L � Vl F z� W� Z O Y o 9.2006 etas BRAWN Al eKa�3 PROJECT DIRECTORY ARCHITECT BRIAN PETERS, AIA 747 TEMESCAL WAY REDWOOD CITY, CA 94062 650.366.5120 PHONE I 650.368.5312 FAX LANDSCAPE KIKUCHI &ASSOCIATES 730 MILL ST. • HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 650.726.7100 PHONE 650.726.7677 FAX GEOTECHNICAL BARRY MILSTONE. MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL 17020 MELODY LANE - LOS GATOS, CA 95033 408.353.5528.PHONE - 408.353.9690 FAX CIVIL QUILICI ENGINEERS INC. • 30 UNION AVE. SUITE 200 CAMPBELL, CA 95088 408.583.0323 PHONE 408.583.0329 PROJECT INFORMATION WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH: 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (1997 UBC) 2004 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (2002 NEC) 2001 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (2000 UPC) 2001 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (2000 UMC) 2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING REGULATIONS VICINITY MAP Q WZ U° J W< 0 0 c�r/� VJ Q NW L.L � Vl F z� W� Z O Y o 9.2006 etas BRAWN Al eKa�3 , .0 • pl y depicted gmpiticelty in theirapproximale positions only. existing house and garage were measured at theiroutside wood trim orstucxo fadng, not at foundations / — "' ' 4 4). Boundaries shown am taken directly from the Record of Survey by Park L Vanw,, recorded April 29,1953 in Book 43 of Maps at Page 13, Santa Clara County Records. TMs 1s not a boundarystovey map. Them may be easements — r4! ' ! it p a. ry affecting this parcel that am not shown upon this Map. The easements that am shown am lmm pubic records. ANY / � `>oa,� ` f' ° °L and complete boundary survey could produce fines in sligWahemete positions than that depicted on this drawing. The S gross area of this panel (taken from 43 Maps 13) is 1.44 Acres +A, and the net area of this parcel is 1.286 Acres + / -. r�4jtgr / r FiDpasd r�3 �' 5). The final product delivered to owners Scott and Joan Krierls were s gnedbond pants An elaetronic CAD vers on of this M uklb 'd d t rchitect B ' Pet st ch dkfitions d to dd � aPoo a prow e o a pair ers upon reque . My anges, rewmons ors rm /r ; \ \ r Monte rate Dr" right d wdv Map without the consent and approval ofJetfmy M Bamea, PLS, is not the responsi6 Uty of Jeffrey M. Bamea, as the (tV / / ' 47404 \ D shown per 151 Nep3 7 -9 owners have agreed to in wrung. 2� iv / aa4c O' J / I O erg oa+ O tp / Af so o4'tr �. a44e SSe1HQ 11 5ar Prom 49304 M �I LU C6 M II I z cow trees. Q II j� �� p ���E Ic a �e 611 ¢affi�a I � $ a @ 401oot non-exc6rsive Rphf of W b par 43 Maps 13 and 544 Meps 14/15 rem P / re w. I /I / � roar Goat COW / '4sAherr f2ght�Wpa 15656466 // �'� // �� `\ 381ie1 hhmlherdeBd, end show aril 43MepS13end544Meps7475 ,o / antl5raat Rddeeasementforwater and saniteryseaerper5" Maps f4M5 @ o C' F / / 1 O # / \ � o,k 0 78o y � � *rat 1! // Non6xduaWe 157oot Rate ` / irQN -71=14.115 it se r RQhtof*erpftr43M8XI IT 040 9•&rG O 6�� C Q 3 N &.0 44! / WEB 4949 _e .dl. �1 / �`r ° 74• �✓ � ,. 4q O Trte yFier Mtlabs oar Garage at aria s aoz'ms. atft o px� I Monntje� pritrouse *>� 4972 �at�4� a Petro i°ako b \ Centedineof20foot Right of Way shown per43 Maps 13 and 836 Maps 42143 LEGEND �O 01- *�@ Tree, as noted. EP Edge of pavement. Co C) 475&475.0 Spot elevation. t � F2 Channel or valley gutter flow fine. MConc. Concrete. SSMH Sanitary sewer manhole. SSCO Sanitary sewerdeamwt. —'— Fence fine, as noted. Top /Toe Top of bank / Toe of slope. TW/BW Top /Baseofwa8. W.M. Watermeter. W. V. Water valve. GB Grade break. w�mrw�p' ' RBUdwal Rrx O m� r9 clrauea� � 479. p� t I$d 4600' v 47697 12-1k; �6 5PP Brit 48103 n 95 �= w.� .6 are m,2 k 3 " "'�° 4ra9� APN: 397 -08 -100 Ne'o4g0'W 33D.IT J APN: 397 -08 -26 Lot) �P -_j K D ` J`� Ur_ 97004 . .. Ucense exp6eS 1231.06 Revised WAM Add r Oak neaartennis court ��N NOTES 1 15' 15' 1). This Topographic Survey Map was prepared from a ground survey donut by Jeffrey M. Bamea, PLS in July, 20M _ _ _ ��M EP elevefions and contours shown from an assumed benchmark estabUShed upon an I ey FP benchmark note below). s ss yl'�O/ yTE o o a. 3). Unless noted otherwise, fees shown were located at the ground and trunk diameters measured at 4.5' above ground. s s were not measured at Ume otsunre , and are de y. T aPoo a prow e o a pair ers upon reque . My anges, rewmons ors rm /r ; \ \ r Monte rate Dr" right d wdv Map without the consent and approval ofJetfmy M Bamea, PLS, is not the responsi6 Uty of Jeffrey M. Bamea, as the (tV / / ' 47404 \ D shown per 151 Nep3 7 -9 owners have agreed to in wrung. 2� iv / aa4c O' J / I O erg oa+ O tp / Af so o4'tr �. a44e SSe1HQ 11 5ar Prom 49304 M �I LU C6 M II I z cow trees. Q II j� �� p ���E Ic a �e 611 ¢affi�a I � $ a @ 401oot non-exc6rsive Rphf of W b par 43 Maps 13 and 544 Meps 14/15 rem P / re w. I /I / � roar Goat COW / '4sAherr f2ght�Wpa 15656466 // �'� // �� `\ 381ie1 hhmlherdeBd, end show aril 43MepS13end544Meps7475 ,o / antl5raat Rddeeasementforwater and saniteryseaerper5" Maps f4M5 @ o C' F / / 1 O # / \ � o,k 0 78o y � � *rat 1! // Non6xduaWe 157oot Rate ` / irQN -71=14.115 it se r RQhtof*erpftr43M8XI IT 040 9•&rG O 6�� C Q 3 N &.0 44! / WEB 4949 _e .dl. �1 / �`r ° 74• �✓ � ,. 4q O Trte yFier Mtlabs oar Garage at aria s aoz'ms. atft o px� I Monntje� pritrouse *>� 4972 �at�4� a Petro i°ako b \ Centedineof20foot Right of Way shown per43 Maps 13 and 836 Maps 42143 LEGEND �O 01- *�@ Tree, as noted. EP Edge of pavement. Co C) 475&475.0 Spot elevation. t � F2 Channel or valley gutter flow fine. MConc. Concrete. SSMH Sanitary sewer manhole. SSCO Sanitary sewerdeamwt. —'— Fence fine, as noted. Top /Toe Top of bank / Toe of slope. TW/BW Top /Baseofwa8. W.M. Watermeter. W. V. Water valve. GB Grade break. w�mrw�p' ' RBUdwal Rrx O m� r9 clrauea� � 479. p� t I$d 4600' v 47697 12-1k; �6 5PP Brit 48103 n 95 �= w.� .6 are m,2 k 3 " "'�° 4ra9� APN: 397 -08 -100 Ne'o4g0'W 33D.IT J APN: 397 -08 -26 Lot) �P -_j K D ` J`� Ur_ 97004 . .. Ucense exp6eS 1231.06 Revised WAM Add r Oak neaartennis court ��N P / re w. I /I / � roar Goat COW / '4sAherr f2ght�Wpa 15656466 // �'� // �� `\ 381ie1 hhmlherdeBd, end show aril 43MepS13end544Meps7475 ,o / antl5raat Rddeeasementforwater and saniteryseaerper5" Maps f4M5 @ o C' F / / 1 O # / \ � o,k 0 78o y � � *rat 1! // Non6xduaWe 157oot Rate ` / irQN -71=14.115 it se r RQhtof*erpftr43M8XI IT 040 9•&rG O 6�� C Q 3 N &.0 44! / WEB 4949 _e .dl. �1 / �`r ° 74• �✓ � ,. 