Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-2007 Planning Commission Packet4111 November 14, 2007 l� • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, November 13, 2007— Approximately 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 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 # PDR07 -0002 2. APPLICATION #PDR07 -0001 14765 Fruitvale Avenue Plyler /Miller 15211 Hume Drive Khouja/Ramirez 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. PVC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007 \SVA 111307.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • STUDY SESSION AGENDA • L_� DATE: Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 8, 2007 APPLICATION #PDR07 -0001 (510 -01 -016) Khouja/Ramirez, 15211 Hume Drive — The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be approximately 4,982 square feet and will have a full basement. The maximum height for the structure is proposed to be 26 -feet tall. However, the owners request a study session to review additional height for a proposed tower. A detached pool house is also proposed at a height of approximately 18 -feet 9- inches. The gross lot size is 55,503 square feet, and the site is zoned R- 1- 20,000. The Study Session 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 meeting. During the Study Session, 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. 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. Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • • • Item 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Queen Anne Style Home 15211 Hume Drive; APN 510 -01 -016 Application PDR07 -0001 STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: The Study Session 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 meeting. During the Study Session, 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. No comments made during the Study Session 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed architectural design and provide input to the applicant and staff regarding architectural purity of the proposed structure and compatibility with the neighborhood. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is an approximately 51,131 (net) square foot parcel with direct access from Hume Drive. The rectangular parcel is relatively flat and is surrounded by other parcels of similar size. Mature trees are located near parcel boundaries. The single family home existing on the property will be de- constructed and the remains will be recycled. The project consists of a new single - family dwelling and a detached pool house (that will exceed the 15 -foot height limitation for accessory structures and thus require findings for additional height). The new two -story main dwelling will have a full basement and an Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 2 November 13, 2007 15211 Hume Drive; PDR 07 -0001; Khouja /Ramirez approximately 3,223 square foot first floor and an approximately 1,759 square foot second floor. Tower Element The applicant initially proposed the tower as an appurtenance, with the understanding that it will be allowed to exceed the height limitation by "fifteen feet above the height limit" for the zoning district (City Code §15-80.020). However, after reviewing definitions in the City code (attachment 1) and diagrams (attachment 2), staff has determined that the roofing material of the tower element does not meet the definition of "appurtenance." Spires typically appear on churches and the proposed roof area does not meet the definition of a cupola. Thus, it must meet the maximum height limitation of 26- feet. The applicant was informed of the option of applying for a use permit to request additional height for the structure, and that some modifications may be required to achieve architectural purity. DISCUSSION TOPICS: Roof Lines and Photovoltaic Panels The tallest ridge -lines of the home are about 25 -feet 9- inches tall and surround a flat roof reserved to accommodate photovoltaic panels (please refer to Sheet A -11 for roof plan). The only portion of the home that exceeds the 26 -foot height limitation is a small (about 3 -feet 8- inches) portion of the roofing material for the tower element. Characteristics of Queen Anne Style The architectural style of the home is identified as Queen Anne. City Code Section 15- 12.100 requires staff and the Planning Commission to use the book, "A Field Guide to American Houses (hereafter referred to as Field Guide) ... to assess the purity of architectural design." The book, authored by Virginia and Lee McAlester, describes defining features of various architectural styles, including those of Queen Anne. Identifying features of the style include: "steeply pitched roof of irregular shape, usually with a dominant front - facing gable; patterned shingles, cutaway bay windows, and other devices to avoid a smooth - walled appearance; asymmetrical fagade with partial or full - width porch which is usually one story high and extended along one or both side walls" (page 263). The tower is a common feature used in the Queen Anne style to break up fagades and act as a decorative element. The text also describes four distinguishing shapes: (1) hipped roof with lower cross gables (3) front - gabled roof (2) cross - gabled roof (4) townhouse; and four types of detailing: (1) spindlework (2) free classic (3) half - timbered (4) patterned masonry. Examples of these shapes and detailing can be found in the Field Guide (attachment 3). • • • Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 3 November 13, 2007 15211 Hume Drive; PDR 07 -0001; Khouja /Ramirez • Staff finds that the home is carefully designed and incorporates many of the elements for a Queen Anne style home, including: an asymmetrical fagade, a wrap- around porch, spindlework porch supports, sunburst detailing, and wood shingle gable detailing. However, while the proposal has many of the decorative detailing associated with spindlework, the home does not have one of the four representative distinguishing shapes or principal roof forms. Many of the drawings and photographs in the Field Guide depict homes with spindlework detailing as having prominent gables, particularly on the front fagade. Therefore, staff has recommended that applicant either: (1) reduce the height of the tower - element so that no part of the proposal exceeds the 26 -foot height limitation (please refer to Sheet A -9a for elevation drawings depicting this option); or (2) design the home such that it is architecturally consistent and pure with the Queen Anne style as described in the Field Guide. Owner /Applicant Comments The owners have expressed concern that the tower without the additional height does not have the appearance that they desire. Also, altering the roof pitch may require that the flat area of the roof be eliminated. This may subsequently result in either eliminating the photovoltaic panels, or placing them on the sides of a gable and having a greater impact to neighbors. Additionally, having a small portion of the home (the top portion of the tower) exceed the height limitation is less of an impact to the neighborhood than a structure that has an entire ridgeline exceeding the height limitation. Noticing and Neighbor Review Prior to application submittal, the applicant informed neighbors of the proposed project (with the tower element exceeding the height limitation) and obtained notification templates; no concerns were raised. Neighbors within a 500 -foot radius were noticed for this study session and a notice was published in The Saratoga News on October 30, 2007. Since then, several neighbors have come in to review the file and one neighbor has submitted a letter in regards to the proposal. The concerns are in regards to the proposal being two -story and in regards to the tower element (attachment 4). In response, the applicant has provided a vicinity map identifying other two -story homes within the neighborhood of the project site (attachment 6). PURPOSE OF STUDY SESSION: Staff and the owners request feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the architectural purity of the current design and compatibility of the proposal with the neighborhood. • Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 4 November 13, 2007 15211 Hume Drive; PDR 07 -0001; Khouja /Ramirez ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Code Sections a. 15- 06.061 (Definition of "appurtenance ") b. 15- 06.340 (Height of buildings) .c. 15- 12.100 (Height of structures) d. 15- 80.020 (Exceptions to height limitations) 2. Diagrams for cupolas and spires 3. Queen Anne shape subtypes and decorative elements from Field Guide 4. Neighbor notification templates date - stamped June 27, 2007 and letter from .neighbor date - stamped November 01, 2007 5.. Affidavit of mailing notices, study session notice, copy of mailing labels for project notification, and proof of newspaper publishing 6. Vicinity map from applicant, identifying other two -story homes within project site neighborhood date - stamped November 07, 2007 7. Letter from applicant; excerpt from Field Guide; and reduced set of project plans date- stamped October 29, 2007 • • CITY CODE SECTIONS Attachment 1 15- 06.061— Definition of "appurtenance" "Appurtenances" means the visible, functional, or ornamental objects accessory to and part of buildings, such as: chimneys, flag poles, cupolas, spires, or antennas. (Ord. 223 § 2 (part), 2003) 15- 06.340 — Height of buildings. "Height of building" means the vertical distance from the average of the highest and lowest point of the lot at the building's edge, measured from natural grade, of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the topmost point of the roof excluding appurtenances, unless otherwise specified in this Chapter. The Community Development Director, through the use of the best available information, such as tract grading plans, vegetation, and neighborhood topography or existing grades, shall determine natural grade. (Amended by Ord. 223 § 2 (part), 2003) 15- 12.100 — Height of structures. (a) No single - family dwelling shall exceed twenty -six feet in height and no other type of main structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. Exceptions to these limitations may be approved pursuant to a Use Permit and Design Review issued in accordance with Article 15 -55 of this Code if the additional height is necessary in order to adhere to a specific architectural style. The additional height may only be granted on residentially zoned parcels exceeding twenty thousand square feet. The Staff and Planning Commission will use the "A Field Guide to American Houses" and other resource material approved by the Planning Commission as resources documents to assess the purity of architectural design. (b) No accessory structure shall exceed fifteen feet in height; provided, however, the Planning Commission may approve of an accessory structure extending up to twenty feet in height if the Commission finds and determines that: (1) The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and (2) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (c) No structure shall exceed two stories, except that pursuant to a use permit issued under Article 15 -55 of this Chapter, a three -story structure may be allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi - public facilities (QPF) in the General Plan, where the average slope underneath the structure is ten percent or greater and a stepped building pad is used. (Amended by Ord. 221 § 2 (part), 2003) 15- 80.020 — Exceptions to height limitations Chimneys, flagpoles, spires, and similar appurtenances may be erected to a height not more than fifteen feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located. Utility poles shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in the district regulations. 40 Attachment 2 • 0 0 Ic • C STABLE slate shingles peclimented dormer STABLE two -over -two double -hung sash conical rubblestone. weathervane louvered vent Oo /` /,P 0�1 Second Empire p U roof — hayloft paired scroll -sawn brackets clapboards French Revival Source: (Pages 149 & 195) Carley, R. (1994). The Visual Dictionary of American Domestic Architecture. New York: Henry Holt and Company. CHURCH westwork. respond -•-- ........ ..........•........•........... A pier or pilaster projecting from a wall as a The monumental western front of a Romanesque church, treated as a tower or towers containing a low entrance hall below'^ arcuate and a chapel open to the nave above. i l wheel window Curved or arched like a bow. a term used in describing the arched or vaulted structure A rose window having distinctly radiating - mullions or bars. Also called Catherine r wheel, marigold window.! WIMM blind arcade r.�tM.lnl, crnn.i;c1�,A f— 0. tympanum The space between an arch and the horizontal head of a door or window below, often decorated with sculpture. i i w ✓.t. a° trumeau A column supporting the tympanum of a 9 r doorway at Its center. 7r . i transept The major transverse part of a cruciform church, crossing the main axis at a right angle between the nave and choir. Af crossing The Intersection of the nave and tran t in a cruciform church. iV` �JVDilUJ�1!!�9��I � ll iV�� campanile - ............................... A bell tower, usually one near but not attached to the body of a church. onion dome A bulbous, domelike roof Jating in a sharp point, used esp. In rth _&x church architecture to cupolap�'rr tower. r :.1 tabernacle Acanopled ® ® f � UYn EM HR- religious Image or icon. ��11 arcade .. ------------- 7 ................. : i Ii t ;. qr ... -_. gallery A roofed promenade, esp. one extending Inside or outside along the exterior wall of a building. loft gallery or upper level in a church or hall spire -- - - - - -- A tall, acutely tapering pyrar structure surmounting a steeple or tow a steeple A tall ornamental structure, usually ending In a spire and surmounting the tower of a church or other public building. _ Ire stave church An Indigenous Scandinavian church of the 12th and 13th centuries, having a timber frame, plank walls, a tiered, steeply pitched roof, and few windows., A sreries of arches supported on piers or respond -•-- ........ ..........•........•........... A pier or pilaster projecting from a wall as a interfacing rcade esp. support for an arch or lintel• esp. at the An arcade, a blind one, composed of arcuate termination of an arcade or colonnade. arches resting alternate supports and overlapping in series ies where they cross. Also Curved or arched like a bow. a term used in describing the arched or vaulted structure dosseret •--. - - - -.... -- - A thickened abacus or supplementary - called intersecting arcade. ofaRoman uechurchorGothlc WIMM blind arcade r.�tM.lnl, crnn.i;c1�,A f— 0. capital Set above capital t0 a—,I— �F.- k...—im,, —A Win Source: (Page 36) Ching, F. (1995). A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. • • Attachment 3 partial or full - width asymmetricc porch, usually one story high and extended along one or both side Halls - -- - - - -- — -- SHAPE SUBTYPPIS - - - - -- HIPPED ROOF WITH LOWER CROSSA ABLER ROOF FRONT- GABLED ROOF CROSS t TA BLES steeply pitchrd roof of irreguhi shape, usually with dominam front - facing gaol, r� textured shinglra (and /or other devices) used to avoid smooth - walled appearance asymmetrical faced. TOWN HODS@. 0 OnI.j 1 I �_ l —U—j . t � , Pages 269 -73 Page 274 page 275 pages 286 -7 1 SPINDLEIVORh l f Z pages 276 -9 page 280 page 281 pages :86 -7 FREE CLASSIC ' pages 282 -; pages 282-3 pages 282-3 pages 286 -7 HALF- l'In1BEll ED pages 28q -; pages 284 -5 pages 284 -5 PAl-ITF.RNED MASONRY PRINCIPAL SUBTYPES Source: (Page 262) McAlester, V., & McAlester; L. (2002). A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pages 286-; • • :i rr a r L r HIPPED, WITH LOWER CROSS GABLES most common MFULL - WIDTH FRONT CROSS GABLES ONLY GABLE I - t These roof forms must be These roof forms alone will normally identify the style accompanied by other details to identify the style SPINDLEWORK gable ornament n incised orna ( Fast lake) spindlework ( note beads lace -like bra delicate spindlework porch supports half -ti: lines o windo, (three more) corner brackets HALF - TIMBERED COMMON IN ALL FOUR TYPES large pane Of glass bounded by smaller panes shallow rectangula window o main window bay windows patterned masonry chimneys FREE CLASSIC PATTERNED MASONRY window entils classic columns may be grouped and /or raised to porch -rail . level shaped paraperef gables Source: (Page 265) McAlester, V., McAlester, L. (2002). A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. lecorative ten otta panels Source: (Page 267) McAlester, V., McAlester, L. (2002). A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. • Attachment 4 • r, 1 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form, PROJECT ADDRESS: N Dear-Neighbor, I am'proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. 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 anytime 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 urther interest in advised that these plans are preliminary change. 08- 86801222 and speak with the the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga a assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. '7 Neighbor Name: . ate: 2� Signature: Cnt11Z L (� Neighbor Address: � z Fce rklewr-_ Neighbor Phone #: g If I have-any initial concerns with the project Lmay list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name; Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & Procedureslneighbor notification.doc Date: Planning Department • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form��� PROJECT ADDRESS: 2L 1- Urz�i.A� IJi1 IE16 '; `� iw'I Dear Neighbor, D )�) r 1 �rIY14YFL}I�.` L 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. Q Neighbor Name: i z G I^ r 4 r' c' Date: G 67 n Signature: Neighbor Address: I s( Sr r t;-h J 1 t'': -r� 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): 0--- Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 P: IForms & Procedureslneighbor notification.doc PROJECT ADDRESS City of Saratoga Neigbbor Notification Form V `2- -Z I CAA Ir--, '121 r r'. ilia'' �. Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. 1 ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminaryplans 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: 2- Date: Signature: Neighbor Address: � � s�o �] o � f �. o 3r'�3G 9 . / C Neighbor Phone #: `_— If I have any initial concems,with the project I. may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10/24106 P: IForms & Procedures Ineighbor notification.doc Date: Planning Department C� • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form j{ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 `' Dear Neighbor, ` I am proposing,a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. 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:��dR�� "� R Date: Signature: Neighbor Ad Wg )_6 -� C16 t � 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: Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & ProceduresWeighbor notification. doc Date: Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Yi PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, 17 DEEVE! 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: �Q� /ii �o v'e� Date: Signature: Neighbor Address: 5aa 3 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: Application Number: Date: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & ProceduresW eighbor notification.doc 0 • Barbara and George Roupe 19921 Park Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Ms. Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Bhatt; November 1, 2007 u `v,� \` rl '© J The purpose of this letter is to submit our comments to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed structure to be built at 15211 Hume Drive. We regret that we will not be available to attend the Study Session to be held on November 13, but would appreciate you making these comments available to the participants at that time. Our first observation relates to the two -story element of the proposed structure. It should be noted that the existing houses in the immediate neighborhood are single story structures with the exception of the home at 19921 Park Drive (where we live). This house was a two -story structure when we purchased it in 1970 and had that configuration for the two prior decades. For some time this neighborhood takes its character from being an understated quiet community and even the more recent structures built have been single story buildings. We do not believe the proposed structure blends in with the character of the existing neighborhood. We have serious objection to the tower appendage on the proposed structure. As we understand it this tower has no functional purpose and has been included in the design as an architectural element. The objective is to achieve supposed compatibility with the "Queen Ann" style architecture. This would allow the building to exceed the two -story building height limit without compliance with the City requirements for a variance. Under the existing rules of the City the excessive height would most probably not comply with the requirements of granting a variance. We urge the owners and the architect to take these concerns under consideration and make the adjustments in design to accommodate them. Sincerely, &AV George and Barbara Roupe Telephone: 408-353-7736 Cell Phone: 408 -529 -4939 IOTA 0.:8 AC NET z \ __y ^� . i ZS R 24 �7 iI „s a %32 AC NET I ' i r w I2 2 IT I p {s 4C . . UISAG. awr- aas�- 1.50 Ac. Z t 1 \ \�I J L \peg pC. 4 .1 1 .PACE ESM'T i.' AC.' CR. °'AC: "NET 3 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 26`h day of October , 2007, that I deposited 35 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: Address: 15211 HUME DR APN: 510 -01 -016 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar,, t Advanced Listing Services t • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408- 868 -1222 NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Tuesday, the 13th day of November 2007, at 5:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Administrative Conference Room 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: #PDR07-0001 — 15211 Hume Drive APPLICANT /OWNER: Khouja / Ramirez APN: 510 -01 -016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be approximately 4,982 square feet and will have a full basement. The maximum height for the structure is proposed to be 26 -feet tall. However, the owners request a study session to review additional height for a proposed tower. A detached pool house is also proposed at a height of approximately 18 -feet 9- inches. The gross lot size is 55,503 square feet, and the site is zoned R -1- 20,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed no later than Thursday November 08, 2007. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.sarato ag ca.us. 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. Shweta Bhatt . Associate Planner sbhatt(@saratog,a.ca.us (408) 868 -1266 October 26, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 510.01 -016 MARIA D & M KHOUJA . 15211 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -01 -013 510 -01 -015 FRANCIS L & EDYTHMAE STUTZMAN ELIZABETH P SPEER DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15195 PARK DR 15181 HUME DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6464 510 -01 -017 3EORGE A & BARBARA ROUPE DR CURRENT OWNER 19921 PARK DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 . 510 -01 -018 ALLEN & PATRICIA DON OR CURRENT OWNER 15150 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6463 510 -01 -016 MARIA D & M KHOUJA OR CURRENT OWNER 15211 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -01 -019 BETTY CHRISTIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15100 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6463 • 510 -01 -020 510 -01 -021 510 -01 -027 :20BERT G & BERNADINE LARSON DONALD C & MAUREEN LIGHTBODY HUGH B UNDERWOOD DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15070 PARKDR 15060 PARK DR 19853 PARK DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6422 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6422 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -028 510 -01 -029 -030 3AROLD & BETTY HODGES - JOHN M & LORI WORTLEY DAVID S &BARBARA SILVERSTEIN DAVID DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER BULLION 1479 CT 19875 PARK DR 19897 PARK DR SAN N JOSE CA 95511 20 -1745 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -031 LAMES A & HEIDI.GRASSMAN DR CURRENT OWNER 19874 PARK DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -01 -035 RA B & REGINA OLDHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 19861 ROBIN WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -038 kNDREW LINDSAY DR CURRENT OWNER 19920 PARK DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -01 -032 ERIC & LISA WARMENHOVEN OR CURRENT OWNER 19852 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -01 -036 MOHSEN S & BEHNAZ SALEK OR CURRENT OWNER 19891 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01- 043,044 DAVID R & FRANCES FRANKLIN 15177 -PARK DR - SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 510 -01 -034 DOUGLAS & MICHELE HELMUTH OR CURRENT OWNER 19831 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -037 LEON RABINOWITZ OR CURRENT OWNER 19921 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -02 -005 FREDERICK W & REGINA SCHWERTLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 15300 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6417 510 -02 -006 510 -02 -007 510 -02 -008 ✓AHID & MARITA LAHIJANIAN PARTHA SRINIVASAN BYRON J & LYNDA ANDERSON DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19910 ROBIN WAY 19880 ROBIN WAY 15281 PEPPER LN 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6429 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6429 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6425 51°0 -02 -009 RICHARD E BOCKS PO BOX 2130 SJYVALE CA 94087 -0130 517 -22 -011 BARRY L & LYNDA FORD OR CURRENT OWNER 20100 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6331 517 -22 -036 517 -22 -055 FRANCIS L & EDYTHMAE STUTZMAN S & CAROLE HORINE 15195 PARK DR OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 15250 