4q O Trte yFier Mtlabs oar Garage at aria s aoz'ms. atft o px� I Monntje� pritrouse *>� 4972 �at�4� a Petro i°ako b \ Centedineof20foot Right of Way shown per43 Maps 13 and 836 Maps 42143 LEGEND �O 01- *�@ Tree, as noted. EP Edge of pavement. Co C) 475&475.0 Spot elevation. t � F2 Channel or valley gutter flow fine. MConc. Concrete. SSMH Sanitary sewer manhole. SSCO Sanitary sewerdeamwt. —'— Fence fine, as noted. Top /Toe Top of bank / Toe of slope. TW/BW Top /Baseofwa8. W.M. Watermeter. W. V. Water valve. GB Grade break. w�mrw�p' ' RBUdwal Rrx O m� r9 clrauea� � 479. p� t I$d 4600' v 47697 12-1k; �6 5PP Brit 48103 n 95 �= w.� .6 are m,2 k 3 " "'�° 4ra9� APN: 397 -08 -100 Ne'o4g0'W 33D.IT J APN: 397 -08 -26 Lot) �P -_j K D ` J`� Ur_ 97004 . .. Ucense exp6eS 1231.06 Revised WAM Add r Oak neaartennis court ��N w�mrw�p' ' RBUdwal Rrx O m� r9 clrauea� � 479. p� t I$d 4600' v 47697 12-1k; �6 5PP Brit 48103 n 95 �= w.� .6 are m,2 k 3 " "'�° 4ra9� APN: 397 -08 -100 Ne'o4g0'W 33D.IT J APN: 397 -08 -26 Lot) �P -_j K D ` J`� Ur_ 97004 . .. Ucense exp6eS 1231.06 Revised WAM Add r Oak neaartennis court ��N • 5 U • 1n • TREE REPLACEMENT r-WART TREES TO BE REMOVED TREE 6 SIZE I SPEUES VpLLE 1 14'0 ammus aergoila (Coast Live OaW P16L4 Y'61EgtE OLCLR5. 66,%300 12 52'6 Cnnamomumm ca Can Tree) I P841EASLE PAVERS ON j sum SASE 60 15 14' 0 momu Chnamm cam (C Qmpnw Tree 60 14 12'6 Cnnamomumm 5.,emehara Tree U $0 22 6 Overcus I II Ca1lPornW Black Oa _••.t . ;� s17$00 o DR LEAN 9/4'6 CAIN ROCK TOTAL !23900 REPLACEMENT TREES6 4.0 SDR SS PERFORATED 1216 FIER eb'-o" or- PPE NI! HOLES IP a V-0" ary SIZE UiIT VALUE TOTAL VALUE I 45' box m q $5.2m 13 15b.boxwepproyed I 61$00 PK 00 TOTAL I $24900 - — LHMJ:%LAPC PIA91CR PLANE SHEET LI, FOR REPLALEF,BIT TIME LOGA n0N 5 TREE REPLACEMENT LEGEND ® EXISTING. TREE TO REMAIN x5ASTIN6 TREE TO BE REMOVED - - - -- TREE PROTECTION FENCINS, 6' H164 CHAN LINK FE rIN5 MOLINTBJ ON 8' -0' TALL, 2.0 6ALVANIZED POSTS, DRIVEN 24" INTO ne 6ROU1•V AND SPACED NO MORE THAN 100' O.C. ONCE ESTABLISHED, THE FENON6 MUST REMAIN UNDISTURBED AND BE MNTAINED THR0U6HOU1 THE =NSTRWIMCIN PROCESS UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION. Y 'TR- -g EXISTING M-MI IOU5 SERFAGE TO 1� REMOVED A?!D REMAIN AS � °�,.. "S PLANTING AREA INDICATE$ TREE ROOT AERATION ZONE e n NOTES • SEE LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN, SHOT U, FOR COMPLETE DE9CRIPnON OF ALL SITE ELENENTS. • AM 517E PLAN, %EET A2 FOR COMPLETE DESOPoPTION of ALL SITE STRZTURM • ALL TREE INFORMATION ON PLAN IS AS DOCI14ENTED IN C11Y OF SARATOSA ARBORIST REPORT DATED APRIL 21, 2006. APPUCATIOI4 606 -512 • UNLE55 OTHERWSE APPROVED, ALL CON51R1K,nON AC.TPVITIES MUST Be CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE DE516NATED FENCED AREA (EVEN AFTER FENG145 15 REMOVED). THE$ ACTIVITIES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT IMCE55ARU-Y LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOMMG DEMOLITION, 6RADIN6, TRENCHING, EOUIPNEM CLEANIN S, 5TOCKPILI1,16 AND WNPIN& (INCLUDINS SOIL FILL), AND 50JFMENfNENICLE OPERATIOM AND PARK 4s. • ANY APPROVED 6RADINI6 BENEATH TIE TREES' CANOPIES SHALL BE PB IVIO-ED LeN9 %HOVELS. • ANY PRLNIN6 OF TREES ON SITE M15T BE PERPORtS77 OVER THE 511PERVI510N OF AN 15A CERTIFIED AREORIST OR ISA CERTIFIED TREE WORKER AND Be A"4 a TO ISA STANDARDS. `y ` 1 • THE DISPOSAL OF HARMFUL PR0DUCT5 (SUCH AS C EWALS, �"- OIL AND 6ASOLINE) 15 PROHIBITED BENEATH TREE CANOPIES OR ANYWHERE ON 517E THAT ALLOWS DRANA6E BENEATH TREE CANOPIES. ADDITIONALLY, FUEL SHALL NOT BE STORED NOR SHALL ANY REFUELING. OR MAINTENANCE OF WAPHENT OCCUR "THIN 20 FEET OF TREE 1RILMS. • HERBIOIDES SHALL NOT BE APPLIED BENEATH n•e TREE CANOPIES. WHERE 1,15ED ON SITE, THEY MUST BE LABELED FOR SAFE USE NEAR TREES. I c I 1 W) �� I _.' '- LU ---,I MoN� i Landscape Architecture Site Planning 730 Mill Street Half Moon Day, CA 94019 (650) 726 -7100 Fox (650) 726 -7677 www. kikuchiandcoociotescom DESIGN REVIEW rA4 ILAi`!CE 18940 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 APN 397 -08 -027 A IAq /OT Revisions:Q1 1AI 106 ' Date: q/14106 Drawn By: TWC, CPK Checked: Scale: 1/16" - 1' -0" TREE PROTECTIVE MEASURES Sheet No. T1 Of coNCRETE arse 4 OE t . MW He 04 REfl4R I 17" O.C. 2 BORN KA1' R VE2TICVAt REBA MA I MO PIPE 4 FILTER FABRIC TO P16L4 Y'61EgtE OLCLR5. TO OF i CA OVE -�2 I ��---• P841EASLE PAVERS ON j sum SASE FILTM FABRIC W14, m- UNID1511Aie® 6RAOE - I T. _••.t . ;� CLA55 U BASEROCK o DR LEAN 9/4'6 CAIN ROCK •L" ( 4.0 SDR SS PERFORATED 1216 FIER eb'-o" or- PPE NI! HOLES IP a V-0" NAND DIG. ALL PIER4 OL. MAX ® TREE ROOT AERATION DETAIL SCALE: 3/4" = I' -O" I c I 1 W) �� I _.' '- LU ---,I MoN� i Landscape Architecture Site Planning 730 Mill Street Half Moon Day, CA 94019 (650) 726 -7100 Fox (650) 726 -7677 www. kikuchiandcoociotescom DESIGN REVIEW rA4 ILAi`!CE 18940 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 APN 397 -08 -027 A IAq /OT Revisions:Q1 1AI 106 ' Date: q/14106 Drawn By: TWC, CPK Checked: Scale: 1/16" - 1' -0" TREE PROTECTIVE MEASURES Sheet No. T1 Of • • b C C • C C W W W Y ..NOTES: These Diane are intended for use by only knowledgeable licensed contractors familiar with Oil applicable. building codes and other ggovernmental requirements, and able and wiping to Provide workmanship and materia•e of high quoltty. They shag be Interpreted so on to Incorporate all applicable building codes and other govern mental requirements All ambiguities and doubts "shag Fm reeolvad, unless the Engineer specifies otherwise in writing, in favor of the construction or material of the highest quality. Written information and dlmenelons.sha0 tale Precedence over graphic information. Do not scale drawings. Ali dimensions are to take Precede"09 aver scale shown on plans; alevatione, sec tone and details. Any dtecrepancies on the plans or any deviatlona from the plate which are neeeeei- tated by field conditions or any condition different from those indicated n the Plane'. shall be . called to the attention of Quigal Engineers Inc. prior to contin- uing construction. All. work is to be coordinated so that cooperation between the trades, where required, Is accomplished, The Builder shat) take full and final responsibility for constructing a final product of appropriate quality and serviceability consistent with the Information and requhsnente .contai ed in the conobuctin documents or reasonably Inferable therefrom, and /or contained la the requirements of any governmental entittyy with jurisdiMln over the projactl and in this regard the Builder shag take fall" responsibl9 for Cg construction means, methods, techniques, ee uencee or Procedures including without limitation demolition, excavation and erection Precautions and programs in connection with the project; and. for timeliness or quad of all the work Performed pursuant to this agreement. in this regard, the Builder shag indemoniiffyc to the .fullest extent allowed by law the project's design team. and their idly and/or losses which are capusedao contributed to by thefailurree of the builder to honor these ob0gatlare, including even nobility claims and /or losses Involving any indermhttees' actual or alleged active neeggligence or design defeats, and excluding only mq Indemnihse'e cola negligence or willful misconduct DRUM Innt that certain features of the construction are not fully shown an the drawings or called for in the general notes, then their construction shall be of the same character as for similar conditions that are shown or called for. S8Q>:i All materials and workmanship shall conform to the Caftndo Building Code 2001 Edition and rill applicable local codes and ordinances. SXONSTRUCTON "' Leal rY . . General contractor agrees that in accordance with generally accepted constructs practices, construction contractor will be required to assume sole and complete respond for job alts conditions during the course of consbuction M 1M project; Incl of all persons and property, tort this requirement shall be made to appq mousy and not be limited to normal working hours„ and construction aontraator further defend, Indemnify and.hold" design professional harmless from any and oil gabORy, real or alleged,.in connection with the perfomhshoe of work on this project, excepting Robnity arising from the sole negligence of the .design professional • ALL MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THE CALIFORNIA BUDDING CODE 2001 EDITION AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. • THE CONTRACTOR IIHALL CHECK ALL DRAWINGS IMMEDIATELY UP RECEIPT AND SHALL. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS BEFORE STARTING WORK QUIUCI ENGINEERS INC. SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. • DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ARE FROM ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY GREATLY. CONTRACTOR S RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD CHECKING ALL DIMENSIONS AND ANY FIELD CONDITIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. ALL DEVIATIONS FROM PLANS MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. • BID TO BE BASED ON PRIMARY DETAIL, UNIT PRICE M BE PROVIDED FOR ALTERNATE DETAIL CONSTRUCTION MANAGER TO INDICATE APPROPRIATE DETAIL DURING CONSTRUCTION. • CONNECTIONS AND IMPLIED" CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLIES THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED OR DETAILED SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED USING STANDARD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES IN COMPLiANCE.WiTH THE GOVERNING CODES AND ORDINANCES. • WHEN DETAILS LABELED "TYPICAL" OR 'SIMILAR' ARE GIVEN" ON DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY THE INTENT OF THE DETAIL TO THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION. • WRITTEN INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GRAPHIC INFORMATION. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. • ANY DISCREPANCIES ON THE PLANS OR ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANS WHICH ARE NECESSITATED BY FIELD CONDITIONS OR ANY CONDITION DIFFERET FROM THOSE INDICATED ON PLAN, SHALL .BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF QUILK7 ENGINEERS INC. PRIOR TO CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION.. ALL WORK S TO BE COORDINATED SO THAT COOPERATION "BETWEEN THE TRADES WHERE REQUIRED S ACCOMPLISHED. • TRADE NAMES AND MANUFACTURES REFERRED TO ARE FOR QUALITY STANDARDS .ONLY, EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE PERMITTED AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER GRADING NOTES: • SEE DRAWNGS'BY THE BUILDING DESIGNERS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. COORDINATE, DISCREPANCIES WITH ENGINEERS. • ALL GRADING S SUBJECT TO OBSERVATION BY THE CiTY. .PERMN7EE SHAH NOTIFY THE CITY AT LEM 48 HOURS BEFORE START OF ANY GRADING. • APPROVAL OF -THIS PLAN APPLIES ONLY TO THE EXCAVATION, PIACEMENi; AND COMPACTION OF NATURAL EARTH MATERIALS. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS OR ENTRY TO ETHER PUBLIC PROPERTY OR THE PRIVATE. PROPERTY OF OTHERS. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN ALSO DOES. NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS, PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUT ORiTIES AND ALL OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED. • ALL CONTRACTORS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF. LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE FIELD. LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR GENERAL INFORMATION. ONLY. • THE PERMTTEE SHAD. MAINTAIN THE STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS —OF —WAY IN A CLEAN, SAFE, USABLE,CONDiTION. ALL.SPALS OF SOIL ROCK OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY PRIVATE OR PUBLIC SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN. SAFE, AND USABLE CONDITION. • ALL GRADING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR ALL AIRBORNE PARTICLES (DUST). • ALL KNOWN WELL LOCATIONS IN THE SITE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND SUCH WELLS SHALL BE MAINTAINED OR ABANDONED ACCORDING M CURRENT REGULATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY SITE WELLS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN THESE DRAWINGS • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL ommoms AND CONDITIONS ON SiTE WITH THOSE SHOWN ON THIS, PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR:SHALL'BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE - ENGINEER PRIOR TO START OF • EXISTING CONTOURS, ELEVATIONS, TREE LOCATIONS, AND PROPERTY LINES WERE TAKEN FROM A CURSORY, VISUAL SITE OBSERVATION, AND ARE APPROXIMATE, NO TOPOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENT SURVEY HIS BEEN DONE. • A VISUAL AND SURFACE SURVEY WAS PERFORMED FOR 7HtS WORK EXISTING INFORMATION. DRAINAGE CHANNELS, &WARY SEWER LOCATIONS, SEPTIC TANKS, RETAININ L G WALLS, FENCES, PATIOS, AND MATCH BASINS SHALL BE VEi'tIFIED INDEPENDENTLY BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK. TH1EE S NO KNOWN SEPTIC TANK OR LEACH FIELD. • CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROTECT ALLTVIRDATION ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING EXCAVATIDN.. coNsIRULTIow AND BACKFILL OF BASEMENT WALLS. • SOB. ENGINEER TO REAEW THESE DRATTINGS TO CONFIRM 1W RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THEM AND TO EVALUATE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS SOLLENONEER.SHALL FIELD INSPECT GRADING, SUB —GRADE ]PREPARATiON; FOOTING; AND PER DRILLING. ALL FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE .CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT N A TIMELY MANNER. • ALL DIMENSIONS AND. ADDITIONAL [INFORMATION StHOIA.D BE TIM FROM THE ARCHITECT'S PLANS. • ALL EXCAVATIONS SHOULD BE NSPECTED Of THE SQL. H» PRIOR TO REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT. • ALL TELEPHONE- TELEGRAPH, ELECTRIC WIRES, AND 07ME SUCH SERVICE FACILITIES TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED DWELLINGS SHALL BE PRICED UNDERGROUND FROM THE POINT OF THE UTILITY COMPANY POE. • LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO ECiERIOR FLAT —WORK Ale "EXI. (DR . FOUNDATIONS . SHOULD .CONSIST OF PLANTS HAVING A LOW DEMAND FOR WATER: USE DRIP IRRIGATION. • ALL GRADING SHALL CONFORM TO THE CRY EN MlJNI3 W ;CODE, iTLED GRADING.: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CWRROL' • A PR&W MEETING SHALL BE HELD WiIH THE SENIOR INSPECTOR FROM THE DONE. OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS PRIOR TD.ANY 1MIEC BEING • CALL THE SENIOR INSPECTOR AT OMIT 24 HOIVIS PRIOR TO GRADING. • SLOPE ALL SURFACES TOWARD DRAM INLETS. • PROVIDE CLOSED" DRAIN SYSTEM FOR ALL DfOWHISPOLI S. • PRIOR TO THE CONTRACTOR. RBQUESiNG -A FINAL NSPECTIOK THE . CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL ADVISE THE BUDDING OFFK AL IN WRITING THAT: • DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS N ACCORDANCE WIM THE COVE ENGNEEYS DESIGN. • WALLS SHALL NOT BE BACKFILLED UNTIL ALL CONCRETE HAS REACHED DESIGN STRENGTH (7 DAYS MN. AFTER FOOTING -HAS BEEN PLACED). • ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL. BE.P ANTED.. WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL EFFECTIVE EROSION CONTROL HAS BEpN SENIOR .INSPECTOR . ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE • EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AND PROPERLY O OM FWTTD IN FILL AREAS DESIGNATED OR SHALL BE HAULED ANDY FROM THE SITE. e ALL FILLS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN LIFTS 6' 70 In AND COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM 9OX RELATIVE COMPACiION. UNLESS OTHERWIM DIRECTED By SOILS ENGINEER. • PP FILL MATERIAL STRIPPED F ALL VEGEA IM 70 ACHIEVE A PROPER BOMD NTH THE FILL MATERIAL THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND SHALL BE SCARIFIED- TO A DEPTH OF 6' BEFORE FILL S PLACED. WHERE NATURAL GROUND IS STEEPER THAN 5 TO 1, THE FILL SHALL BE LAYERED TO ACHIEVE STABILITY, WERE NEW FILL S TO BE PLACED ON EXISTING FILL, THE EXISTING FILL SMALL BE REMOVED UNTIL MATERIAL COMPACTED 70- f= RELATIVE COWIACM IS EXPOSED. .FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED N U NIFM LIFTS NOT TO EXCEED 6' IN COMPACTED THICKNESS, FOLLOW RECOMMENDOITIONS OF GEOTECMNICAL ENGINEER. • ALL EXCESS SOIL SHALL BE OFF — MAULED TO AN APPROVED SRE. NO EXCESS SOIL SHALL:BE SPREAD. ON THE SITE WITHOUT CFARLY BEING SHOWN ON THE APPROVED GRADING PL*L • ALL DOWNSPOUTS, CATCH DNS, AND BABKDRAINS N THE MM AREA SHALL BE CONNECIED,IO.A SMOOTH WALLED, TCHTLIE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.. AND OKSCHARM TO AN APPROVED OUiFALL WHERE REQUIRED. AN. APPROVED OURFALL SHALL BE LOCATED IN -THE HELD BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. NO WATER .SMALL BE ALLOWED 70 FLAW DIRECTLY FROM AN APPROVED OLWALL TOWARD ANY STRUCTURE, FOUNDATION, UNSTABLE SLOPE OR PROPERTY LINE, • VERIFY PIOSTNE DRAINAGE TO OUiFALL AT ALL CATCH ww& • ALL NEW ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE ARID NE BASED UPON THE ASSUMED ELEVATION AT THE ENTRY THRESHOLD. *ALL SITE WORK SHALL. BE DONE IN STtia CONFORMAMM W[iH GEOTECHNICAL ENGNEEP.' • NO SITE GRADING WILL BE ALLOWED DURING THE GRADING MgRATDRIUM. • NO WORK. S ALLOWED ON NATURAL SLOPES OF = OR iiRFJOEL DRAINAGE- NOTES: Confirm "w / ANSI/AWWA C151/A21S1, thickness class 52,.w/ outside csphaittc coating and melds cement lining and seal coaft In accordance - Coat or Ductile tronj3tking Conform w/ ANSI /AWWA C153/A21S3, w/ outside of asphaltic material, per. ANSI/AWWA C753 A21M and inside cement am, and seal coaling In a"ce once with ANSI/AWWA CIO4 /A21A. RV-C. Cement: - Conform w/ ASTM 2564 Droin Roc - - 3/8' to 3/4' dean drain ro ai oak for sabdreine d panting areas. Geoterztertetne Fobp Miraft 14ON or anginsr approved equal. Back =FBA Non— exponeive on of call. or non— mgwnsi e I qm P V.C. Pree': Solid wag PVC pipe• �Marming tb AST1M D3034, perforated 'or non — perforated, as required Perforated pipe shall' have holes at 4 and Smaller Dia. holes (1/4' Min.) on charter spacing (3" Min.) are preferred. Pipe shall have Integral beg Joint gaskets, faotory.instogedi conforming w/ ASTM 477: Pipe ehall be made of PVC plastic having a call classification of 12454B or 12364B as .defined P V.G. Ftt6nea Ae Cle_nouts: " SDR 35 smooth, solid wall pipe fittings conforming w/ ASTM D3034, w/ I��egraI bell or bell &. spigot joints,. and ball joints having an Integral factory— Installed gasket conforming w/ ASTM F477— except for deanouts and downspout adopters which maybe Trench" Drain: Greg ABT, .INC. MODEL 410 POLY DRAIN HEEL —PROOF METAL. GRATE OF APPROVED EQUAL CONTACT KLIMAN SALES, INC. FOR MORE INFORMATION. (408) 275 -1784. TRENCH DRAIN