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 517 -22 -094 HARLEY B & JUDITH NEGIN OR CURRENT OWNER 15172 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: THERESE SCHMIDT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • • 517 -22 -112 DAVID J & TERESA CAREY OR CURRENT OWNER 15320 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 517 -22 -035 BERNICE K & FRANK GIANSIRACUSA PO BOX 2430 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0430 517 -22 -093 ALI SOOZANI OR CURRENT OWNER 15180 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6451 517 -22 -122 CLYDE R WALLIN OR CURRENT OWNER 15288 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 LegalAdvertisingC,- Pfiblidotices • the right to relect any and all are available at the Saratoga bids ,d prior sp to entry Community of,: court Development General 0 order corifirmbill a sale. Department, Monday 1, additional information through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. and bid apply at ,,Ieo - 5:00 If have Notices p.m. you ques- iiffic, of =., trams, tions, Planners are available Great Oaks Blvd., San lose, at the* public counter SUPERIOR COURT OF CA 95119 between the hours of 7:30 CALIFORNIA. Attention: a.m. and 12:00 noon. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Christine LeQuang, All Interested persons may In the Matter of the Estate Telephone: (408) 828- 1074., aear and be heard at the Date: 10122/07 of TAKASHI, YOSHIOKA. abpopve time and place. If you Decedent. ROBERT 0. CECIL challenge a decision of the • 1-07-PR-161331 Public Administrator of Planning Commission pur. the County of Santa Clara NOTICE OF INTENT To suant to a public hearing in Petitioner . court, you may be limited to SELL REAL PROPERTY ANN MILLER RAVEL. raising only those Issues you AT PRIVATE SALE County Counsel or someone else raised NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TAMARA K. LOPEZ, at the public hearing(s) that on or after November Deputy County Counsel described In this notice, or in 20. 2007, at 3:00 P.m., Attorneys for Petitioner written correspondence the undersigned, as Exhibit "A" delivered to the Saratoga Administrator of the estate THE LAND REFERRED TO Planning Commission at, or of TAKASHI. YOSHIOKA. HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED Prior to, the public heating. Intends to sell at private IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, In order to be included in the sale, to the highest net bid- COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Planning Commission's Infor- der, all of the estate's right, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND oration packets, written com- title and Interest in, and to IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: munications should be filed certain real property located Lot 8 as shown on that cef- on or before the Tuesday, a in the City of Saratoga, tain Map of Tract No. 8250, week before the meeting. County of Santa Clara, State which Map was riled for APPLICATION • #PDR07-0001 of California, which Property record in the Office of the (510.01-016) is more particularly Recorder of the County of Khoula/Ramirez, described In Exhibit "A* Santa Clara, State Of 15211 Hume Drive - The attached hereto and Incorpo- California, on September IS, applicant requests Design rated by reference. The sale 1989 In Book 605 Of Maps- Review approval to demolish shall be subject to conflrma- Page 38 and 39. . the existing home and con. tion by the above-entitled Excepting therefrom the struct a new two-story home. court. underground water or rights The proposed structure will Bids for the property are thereto, with no right of sur. be approximately 4.982 hereby Invited. All bids must face entry, as granted to San square feet and will have a be on the bid forms provided lose Water Works, a' full basement. The maximum by the undersigned or Keller California Corporation by height for the structure is Williams and may be mailed instrument recorded proposed to be 26-feet tall. or personally delivered to the September 29,1989 in Book However, the owners request undersigned at the Office L115, Page 572, Official . a study' session to review of the Public Administrator/ Records. additional height for a pro- Guardian, 2851 junction APN: 366-22-030 posed tower. A detached Ave., San lose, CA 95134, or (Pub SN 10/31.11/7.11/14) pool house Is also proposed to Keller Williams, 180 Great Oaks Blvd.. San lose, CA at a height of approximately 95119. 18-feet 9-inches. The gross VCity lot size is 55,503 square All bids must be accompa- feet, and the site Is zoned R- riled by a ten (10) percent deposit, with the balance of .20,000. The s tudy session Legals / . w8 take place on Tuesday, the purchase price to be paid November 13. 2007 at In cast upon close o ► escrow. The full terms of the sale are NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION 5:00pm In the Administrative Conference Room. contained in the bid form. BEFORE PLANNING All bids will be opened at the COMMISSION (Pub SN 10/31/01) Office of the Public CITY OF SARATOGKS NOTICE.017 HEARING Administrator/Guardian at PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE PLANNING 3:00 p.m., of thereafter, as announces the following COMMISSION allowed by law study session on Tuesday. CITY OF SARATOGAS The subject property Is com- the 13th day of September at PLANNING COMMISSION monly known as 20570 5:00 p.m. In the announces the following Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Administrative- Conference public hearings on 95070, and shall be sold Room located at 13777 Wednesday, the 14th day of as Is." Frultvale Avenue. Saratoga, November 17:00 p.m, in the The undersigned reserves CA 95070. Details and plans City Council Chambers local- 60 SARA-I'OGA NEWS. OCTOBER 30, 2007 • Attachment 6 0 fib' ah►noz� -1� cC`�s�s1�� � ol�. a tP IN a r � -- �_`-:Gel S i ©1r L 609.' J c 21n "3VYOA A . l as 1 • Attachment 7 • • � 1 �Y To the Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga, 17777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed new residence for Mr. & Mrs. Adel Khouja, 15211 Hume Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Members: OCT 0 E C E � F E D Z 9 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT At the invitation of the Planning Staff, we are submitting along with. the basic requirements for a Public Hearing which include a Project Description, some additional drawings, photos and this letter, in an effort to aid your deliberations regarding the above referenced project. We have tried not to waste your time by being repetitious, but inevitably, there might be points that will be need to be emphasized for clarity, that will also be found in the Project Description. Please accept our apologies. When the project was started, Mr. & Mrs. Khouja gave us a somewhat complicated program. The • program required that the current house should be de- constructed instead *of demolished, with the intent of recycling all the materials. The program also required that the new house would look like it had been on the site for a century or so, and a house which would continue to look as beautiful for the next century or more. 