MAY BE SET LEVEL. DO NOT. DISTURB. CONDMON OF POST TENSIONED SLAB AT TRENCH DRAIN INSTALLATION, E64S10N CONTROL• . . • CONTACT THE SENIOR INSPECTOR BY OCTOBER 15 TO ARRANGE FOR INSPECTION OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. "- • IT is THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/CONTRACIOR TO INSURE THAT NO. MUD OR SILTATION LEAVES THE PROJECT SiTE • THE CONiRACfOR SHALL'ENSURE THAT .ANY EROSION THAT OCCURS DOES NOT LEAVE THE SITE OR ENTER.ANY WATERCOURSE; INCN.UDNG. ON -SITE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT ON A 24 HOUR PER DAY, 7 DAY PER WEEK BASIS" AND SHALL NOT BE LIMBED IN ANY WAY TO THE HOURS' OF WORK FOR THE PROJECT, IF, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE. DIRECTOR OF PAWS alt PUBUC WORKS..ADOMDNAL EROSION: CONTROL.MEASURES ARE DEEMED TO BE REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT. HIS/HER SOLE. EXPENSE TAKE. SUCH MEASURES AS DIRECTED TOR BY THE DIREC IF THE CONTRACTOR IS DEEMED 70 BE NON— RESPONSIVE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBUC .WORKS, THE DIRECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY 70 TAKE ALL MEASURES REQUIRED TO CORRECT ANY SILTATION WHICH HE/SHE DEEMS TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE TO -THE TOWN MUNICIPALITY FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED.- WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN 'BY THE. DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS TO CORRECT ANY NON— COMPLIAM SITUATION ARISING FROM THE WORK AREA • EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE .IN PLACE BY OCTOBER 15TH, AND " INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EACH CONSTRUCTION PHASE WHICH OCCURS BETWEEN OCTOBER 1STH AND APRIL 15TH. • CALL THE SENIOR' INSPECTOR BY OCTOBER 15 FOR INSPECTION OF EROSION CONTROL DEVICES.. YOU MUST CALL 24, HOURS BEFORE THE DATE REQUESTED FOR AN INSPECTION. INCLUDE YOUR GRADING' PERMIT NUMBER • IF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE NOT IN PLACE AS REQUIRED, ALL WORK SHALL CEASE UNTIL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE RESTORED. • ALL BARE SLOPES SHALL BE COVERED WiTH PLASTIC "SHEETING. • ALL DISTURBED EARTH MUST BE RESEEDED WITH A .MINIMUM OF 30 LBS /ACRE 'BLANDO' BROME, 20 IBS /ACRE- ANNUAL RYE GRASS, 500 LBS .ACRE 16 -20 -0 FERTILIZER WHICH CONTAINS 15X SULFUR, .AND 4000.LBS /ACRE OF STRAW ANCHORED IN PLACE BY PUNCHING OR WITH JUTE NETTING. • ALL DRAIN INLETS SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH A COMBINATION OF STRAW BALES AND FILTER FABRIC FENCES TO PREVENT . SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING. • ALL STREET GRAINS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION.. • ALL FILL SLOPES SHALL BE COMPACTED AND LEFT IN A SMOOTH.AND FIRM CONDITION CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING WEATHERING. • INSTALL FIBER ROLL OR SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND NOTES. • SEED EXPOSED AREAS PER CiTY MUNICPALTY STANDARD SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS; • INSTALL DRAINAGE MEASURES INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, ENERGY DISSIPATORS, ETC. AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND NOTES. • INSTALL MASONRY RETAINING WALLS IMMEDIATELY FOILDTWNG GRADING OPERATiONS AT WALL LOCATONs (WITH APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS 13Y BUILDING NSPEC7010. • INSTALL CHECK DAMS; SEDIMENT TRAPS, BASINS, AND TEMPORARY SWALES WHERE REQUIRED _OL�o. CV =�I CD N UD IS O ICS as z Z� W�p oh Y r0 19 Z PROJECT N0. 060405 SHEET N0. Co. 1 p 15 1:r. s. Mmp e � i. .0 Pi —WCD CD o _r N o o i V7 \ 4 � C 3 d E w"'.� ty f� o CO) W c� e N d = y > U m v Q M . o _ 1 O CD rG OD £ �L r�� U N M 0 ii W N W 0 a r a • Z 0 a �SLLJ a Y— WO I— y ME.. v N Y O p v3 W y H CO) SHEET NO.0 1 3 OF 7 p R- :48 , N ! JUEJ L�Jlmig, A a, gdl L,,.W Fff •: ®��A ppppp t� Ml •,,;� lea, ,- -'�""°�' `/ "`��— i��`� V MX��110 Ifir' � � � f•Y 7 � �- � / — xv �������� ® ►. It� �`,��� '�f ►� J.L �/ rte, _ e I �jI ���I ��__ , le I • -:;:� :I �illS� r— � 'S:'''� •.,�T` `� > .6t:�lILELI.: -. -- � �'- r® I�_ ���rr -. .a... �,�r�r� pa�� � � �e� Illlllllr�lllllllll� _ ,- ■J WIN - �I,l�' � . ".ar• 1, �l , i III 11 � e- (E) GRADE MULTIPLE PIPE CLEANOUT SEE 2LG2L A FOR ADDRIONAL 't INFORMATION C2.3 N.T.S. INSTALL MESH SCF AT PLANT AREA DF IF SUPPUED- , F__ WHERE RE OCCURS— �- rr� AREA DRAIN GRATE OR THREADED CLEAN -OUT CAP � —THIS PORTION OF THE SYSTEM MAY BE ROTATED.AS REQUIRED 8 DRAIN PIPE FITTINGS C2.3 N.T.S. WRAP PIPE MANFOU) COVER L w%. FABRIC 1D AVOID SUN EXPOSURE. 42• DbL RIP -RAP ROCK EMBEDDED INTO PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CONCRETE.. I'TOP .& —uo O �� O m 0 W:j 0 � om U a) ev - M N CD m _� co m �.a � U w co 0 ao 0 a F U9S � <Z wOgg Zog W g►- lx yr 12H 9 D QW Z PROJECT NO.. 06041 — SHEET NO. V 2 N.T.S REMOVABLE. P.V.O. ADAPTOR `6-. RICH MORTAR SEAL DIRECTION, ARCHI ENCDT WYE . , 2 CRTdI . EL80W WITH DRAWINGS REQUIRED ANGLE DIRECTION OF FLOW. SINGLE . ND,TSC PIPE CLEANOUT ALL DOWNSPOUT PIPES 1 TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT sHUL BE 4• DIAMETER SLOPED ,z MwIMUM 2 : TYPICAL: DRAIN INLET SEE PLANS FOR Nu OF PIPES ENTERING AND c2.3 CONNECTION PLAN N.T.S. EXTpNG THE BASIN 3 E N.T.S. c2.3 LINE OF RETAINING WALL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO OBSERVE BACKFlLL SURFACE CLEAN OUT AREA GRAIN GRATE . . CR�R�E� 1 •..aN. _I i� MOISTURE PROOF RETAINING NUU1 INSTALL MESH SCREEN FT SUPPLIED D���° � -._ WHERE CCURS -j O GEOTEXIILE FABRIC 1.�i'L" PERFORATED PIPE BASE OF - RETAINING WALL 4.0 PERFORATED PIPE -- 3�4• CLEAN CRUSHED SDR 35 (PERFORATIONS ' DOWN) m BI�SE OF - � 1 ATE DRAINAGE PIPE AROUIp PIERS THIS PORTION OF - 11iE SYSTEM MAY BE ROTATED AS REQUIR _ - -� DRAINROCK Cli. TREK DIRECT TO SUITABLE. L DISCHARGE. - LOCATION.: _ +- • +� O�OCTION OF FLOW �. -4 DIRECTION OF FLOW. INVERT SEE PLAN 90' PVC SWEEP CONNECTOR SAC KFI LL FACE OF WALL OR PIER��. 90' ELBOW PIPE WRAP a 'SOCK ADS-3D (US SIEVE) 1'.D• _ MIN. I . 