'It had to be environmentally friendly, and be equipped with a photovoltaic installation on the roof that would be invisible to anyone from anywhere in the neighborhood. The house had to be reminiscent of old farm houses scattered around California including a raised main floor, a front porch, distinctive architecture, expansive views from all rooms, and technologically advanced to minimize the use of natural resources. The house had to have a smaller footprint that the existing house,to provide both the owners and their neighbors with as large a buffer zone as possible to increase privacy. The project should be designed to minimize impacts on numerous trees on the property, and still meet every requirement mandated by the City of Saratoga, including bulk, size, lot coverage, impervious surfaces and height of the structure. • After some exploratory field trips, it became very clear that the style favored by Mr. & Mrs. Khouja was in the realm of Queen Anne. From that point on, the design evolved to incorporate in the floor plans and elevations, all the elements of the Queen Anne style, while trying to maintain the main body of the roof structure under the height limitation of 26 feet. In this endeavor, we sought the advice of planning staff from the very early stages (at the time our planner was Ms. Lata Vasudevan), as well as the "Field Guide to American Houses" by Virginia and Lee McAlester, cited in the City of Saratoga Design Guidelines as an approved source for this type of information. Through every iteration, every effort was made to ensure that all the elements cited as characteristic of the style would be MWEV incorporated into the project with as much fidelity to their original use as possible, to produce as .authentic a Queen Anne design as would be possible to achieve given the restrictions imposed by City regulations. The tower is one of the elements of Queen Anne, and quoting from the Field Guide, page 266, "Towers are a Queen Anne feature and may be round, square or polygonal (the square form is the least common)" "Round or polygonal wooden towers are particularly characteristic of the Queen Anne (round masonry towers may be Richardsonian Romanesque; square towers are more common on Stick, Italianate, or Second Empire houses). Towers placed at a front facade corner are most often Queen Anne, while those embraced within an L or centered on the front facade are equally common in several other styles ". The house before you includes the tower as an anchor element of the Queen Anne style of architecture, and as will be evident from the photographic collage presented by Mr. & Mrs. McAlester on their book, page 272, when the tower is used, it is a very dominant feature and is mostly taller than the rest of the roof structure. While through diligent efforts it became possible to fit the house under the 26 foot height limitation, it was clear that in order to preserve the proportions classical to the style and specifically to this project, the tower element had to be taller than the rest of the structure. Sensitive to the neighbors, a careful study of the tower proportions showed that we could achieve the balance sough if we raised the spire (the name for the roof of a tower), by some T -6" above the 26 foot limit. The spire was drawn at that height, perfectly balancing the front facade. Furthermore, a detailed review of the current codes revealed that exemptions are allowed for certain elements like "flag poles, chimneys, spires and other appurtenances ". Since spires are mentioned directly, and the roof of a tower in this and other styles is called a spire, we concluded that such a spire would be exempted, specially considering that the exemption would be for an eight sided pyramidal structure 3' -6" high, and approximately 2.5 feet in radius. In this, staff disagreed with our conclusion. The exemption sought on the basis of this section of the code was denied. In trying to work with us, staff suggested that an application for a Use Permit could be filed, under which such an exemption could be granted, provided staff could make those findings required for such exemption, and which are based on the need to exceed height limitations in order to preserve the "purity" of an architectural style. However, we were also advised that making such findings would be almost impossible, based on the fact that the Queen Anne style of architecture has roofs that terminate in ridges and not in flat roofs (the flat portion of the roof is hidden from view, and houses the photovoltaic panels), which is an accurate observation. Nevertheless, while the necessity for regulation is patently evident, we have earnestly sought to comply with every single requirement the City has in its books, including the exemption sought based on the wording of the code, and the definitions of various dictionaries quoted to staff in our response letter to their comments. However, given the conundrum we are in, we have requested a study session with you in order to be able to better explain our reasoning, and have the benefit of your considered advice. We have gone through a very significant effort to try to balance the competing interests of architectural style, owners' needs and desires, technical considerations and • city requirements, and we think that we have achieved a significant balance. There are some other minor issues to discuss, but this is the most important. In a further effort to aid your deliberations, we .have produced a second version of the front and rear elevations of the house as it would look if the spire was reduced in height to comply with the 26 foot limit. The tower looks squat and out of proportion, and at odds with the rest of the structure. A brief note about the pool house / barn. Consistent with the theme of a farm house, the pool house has been designed to look like an old barn. The materials used are rough sawn redwood planks with redwood battens. The barn exceeds the standard height limitation, but not the maximum permissible if approved by the Planning Commission. There are two reasons to seek your approval to exceed the standard height limit: one, the barn would not look like barn if the 15 foot height limit was used. The building would look squat and out of proportion. A set of elevations to show what the building would look like at 15 feet has been drawn, and is submitted herewith for your perusal. the second reason is that in an effort to minimize the use of natural resources and make the house as energy efficient and independent as possible, a second set of photovoltaic panels are built into the roof structure. The panels are inset into the roof, and therefore will not be readily visible. The panels (and the building) are oriented 15 degrees to the southwest, which is within the range of maximum efficiency for solar panels. That slight deviation from true south ensures that the panel assembly in the barn will be able to catch the sun more directly, for more hours, at the brightest time of the day. With the division of orientation in the solar panels between the house and the barn, more solar exposure is achieved and maximum performance obtained. Additionally, it sets the building at a better angle to be enjoyed by people sitting at the terraces of the house, who will never see the panels. This is also intended to protect direct lines of view from neighbors to the south. With the handsplit cedar shake roof and board and batten redwood sides, the building will look like a redwood barn with lean -tos attached. We look forward with great anticipation to the study session, and hope that this written presentation and outline of the main issue, has been clear, concise, and useful to you. If at any time you need to ask for further information, we will be pleased to provide it as fast as possible. "-, ) j Truly io Ramirez -B< S�gio E. Ramirez- tiz &�p.ssociates Pr cipal • 17 18 272 Queen Anne WORK: OOF WITH LOWER CROSS GABLES (cont.) lady, Texas; ca. 1895. Nelms I-louse. Note the curved roof on roofs are far less common than straight -sided examples. so s ,bridge, Massachusetts; 1889. Note the absence of the typical B gable; a hipped dormer is used here instead. is a Cruz, California; 1891. Gray House. Note how the tower i'at the first -story level by a band of shingles and at the second- _ by a band of roofing. This clearly illustrates the typical Queen $ion to smooth wall surfaces. Figures 17 and 18 also show lnter- vers. Francisco, California; 1886. Haas House. The central hipped den by gables and tower. Note the unusually elaborate details of .c — urfaces. ion Springs, Alabama; late 19th century. Note the S- shaped s he tower roof. wrens, South Carolina; ca. 1896. Davis House. Note the porch- :t and the delicate beaded spindlework frieze extending around L •e r��'�'r .�� '.Porch. 17 18 272 Queen Anne w N C k6 T A C. s O l2}�"}3Nf> :.Z•Y i33NG.i+IQ S�nfvLiNd� )iv,vr,,..K.. . _ - �. v. �. �..- t-- .�.r- ..�.�-.-- w- r-r�.�.- .�. -r.. -_ '1?Vn,>l� sI+1ND1•y�!?� "�.Jodd a _: ��r+4tl . mLVOOHm�a�"f? =.��• �1��5``�� �' �d`�• r "�vi<5ny' S9 a•crirbdd ate : e'Sal�j �Jkn 4NV 4e'Op "aril wJa� 35nON �Sil f�3dZ al 4yv1, 3NO77��,Awa N aalflfidd sN¢L}?52ta -TN_ N� S3NC1 J- tzl�oae" waai :x'19 M�tod. :. -�i v. � . '37NM1 `std PJnw 4y.t�dl••I.iNiS'Vl dl. a3Nasi ad G', : 35lk6'kT 3+iL s34- i1J- Y3.'I- 'YfL :`�v 37YT+�Y Wf1Ytli'jW �Hi�1vJ. 3,I.HeC?7�s a#+S:a .- "719iN�v1a� "b SFWTtM1N�:"IVatl- 71'3+U..fl1. SMA2 -tN?�. 'ICIQI+I 1'aPl '33no}T- d_3¢,FCML.�`' 7i+i_PPislnd ��.]t<Ktl `at]1QN?l s,2t\N� �.1f/ 1d�2z+1d2aN 1. ' mil'/ LsWS� �tiY '3/���%Id a15�133s.'�nN N�t� as �N1: -i1 a�l�wdi�'vrl 1+�9. �L51L gt+yi:1Y:JSr3W WO.Tdz� 7Y�M NP�2lad321 v _t•9lita rt O.tLa i 4-/"i'. Sstzlaad l.iL. aH1 N5,Ht>LS"3z1%aaHl:, b. s3tttd..it�3�N2: sY4C Ir .G9Li�v X'TIYN,�sY'3w.113N�1Y_o35fl sYrri.}zaar�¢.aid:tiL_ ",, a?on.. lata,T4- �'�711_.(M'+J.�4,4Y3A �w09 ::.�'L. #I jl •3' vH7 -Til itlPfril X"aNYY S3'.�'9•�1Q. �ii_N.'iia. 3'dNV�Sf X�237133d °+LMt1+^lf7L S'AW 6'AW _ __ 3�13JN:YJ 't'92n1?a1kH2dY �u sy :3 aWi �rtitwra�Nt�2 IZ Ltswd._wFdss�[ s�7rnnriwa wry xaaLn t>:wasu M�??:d a} aar as e�],�: aavr. anw+ �9aNtrio �xL . Xacr�, },�d wriw.tn,'w -3ai:. cA 1,•'rrT»•!- rnflzcty - sw,dSs}.�...Jsntev' aNV,asnoH �H.1.:.da SL+o,i�u.ni X�ary - trL[f'�SSa - n:�..ro�tcri�W 1�itn a�ladwn. 2�y= L��_�ae+y.'_: N�naa� Hz,•z�¢ riri. � �+ruaex�n�. :�snw� ter+}. �a saaan. klatta a+11_�9 1lr nyriYlri +?atr+�+s_?�andantr!�A „tm �f,xsasa #u_° asx� :aQ.�L�}z�i�a= ti�ai��e� ?at/ ���= i�?�N, nn�' � •}Tr�x %�TiaTx�N�_srn�'ilda::�a� ;: aaN�n�_�Nyd �xI 1�7T,tiFditlyi }:ss»_a trtsT3Ne� sxa 3��"Qa 1� < �o2NmaN311_�a±� }iaNi slH11 oNV ..S�rtl add�� ^�-' NI'vw �ru No:513r1rr1 �H::: Nk���u1.r2zJ� 1- >,�r�.do.ltin2it_�tlT�w_�ku �-xw�7 "�- e32N_�lN� vk�kri�� -a�a5 ?S�llnah¢Sa#+d_'�� ' NA tivYivl {yl �tt1. :MiY't,d91- 9977fI'J13N92:F�3:3 3h.4N; �W7.1'f5ctotl'� 3ti14tiY.3+iiar+NirW �{Il. #y.ag 'NOLJfSC�.'.FAA ��M¢1L]�n]J>36 tt0� i.2al�lra . :` .air sa I r NM�1 laalv', �+al 'aS�+aa3"anr, „Ir». o a 2��'w xa'rd Na(33a s,bz� �L-9. r1wA�Ari9d �3tt2t��A raffia svLi �]N�Li.�3a >wsci__3L#L_- :. . -- .. __ ..- . _... AS w v N kM3A3H3 S ;BQ _ _ A _ ._ I d11L•'rVY 1J,38 'i, rc L 317Yd1/�NW. 90 , "36nd •JN L ? -. 21(1 -• .. aai'J133A a£I ? IM. 1 _. •_SLa d}79 ` >Ia13yNYAN311fl 1� 4'�- ?f� 17 ... ... _ -._. \�1HY�.�N M�"«�J 01' 4 a? lJ'd N XaNl 37Y�.0 •43NSN3^]aY 7 '�sfrolT '1004 ZT V. - ..— ._ . a t �2w M ¢t - irr•J's+9NN'i21._M�tY� ... 7iLL Y�a4S? `�rIJ 2'�3�d r71 Niri A243N3 'IdM]JI�,LrdP.MO> �v__ syl .. _.. 5i✓vlL /n3't3 HJ -.nos i N121bN OI V a3'nPZ . . is�nN,: �, �r�aats_>r q�Nt�l?b 'v_a9J�e: ?r.d.l�f %Nrn,�_?��n_adosvrvala.yir+�_ M Is-id] 1 6 maT?- ::cnctom_ -4q) ,,vVZ,- d :hrvrrac 'Y" v ek '»a•ravi� Nrµ1. •��i+ir�t dNY .1;ilssa= rra,� aids 1Na 3 e v' . V ^r �5/1�3 N. 1� -xwl3 'JMM��aJ�4li afS""g= Vn�7�gYSfl:.�.\'I.11Jia Nd��SnOH 3111 ��,tlSrollltQY . N z1Aaa :_ 3h3� tdl?YW L `d A.. . _.. ... .... . - ” 3i5vo9.7'FA`/1 �`V � '3,Y1v�&O�YIO] 1t 9 »YW G1n0.1i1 ,1rHl S��NVn4Y '1Y71N.ii ?31 ! pnd 1.l l3;». OL c3ycki,4_radx� ltrv12ro5= : ...... tdd13 �.}<+'DSQx'd "I � 5 Y., aalAa321,wst, � €:4oN v NJ 3,-rt trnon�•:sa1Y 3'�!v •:7]3p�d 'e "Q: 1•niti*aQN�o� �;u rii•�; S111'ti117 _.`J`9.N1'd2lG ' IV: `d s!X� s,+17°VaJ •.59rdp- b#LX2Yd SiNJ3. X9. a3N,r[a34Tln rriaa. SvH.1*1kJ: ' >n'SN 'fIN17LS ?tKkj -N¢N . . -. .. dNv'WAgttr� r 41,},nS'39 �41.i Sz�Nti01N�'JA�}a 1.4 awV.�P 'ac„7rAQ] �rT Nl �i]Y'K. =' ,... •sidvkd �1.1s ctl fd �PA.lb __ _� r3aa ]i'.a8 sNOlzva �teoxY exv �v °Ll+�' N?(Snr r� - �ti:bTP� ��m ��✓ a fl aci�#L usL� �� u tom- :W 0,4 f7j `pilflCd °���3' Jk:f9rd' == - - -- .. _(T�]N+'JY�.i21(ldd'd 9N$GS01'a83) --t- ,°�-162. �"b'Yti'x YEA. 34 ;391kD13ki °ok ,`a'- �otv,d,Mg 3p,Ina3H_V�DWI:tvS� .d L�':�.