5 TYPICAL SUBS CE 6 'PIPE `UNDER 7 TYPICAL DRAIN PIPE FITTINGS c2.3INTERCEPTOR DRAIN SECTION "TS $ RETAINING WALL N.T.S c2.a N.TS �r DONSTRUCIM ro PROVwE PuuP To owNm's sum,ucnoN -- TOP OF CONC EIE Bot CHMSIY Cwt w/ a DRAIN PIPE EODECAPSSC 6'-D• MINIMUM PIPESPERFORATFD . .: . Tj (E) GRADE MULTIPLE PIPE CLEANOUT SEE 2LG2L A FOR ADDRIONAL 't INFORMATION C2.3 N.T.S. INSTALL MESH SCF AT PLANT AREA DF IF SUPPUED- , F__ WHERE RE OCCURS— �- rr� AREA DRAIN GRATE OR THREADED CLEAN -OUT CAP � —THIS PORTION OF THE SYSTEM MAY BE ROTATED.AS REQUIRED 8 DRAIN PIPE FITTINGS C2.3 N.T.S. WRAP PIPE MANFOU) COVER L w%. FABRIC 1D AVOID SUN EXPOSURE. 42• DbL RIP -RAP ROCK EMBEDDED INTO PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CONCRETE.. I'TOP .& —uo O �� O m 0 W:j 0 � om U a) ev - M N CD m _� co m �.a � U w co 0 ao 0 a F U9S � <Z wOgg Zog W g►- lx yr 12H 9 D QW Z PROJECT NO.. 06041 — SHEET NO. V 2 N.T.S L-1 U Typical CULTEC Stormwater Retention Design for CONTACTOR 75, 100, 125 and RECHARGER 180 Chamber Utilizing CULTEC CONTACTOR' OR Poi nol Inspection �RECHARGER Chamber* / Model Model I Model E or E R or S a D No: stone separation needed between. rows. Catch Basin 0 'Not Recheiger,33a 6r400. - ' CULTEC INC, See Retention Design for Recharger 330 & 400 using 58" on center.' 878 FEDERAL ROAD �BROOKFIFID, CT .06804 I I I ... '. 3 .' a• f 2 3 .f. -2. 3 4. Length 7.5' A Lay Up Length 6.5' Width End Detail .Information Typical section thru Large Rib Small Rib 36" Height 12.5., Capacity C O n t a C O .r 00 A A .' C ontactor .100 or 1 OOHD Bed A B ra .125 gal• Weight R units are used to "R" Unit 3.4 CF Design Unit f 8" lines.; with feed. pipes of 8' _- H-10: 33 lbs. H -20: 41. lbs. � die; or less, or can be used .singly. . . Untrafficked H 10 ol S° units ore used to start S Unit B B die. or larger. Recharger only. - - 36 ". a C Finished grade + I" units . are used to continue i Unit a line with a feed pipe of 6" Cultec 410' die. or larger. Rechorger only. units ore used to continue- �,� �E" Unit .� r_`'- ;:c „rr -•_. ?:,...:. -::. ,,.,.,.st:,aaM•ih::7.�+,�' Filter Fabric +sa�:9” Naturally Compacted Clean ' _ dia.: or less and also used to - S•` �" C"=, e�rf..' :�;:ri,:ga.r:•3xi;�,•.�. >.r... �x n %P.!.'.�A: - 'v:.7:'�'t «;'eipt� .. . D and a line. c L�ECi�N.INr i.5". to 2" die O O O O O �_8ia -D BRDOKFlELD, CT�804 7.5' c c, broken stone 00 O 12.5" C 6.5: Cultec 410 7 N Filter Fabric. i 0o O Recommended, pO O O O p O �C6" 'stone : base t 12:5" not required . bottom . ---� CULTEC INC. IM CULTEC FEDEfi'AL ROAD Calculations based:. on d CULTEC .I 40 tone Void: 878 FEDERAL D ME BROOKFIELD, CT 06804 ? '. BROOKFlELD, CT . 104 1 2 Typical CULTEC Stormwater Retention Design for CONTACTOR 75, 100, 125 and RECHARGER 180 Chamber Utilizing CULTEC CONTACTOR' OR Poi nol Inspection �RECHARGER Chamber* / Model Model I Model E or E R or S a D No: stone separation needed between. rows. Catch Basin 0 'Not Recheiger,33a 6r400. - ' CULTEC INC, See Retention Design for Recharger 330 & 400 using 58" on center.' 878 FEDERAL ROAD �BROOKFIFID, CT .06804 I I I I I I Y f 2 3 A Recharges & Contactor A End Detail .Information Large Rib Small Rib end detail. end detail B ra R units are used to "R" Unit f 8" lines.; with feed. pipes of 8' _- die; or less, or can be used .singly. . ol S° units ore used to start S Unit - lines. with feed pipes of 8° - . die. or larger. Recharger only. - - C C . + I" units . are used to continue i Unit a line with a feed pipe of 6" die. or larger. Rechorger only. units ore used to continue- �,� �E" Unit lines with feed pipes of 8" - - ,lt _ dia.: or less and also used to D and a line. D L�ECi�N.INr �_8ia -D BRDOKFlELD, CT�804 I I I I I I Y Z e N it 0 Wg Yrn�g grvZ N W Ix WO a -C2. MANUFACTURERS DETAILS 17 of 3 ( e € o EGRESS) �° OPEN it f,l.QG Lt?Il JOJ p N 89.5900• E 82.49'' Cmuela p � < '� REVI ON CHECK 00E Vo J ictlrawa7 °'V"Cp NOTES o 1.SSEEE SHEETTI FOR PROTECTION MEASURES •500.99EP s N ! 1). THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP WAS PREPARED FROM AGROUND SURVEY DONE BY JEFFREY M. BARNEA. PLS IN JULY, 2005. 2. SEE SHEET L I FOR TREE REPLACEMENT, SIZES AND LOCATIONS - t� 2). SPOT ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS. SHOWN FROM AN ASSUMED BENCHMARK ESTABLISHED UPON AN IRON PIPE IN MONTE VISTA DRIVE 1 I7 AND AS SHOWN UPON A "TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FOR SCOTT KRIENS" DATED OCTOBER 1996, ELEV.-500.00 (SEE BENCHMARK NOTE BELOW). 3. SEE ARBORIST REPORT #06 -342 DATED 4.27.2006 `�3 'F FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TREE CONDITIONS. Y U 3). UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TREES SHOWN WERE LOCATED ATTHE GROUND AND TRUNK DIAMETERS MEASURED AT 4.5'ABOVE GROUND. ,• 50Q.B9EP 4 DRIPLINES WERE NOT MEASURED ATTIME OF SURVEY, AND ARE DEPICTED GRAPHICALLY IN THEIR APPROXIMATE POSITIONS ONLY. THE 39op m \ EXISTING HOUSE AND COVERED CARPORT STRUCTURES WERE MEASURED AT THE OUTSIDE WOOD TRIM OR STUCCO FACING, NOT AT FOUNDATION. 5 ' `\ 4). BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE RECORD OF SURVEY BY PARK L. VEMER . RECORDED APRIL 29,1953IN BLOCK 43 0 �?-L OF N BAT PAGE 13, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. THIS IS NOT A BOUNARY SURVEY MAP. THERE MY BE EASMENTS AFFECTING THIS C°naela o,ro:g \ PARCELTHAT ARE NOT SHOWN UPON THIS MAP. THE EASMENTS THAT ARE SHOWN ARE FROM PUBLIC RECORDS, A FULL AND COMPLETE SURVEY COULD PRODUCE LINES IN SLIGHTLY ALTERNATE POSITION THAN THAT DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING. THE GROSS AREA i oo m BRIAN ,00 BOUNDARY O O OFTHIS PARCELITAKEN FROM 43 MAPS 13) IS 1.44 ACRES + /•, ANDTHE NET AREA OF THIS PARCEL IS 1.286 ACRES+ /- € DAVID a� o p ' € ffi \ 5). THE FINAL PRODUCT DELIVERED TO OWNERS SCOTT AND JOAN KRIENS, WERE SIGNED BOND PRINTS. AN ELECTRONIC CAD VERSION OF Y po i C a (EMERGENCY EGRESS) — •'\ 4i THIS MAP COULD BE PROVIDED TO ARCHITECT BRIAN PETERS UPON REQUEST. ANY CHANGES, REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS MADE TO THIS MAP & i ••\ �' WITHOUT THE CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF JEFFREY M. BARNEA,PLS, IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF JEFFREY M. BARNEA, AS THE OWNERS PETERS z2 HAVE AGREED TO IN WRITING. a° I �•$ \ a A I A I !v \ 0o NOTE: - 747Tamaacal Wa. •X OVERHEAD ELECTRICALSERVICE Redwoygy Ca 9.109: 3 I 21 - LINES TO BE REMOVED.ALL NEW 850.388.5120 Il SERVICES TO BE UNDERGROUND 3 ( e € o EGRESS) �° OPEN it f,l.QG Lt?Il JOJ p SF N:! Vo J 1.SSEEE SHEETTI FOR PROTECTION MEASURES z U , 2. SEE SHEET L I FOR TREE REPLACEMENT, SIZES AND LOCATIONS - t� O 3. SEE ARBORIST REPORT #06 -342 DATED 4.27.2006 `�3 'F FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TREE CONDITIONS. 77 I ,• �iD�OSF Qj 899SF €g $ VJ F Z °LIGHTWELL Ws w ,00 j a� o p Y po i C a (EMERGENCY EGRESS) S ZS- BASEMENT 8A0 ,i •• _ SETBACK ``�' // r IIiII ------ �������IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -� a LINE BELOW 1p, OSF FAS,yFM' U 3 ( e € o EGRESS) �° OPEN it f,l.QG Lt?Il JOJ p (0a1; PROPERTY / r °p LINE to / m ffii € Q ar 0° % S 89.1800' W 213.35 473, ni Q D ° 14 SF Vo J 1.SSEEE SHEETTI FOR PROTECTION MEASURES z U , 2. SEE SHEET L I FOR TREE REPLACEMENT, SIZES AND LOCATIONS - t� O 3. SEE ARBORIST REPORT #06 -342 DATED 4.27.2006 `�3 'F FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TREE CONDITIONS. 77 I ,• �iD�OSF Qj 899SF €g $ VJ F Z °LIGHTWELL Ws w ,00 j a� o p Y po i C a (EMERGENCY EGRESS) S ZS- BASEMENT 8A0 ,i _ SETBACK '$ LINE BELOW 1p, OSF FAS,yFM' U (0a1; PROPERTY / r °p LINE to / m ffii € Q ar 0° % S 89.1800' W 213.35 473, ni Q D ° 14 / o O Qom p9� 9.2008 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A2 wZ cr Vo J 1.SSEEE SHEETTI FOR PROTECTION MEASURES z U , 2. SEE SHEET L I FOR TREE REPLACEMENT, SIZES AND LOCATIONS - W 3. SEE ARBORIST REPORT #06 -342 DATED 4.27.2006 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TREE CONDITIONS. 00 �/� Q V J ¢Q W U3 VJ F Z Ws w ,00 z cr_ a� o p Y po i C / o O Qom p9� 9.2008 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A2 - - I�nlcnr i�e_aVI_rur rnac u -u�uw Ic.t auu rm i REVISIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SECTION I DIMENSION AREA A 17'-8" x 22' -6" 400.0 SF B V-4" x 8' -0" 34.75 SF C W-6" x 3'-6" 33.25 SF D 2'-8" x 10' -0' 25.00 SF E 82.00 SF TOTAL 575.1) SF NOTE: FULL HOME THEATER BASEMENT 0 SF WORKOUT/—,-^\ ✓1 O i1) GARAGE LEVEL n 161.6" SECTION I DIMENSION AREA A 43'-6" x 43'-6• 1,892.0 SF B 6-6"x 18' -0" 117.0 SF C 610.0 SF D 50 SF TOTAL 2,669.0 SF O i1) GARAGE LEVEL n SECTION I DIMENSION 161.6" 12'-0" 503.0 SF COVERED-----,, OPEN SIDE C 2'- 612"x4' -10" 12.0 SF D ENTRY E T -11" x 4' -10" 19.0 SF F 15'-7"x 16' -D" 249 SF zw OSF ao 14 SF TOTAL 899.0 SF NOTE: FULL BASEMENT 0 SF 1,320.0 SF Gin RESIDENCE 6 �I STUD SECTION I DIMENSION AREA A 31' -5 1/2"x 16' -0" 503.0 SF B T -3" x 5'-4* 12.0 SF C 2'- 612"x4' -10" 12.0 SF D 90.0 SF E T -11" x 4' -10" 19.0 SF F 15'-7"x 16' -D" 249 SF G 1'-6" x 9'-6' 14 SF TOTAL 899.0 SF NOTE: FULL BASEMENT 0 SF 1,320.0 SF RESIDENCE 6 COVERED OUTDOOR DINING 0 SF h I O STUDY /TERRACE 2 A C mn HOME OFFICE d -0•• FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SECTION I DIMENSION AREA A 15' -0" x 21' -0" 315.0 SF B 9' -0" x 2'-6' 22.5 SF C 9' -0" x 2' -6" 22.5 SF D 6'-O' x 3'-6' 21.0 SF TOTAL 381 SF HOME OFFICE .1 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS I SECTION I DIMENSION I AREA I FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SECTION I DIMENSION AREA A 28'-6"x 13'-6" 385.0 SF B 12' -0" x 5'-0' 60.0 SF C 12' -0" x 3'-6' 42.0 SF TOTAL 198.0 SF 487.0 SF h I O STUDY /TERRACE 2 A C mn HOME OFFICE d -0•• FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SECTION I DIMENSION AREA A 15' -0" x 21' -0" 315.0 SF B 9' -0" x 2'-6' 22.5 SF C 9' -0" x 2' -6" 22.5 SF D 6'-O' x 3'-6' 21.0 SF TOTAL 381 SF HOME OFFICE .1 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS I SECTION I DIMENSION I AREA I A 22' -0" x 21' -0" . 462.0 SF B 11' -0' x 21' -0" 231.0 SF C .22' -0' x 9' -0" 198.0 SF D - 11' -0" x 21' -O" .231.0 SF E 22' -0" x 9• -O" 198.0 SF TOTAL 1,320.0 SF GARAGE .5 - BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747Teme"cel W. Rwka WQIy C, MOB: 660- 366 -5120 WZ w U° Z L W; pO WN9 ''^^ O V! FQ Z N NW W rz 0 L!. 0 YO m 00 Q O LU W Q '-"` ,ozone �' 11B'+ =7'-0' A2..1 >,N� Alk !1 V' ----- - - - - - -- 478., O GARAGE 481.4 (PROPOSED MAX ELEVATION) T.O. PLYW WOD ABOVE DBL PLAT �J m 4Q a EX ISTING w p GRADE 483.50 — 482.00 -- �- - - - - -- HOME WINEMAKING HOME WfNEMAKING 6 78.25 82.00 STUDY /TERRACE 2 T.O. PLYWWOD — ABOVE DBL PLATE T.O. PLYW WOD ABOVE DBL PLAT a�0 HOME' -_ OFFICE � w� I O Q t. ELEVATION) A EXISTING ' ►����� �� —' _ —GRADE � 488.32 "'-�- —�� 487.55 HOME OFFICE 1 :483A WORKOUT WORKOUT 3 �I 488.5 (PROPOSED MAX. ELEVATION) ------------------------ Ed RESIDENCE t EXISTING 478.5 / GRADE 475.28 ' �--------- - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 475.28 " 475.28 RESIDENCE 5 REVISIONS F7—.— CHECK BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747Temesael We Redwood DIY. Ce 0408: 850 - 306 - 5120 a W w U° ZJ ui 0 00 W `o C) g H Z W> F- z 0 Y a Q F— 0_ w S w 0 Q IX w Q wre ,osaoo A2.2 +FW9-41 PL HEI HT DA+O' T-0" UM (490.75) LOW POINT @ (p GRADE WEST ELEVATION 2 ��1\�A�/1' %1"111'/► - ^ ✓�� �' WER PITCH ROOF OPORCH Bx8 POST &BEAM 4 STEPS (2' -0" LEVELCHANGD NOTE SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR LOCATION OF REFERENCE GRADES @ BUILDING I CORNERS,TYP. SECTION 5 NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS 15r ')•CfP?IP� nAW�}�1 �fF ^HnNfnf TOFY m nwVV'ti5'iTMi?T�nn. REVISIONS BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747Tomac Oaf Way Redwoo0gry, Ca94062 650 -986 - 5 12 0 W Z U° 0 LL Z� W 00 C5 g W ry,� 0 Cn Z WW I_ Z 0 m v w U LL U- 0 W O GATE 6.2m 6f E U4•a1:0• OR11WM JOB GHEE! A4 aHeere k�T N NOTE SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR LOCATION OF REFERENCE GRADES @ BUILDING I CORNERS,TYP. SECTION 5 NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS 15r ')•CfP?IP� nAW�}�1 �fF ^HnNfnf TOFY m nwVV'ti5'iTMi?T�nn. REVISIONS BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747Tomac Oaf Way Redwoo0gry, Ca94062 650 -986 - 5 12 0 W Z U° 0 LL Z� W 00 C5 g W ry,� 0 Cn Z WW I_ Z 0 m v w U LL U- 0 W O GATE 6.2m 6f E U4•a1:0• OR11WM JOB GHEE! A4 aHeere ON IS FOR HOME OFFICE SFE SHEETA3 O G 00 ON T I i PLANTER i I REVISIONS 1 PLAN CHECK REVISION 11.2066 PLANTER ON GROUND) _______ EXTENT OF PARKING GARAGE BELOW EDGE OF5 ROOF TERRACE STONETILES ROOF OF G EXTENTOF HOME WINEMAKING BELOW PAVING \ F . m--j- mom PARAPET i WALL - . - T 487 SF L � ®IIIIIII,IIIII�_ SIMNG J fiTIIIIIIII,� AREA PARTIAL HEIGHT OF5 ROOF TERRACE STONETILES WALL WITH METAL RAILING ON TOP TYP. BARRELTILE ROOFING @ HOME WINEMAKING FACILITY ROOF OF G EXTENTOF HOME WINEMAKING BELOW PAVING \ F . STONE PARAPET i WALL PARTIAL HEIGHT WALLS \ � SETBACKLINE BBQ EXTENTOF GARAGE \ BELOW Y \ 8 ZO 3E \ REFI 483.35(REFERENCETO • ___ EXISTING GRADE-______ TYP. @ BUILDING CORNERS) \ DISPLAY NICHE ARCH OPENING COVERED OUTDOOR RIDGE DINING WOOD BURNING_ - ' FIREPLACE - -- TERRACE Q O SF WALL WITH METAL RAILING ON TOP TYP. BARRELTILE ROOFING @ HOME WINEMAKING FACILITY i ♦\ BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 7477 ...... IW. ft&-d City. C69466: 650 - 366 . 5120 Q WElf U° Z U W 0� 0QQ vJ j'W C r Z 'WWr/ W 1 0 Y° W __________ _______r (� Q TRELLIS W F- } b" 12'-0" 7'•O" Z 9.2666 MAIN FLOOR PLAN .ENE ,k ,•6 � 6WYlIN _ .b6 A5 ROOF OF G HOME WINEMAKING BELOW �o F . STONE PARAPET WALL i ♦\ BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 7477 ...... IW. ft&-d City. C69466: 650 - 366 . 5120 Q WElf U° Z U W 0� 0QQ vJ j'W C r Z 'WWr/ W 1 0 Y° W __________ _______r (� Q TRELLIS W F- } b" 12'-0" 7'•O" Z 9.2666 MAIN FLOOR PLAN .ENE ,k ,•6 � 6WYlIN _ .b6 A5 IA REVISIONS BRIAN DAV I D PETERS A I A 747T.... -i We ReHavOC My, CA 9900. 66D -306 -6120 Q W� U. U Z< W; `C) v QO ! WU) ry /� o vJ r Z W w N H 1..6.Z O Y o v 9n J W W J W U` Q U' �� 9.2006 HChLE iN +1'-0' A6 u D D Ti _o D 7 NOI 9 STUDY /TERRACE /WINE r KRIENS RESIDENCE ��3 D D T ~ § 18940 MONTE VISTA DR. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ° m D 4 F, o D ; z � 0 + 1 V-6"(488.75) TAiGA�Z a�ARAG�S EXISTING GRADE EcENf OF GARAGE BEYOND FLOOR UNE @ GARAGE SECTION 1 STONE AS WALL VENEERSEYOND .. A ♦♦ (PORCH ", MIN� WEST ELEVATION / SECTION 2 NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747Teme' cal We R.*-d ON. Ca BC06; 660 - 366 - 6120 WZ m ° U Z U 00, WV) d 0 U) g Z W > _ z Z 0 Y ° m W U` Q Q } �� 6.2006 eCAIE 7!4"1' -6' DPPLN! Joe sxEEr .A9 0 flFactor.Xfrl2 v6rsiontWVwodT(atlorvco .. TERRACE +O' -0" (47725 DA . A SECTION n NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747Temaa Cal Way ReawaW Oly, G 81062 660- 366.6720 Q W o c) LL. Z U W vJ Q W" vJ F Z LLI ' _ F n" 2 O Yo v rn W Q U` C7 Z Z D ogre 8.2006 6anvvrl r7a m�Ftr A10 465. EXTENT OF — GARAGEBEYOND REVISION6 SECTION 2 NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS WZ 0: U° Z U W; r0 QO Wyy Il � VJ H Z W W N z L.1.. Z O YC) v 0 a 0 w w 0 U } F- F- p4i6 6.2006 OMYM aen A11 676 BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747TOMO.Cal WS; R%WQW Qty. C6 N= 650. 366.5120 _ +14'.4'• T.O. 12 (PORC" TYP. +1 116" (488.75) STUDY PL HEIGHT (FORCED OPENING JA-CH VERED TRY PORCH +01011477.25) DATUM (PO CH, GAF= SECTION I n ) a SECTION 2 NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS WZ 0: U° Z U W; r0 QO Wyy Il � VJ H Z W W N z L.1.. Z O YC) v 0 a 0 w w 0 U } F- F- p4i6 6.2006 OMYM aen A11 676 Pr- 1 Nish —;W"o {fill yr-inn Irv+ rviHr rimy- ROOF PLAN %1 t PnF nr rtrd v9tb Wi l yr n•inn .... REVISIONS BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 797T... —1 VYq RadaooO CRY, C. 940M 850.708 -5740 Q WZ M U° Z< W �0 ¢O vJ Q NWN ^^ vrr ❑ ! F Z WW _N H I.L Z O Yo v rn v H O Y O DRAWN wre 9.2000. 9NEE7 A13 OF 9H m - -` - - -- 1 488.75 OPEN ARCH@ I 1 ' COVERED ' 1 1 I ENTRY PORCH 1 1 1 , , I 1 i i I I 1 j j I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 i I I 1 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- .- .J.. - -...J -124° (474.50 FINISH FLOOR • � THEATER BASEMENT NORTH ELEVATION 3 '`_I PATIO LEVEL BEYOND ACCESS LEADING TO OPENING TO BASEMENT ACCESS / EMERGENCYEGRFSS REVISIONS SOUTH ELEVATION NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS g W o J Z Q o c/)¢ W 0 Cn ZU 5 +9w, Z PLATE HEIGHT O O C 01 � I _ O' -" DATUM (486.5) I- O 9 o wTE 9,ZODB DRgNq BNEtT A14 OF ml- BRIAN DAVID �A���;�" � !�I,AI�IA11g111111�iI,11�1A1111 - �� ��►��rArfr�rAr��ArAr ^�Ar��f�ArA ON ps MOVEil�.ei�.. .1lI � 0 �L�'�:a_ 1 SOUTH ELEVATION NOTE: SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS g W o J Z Q o c/)¢ W 0 Cn ZU 5 +9w, Z PLATE HEIGHT O O C 01 � I _ O' -" DATUM (486.5) I- O 9 o wTE 9,ZODB DRgNq BNEtT A14 OF ml- z Z W IL 0 U m �L! 475.90 475.W TT- 11 II COVERED � I BRA AY 05F II II II II II II II II II II II II 11 _ 24"SOUARE STONE VENEER COLUMNS,TS,T YP. I, II II II II 1 jl w II II I, I jl w 1� II II II II W I, I, FLOOR PLAN REVISro1S BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 7477a mea;:I We Redwine CllY. Ce 9406 060.3155.5120 g WZ w ° U0 Z U W; cl 0 VJ Q LU C/) I¢- Z _W > H ui LL Z O Y C, W Q Q.' Q 0 W U Q F- � W 0 0 z MTE 9]006 ° ^ -• 1 /4`x'1'-0' UFMNi Job A15 srfscw O EXI5TING GRADE — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ELEVATION r1 5 1 I Ak t/a 6 EMba, SECTIONo �L 9 475.00 475.75 STING GRADE ELEVATION 3 REI6SIONS BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 7477ameaaal Wa Red-WON. 0 9406 660 - 366 - 6120 W z U° Z6 W� � o Z3 ¢ W^' /AILi Z W > W NH 6L Z YC] w C7 C7 0 w U w 0 -•�•- 2006 7.6— A17 z z BASEMENT 2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1 i BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 707T —. s c al Ws, R.&v dCbY. C89406i 660 - 366 - 6 12 0 g Ww U° J Z6 We �Q OO v! W ;� C/) g Z W> zZ wm O Yo v rn ao W U z W D co W sC✓1tE to T'-0' A18 OF SHEETS I -- ' REVISIONS PLAN CHECK REVISION 11.2M i I BRIAN DAVID PETERS �? A I A - 6 I 747Te01ae081 way Re*MW CRY, b 81002 �I 660 - 386 -5120 1 f in BARREL. MLE ROOF, iYP. ROOF PLAN �,1 I I Q Ww U° J Z W¢ 00 0 Co � W" 0 z 5 WW F- Z 0 °v m w U Z w w � Q 1 82006 6CNE 11411.-0' oRnwH +ofi 6iEEf A19 at` 911FET8 A p�:f 6:. �'`,�'• g EI�`�e� � g � d�F i5 "s Lo Ir���$' Ip�I.�`i _ �y�' �� y- .'...,f�ei _ R� ■ ,�e�l �+:�t`'`� ,?- sctis��.z4 cad. �#. fr�S I 6- �' Ls w.� ^ I� 'rte.'• -• �'n -. fir. n i 6 , rpi y, y � 7� i�-' �� Sn�, lii� ".: �r �, v_a•�E. .::'E .a� p'!� b�fll F �i t v . -k .135£4., l..�i.k.: �-: ���r _ e J.,��.� _ � y i 12, -IYP. 5r- PL HEIGHT• SUPPLY DUCT CHASE LIVING ROOM CKING 1 +0 -0TUM & 1476.50) DA , -- - -_ - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ---- -- ---------------- 1 - - - - -- 475.28 IXISTING BASEMENT GRADE I I I EXTENT OF —tom BEDROOM BASEMENT BEYOND I . -9'•10^ - - FINEN FLOOR BASEMENT I ------------------ - - - - -� SECTION 5 NOTE: SEE SHEET A22 FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAMS REVISIONS BRIAN DAVID PETERS A I A 747Teme, c el We ReewoW COy ®9006 660 - 366 • 6120 W U° LL z U w; 00 Wco co WI..^^V . n; c F Z°' IJ Z lJ.. g Yc° m au LLJ U Z LU I 9.2966 ewe vd.,r-0. .A20 aF aleere