-- ..._: '•t''ti..8 5.:�?Y9d/37.- nd.�tmll. J- GY3P7. a'1`kY344o('?N SHf1l12L�5YS3[. �. -ANON :., ::� �1t : :�:MLP,uk��ti adm�i .i avl�?aHs v'�w•✓smm�v33wr�a3?v�_wa;,e�3T pn_�1�SIgN 1f¢�3v Wit: �,N�'iaa9rlam :'S :::tiouaaad __:. �� aanT�n� �vTirA3 amort s as a3 3vLV�2kae :j- d !4s. I E 1 is 1aK � -. - 'Ei,'k1*1 � ��'� i •.Ld'�f.�Cd655 55D�TJ :�_ 719151d._.'aN 1NCP2 'lS+t1T✓*76k63a1 ).'IkYt#7� :'�'I9N1 ti ,_ ou5o �a..vaalv^a� ��c •�±Z?OH�I�G� �::. _�_ __ sf�sSF .v� �•x�J.vxc�= .tvt3 a 3tra ivti_a t :..fl12G7 3w2t J f��a7 y �• co O j Lo Zz<l 7. -- '�) ry '� \J i � y. • 5� �At�Q 3W(1H :112.51 /� . �� 6� • y 1 O I j 1, a k asp "'t " - --- .. E ?3� ;Ltl3Khd: d3d:M�•'71:': i - '- '3'n }nQ. :.,:alav �} -. .� ,• <' V7 J. ;ljV =S , �625'�l' Z °4'�l'bPs ervTi� =S T'LI.1 o2�Z 7oo,a >5 � 5 I.d'' O2 S :,dm5 ;!Tvj:vv =S � O{,i '• a104• . C''t •• .°oa '.t:'•r 02R. 'H19v3'k yt,ot"�7 :� C•'%'7". vow (T. 'IN ELI')'L.1 1[11.5 d•D71V V va, f'-Lt-7 ;5T 0•�nOd 5'b (gr-ro acNd� [�zIZH°i/d 177i9[`S 3131 Da WO-IS 3TIJV'ATV 7MI, u_I-Vnnr J arbF1 -1.5 1:i0a•e w 61-0 1: op %fib 'b0 3LL'!tH r1251 ;2a ; tl1�OH71 '13n\/ t•Uu1 F '"�1J ,KthC•WY pi ' arceamaw.p.nt. +vn w�n.'m na sec n EWA3mns S3IVIOom v 39004 a �d0� til' y YNl 9 'oM / bps ONVI ,�•N ,LO'2Z£ �Sii3 } b ��, cos iae� / o� _ �d4 u tiS �� i to �O7L S,` O �J7 1 Yay� 'a� S Yak' � naaY a , f °�Q11i jkv r�CV4 C,1^ Yy K'S %S 15V3 U4d�V? kk '£ a0'0 01 a(+caj 'V-j d9 O1ryM S' ' •x'Q 3d+�N L 12j:t ��(,. •y�nak+� Ht71r/W V 1�aH ,Dv SCI ("mil Y{/ 4 JnS 1Qvba5-nQ( j L002 'I owm.°s�l E)NIAMWIS 831VIOO"V 1 39000 �•�» 111411 ' i1 -,5w- VNn N T9 Lo Zz<l 7. -- '�) ry '� \J i � y. • 5� �At�Q 3W(1H :112.51 /� . �� 6� • y 1 O I j 1, a k asp "'t " - --- .. E ?3� ;Ltl3Khd: d3d:M�•'71:': i - '- '3'n }nQ. :.,:alav �} -. .� ,• <' V7 J. ;ljV =S , �625'�l' Z °4'�l'bPs ervTi� =S T'LI.1 o2�Z 7oo,a >5 � 5 I.d'' O2 S :,dm5 ;!Tvj:vv =S � O{,i '• a104• . C''t •• .°oa '.t:'•r 02R. 'H19v3'k yt,ot"�7 :� C•'%'7". vow (T. 'IN ELI')'L.1 1[11.5 d•D71V V va, f'-Lt-7 ;5T 0•�nOd 5'b (gr-ro acNd� [�zIZH°i/d 177i9[`S 3131 Da WO-IS 3TIJV'ATV 7MI, u_I-Vnnr J arbF1 -1.5 1:i0a•e w 61-0 1: op %fib 'b0 3LL'!tH r1251 ;2a ; tl1�OH71 '13n\/ t•Uu1 F '"�1J ,KthC•WY pi ' arceamaw.p.nt. +vn w�n.'m na sec n EWA3mns S3IVIOom v 39004 a �d0� til' y YNl 9 'oM / bps ONVI ,�•N ,LO'2Z£ �Sii3 } b ��, cos iae� / o� _ �d4 u tiS �� i to �O7L S,` O �J7 1 Yay� 'a� S Yak' � naaY a , f °�Q11i jkv r�CV4 C,1^ Yy K'S %S 15V3 U4d�V? kk '£ a0'0 01 a(+caj 'V-j d9 O1ryM S' ' •x'Q 3d+�N L 12j:t ��(,. •y�nak+� Ht71r/W V 1�aH ,Dv SCI ("mil Y{/ 4 JnS 1Qvba5-nQ( j L002 'I owm.°s�l E)NIAMWIS 831VIOO"V 1 39000 �•�» a �d0� til' y YNl 9 'oM / bps ONVI ,�•N ,LO'2Z£ �Sii3 } b ��, cos iae� / o� _ �d4 u tiS �� i to �O7L S,` O �J7 1 Yay� 'a� S Yak' � naaY a , f °�Q11i jkv r�CV4 C,1^ Yy K'S %S 15V3 U4d�V? kk '£ a0'0 01 a(+caj 'V-j d9 O1ryM S' ' •x'Q 3d+�N L 12j:t ��(,. •y�nak+� Ht71r/W V 1�aH ,Dv SCI ("mil Y{/ 4 JnS 1Qvba5-nQ( j L002 'I owm.°s�l E)NIAMWIS 831VIOO"V 1 39000 �•�» Ate Off Al", .......... L--------- --- 4005 -4005 gh. KIP "e, A6� Am ­ - - - - - - - - - - - - fs 41, . . . . . . . . W im&C� t4IA j14y*Ime7fmWmI --T R e,:-" K 0 vtrm_- vp,-�Ta�a _t, i 4put, zu now 0 MOT --MOO! 5-, -A -Aa -)ILA VVA t� 1 L -W HT_ IA; A.Ik V J RE: e A! 30 � 0 A eAT 0 F ^LL�45;Af r V"_ _2� -'FWZAk -W -617ArWV_-W_xW 50'ZM -A 13 V OntE K WVC W_�4 IV-L- T-.zw--asr -6 S�srw V - E-'r-e ffTQV �p 6xaf-_--_:m -Ittl -K -XIA _0_K" S ---------- I PENN, San , mmom VPO?EM, MAf' IT 1 i Ed �! 111 ii 11 ii 1! i 11 W. " A. tot ttei es to Ro O Vi AB BNOIBIA9N }: I- all? J3fnla- nu., da�bm - 7i Wt� . 1? 00-1 . z 4) !S 10 3A 6q i7l-k it AlW4,1411 '1441-A s ell -- -------- lot VO miz-1-- A -�Tim-2 I XR- GIF w2dXR- -.ry 7 J mw� AB BNOIBIA9N }: I- all? J3fnla- nu., da�bm - 7i Wt� . 1? 00-1 . z 4) !S 10 3A 6q i7l-k it AlW4,1411 '1441-A s ell -- -------- VO miz-1-- A A 4*1 414 '2. Z _ 7 V?.. I -A. ... . . ....... AYW A3a�t .01 Ni AN ii M WWI 00 -OLI OTO A i : AB BNOIBIA9N }: I- all? J3fnla- nu., da�bm - 7i Wt� . 1? 00-1 . z 4) !S 10 3A 6q i7l-k it AlW4,1411 '1441-A s ell • • 7 VO A 4*1 • • 7 L'] 1 "r 1 �g 1 9 9 } ;f L, m ua a/ XIhTI1°1G: LOCAPOA OF 13 TI LIT IE q - - - �ENEZAL" l.1? V'I YA: s,[) Y.' �SI iALL, GALL.:.U.S.A...CUNtip.ZGKLVNr/'. C� -- nLZ:C() To K- �[r[tt� -+�' FLC3T�f<TE,LGC9po.Y r ?w �r- VIGES PL'.tO1J_TR AA1X' �?11%*1TL>rJ rJ�;GEaDIh[O e.._ .. .. _.. /� C✓i1L4DK2 -'. i4i B ZGf .� .. _.... - �- , PHViTEO ON CLFAPPflINT S�ON " 9 r � - r h/yiAh i vp' r:;rot � � .;. ✓" 1 ��X f �`. o ( 1 i "339 'Bu . _:'SQIlfN -.r da �,t�'.. l+0 ul'unu r'(Teft•L -�w II; I 1 y wi t ...- eL L ZPf1 ^ ::T 711 Q MEtiVAN. F''X :f<.ti5 ri1MY 4dY fXt _ p��: GG�`p-� �� t �%� t � - - � YWeLL f/W�r�V5 g s 5 7'F.AC 1•"C'<JUit! WWtiW+ W�vx ._ znM e wt \ { K�C� --,j I ,fvi* _ 3�n °x'3. '�1Z° TiP13le` .iSA�pI� 3iEk �I:i EAAi WA• _.. °y6W°i. OOM7 !PALL CQAtN`[O�es�dlTY uN�A N ._ � __.... , / � '���' `+�` i �1Mp' -YU P5 SN &IA..DIiGNANI.E.rb eaSulAiC- errE.VTiGF7:ACEAT -. aA . Rp Cr1 @(J AV'A1�_ RLL jWVSM I?Vr -V WW N IE. EOY - --'tsw 1 BIr} 9WALG . 1 1 je�',�f'-1',,(i !a �`�R0.;%�4219.7� T5?E roKKy`pr%^f'ttGAl. PRINfRLT. EXG�Iri: .._ *,.motE�\ ? ' } Dc PtecaAOn cs7R�LT( °� PXLYNIiDN �1Z -AGE °, T- f_LiTT TL W _. -wale 1,_saol 61 R 0 N 7 A N c.0 67 v rn fir. OD O � o M V O 0 � s 1�1 W C o X23 z A x N op a ONative. Fescue Gr .. 4 —�-�Ilwllll- Ry- of 2. 13o-..d is rn Ao ce) G)o V2 0 4) 0 LO 00 CO co C/2 C,2 C-) 0— 0.5 CO co ---1 Co 0 —0 co IL- w to Q .50 Cr3 a Q.) d 0 > 0. m5 OD co IL 0 co a) co C� C\2 CO LO T--q Q) z� A aim a o: - o a A P7 2 of 212 � ' O w Q i 1 1J `s- - I yli.- p f I 11 \ I I I i i 8 4 c • • I; .I 1 I ' Wi1ll'd'G�:4T 1J `s- - I yli.- p f I 11 \ I I I i i 8 4 c • • '40, 1 UP I.. oN ¢o I i I — . I i n F U I JI ffNSi QQIA �Y boAtR �I •w. h yy O "V M of5 CVS' T O M , �O C d V CQ� � g' "C F1_ d A m � m Ito d2. � m C A o X' O a a � 0 r e IA lwa e ' lb .......... 1 \\ i I _ I 9l -W9I1 Afvl1 oiv?i 1.1NO 5,3 Avo" "NVA 'air-1A' "o l9'Akl N �^1A03@OFI "' "nvM ...... � :Ni.MBAN PM 1S�nJ ...'.c7 .3 ttti 01 '>1tiM -ani� 1nw 3sv9 �Ni Wraa. A31Nao� ?aMa ro �I i t ; Imo--- ✓ .... .. - •3NYI 6lld6 Nl NM(1H &) ' 1- �QQWIIM. I I ! vin d -. -' 1 -MQ2 3}ll�. OY� �y 692rn 17YiT.1C�YY'd4 :.3N1 '-iftl i�? 1f1'�vYai veg -atJ10 361�oH.. VaaM1a A._.�;W�S [rd1Y4 ttMW 3Coa..3fU 'aa�C O71a ID 2avta NL 'MLid rv151: H1WO�i i, trZi 51'AODIadd. 101713 -S21CH 3#LL W971J"%t+aki4 3H1 j I j \ ! I I _ i I - _.. •4tcvaW�_: 2 ns arv'7oTaalx3 993 �MSH9'1 b�l ;�71nb� 2Aii9.!._ j I - _ ,- 7721W': ..9MJQN c�T4M d2- :NO11w10`1.'__. I �� }.21'�9'i�F aL7 � i ;i � Illliu L •I 2101Vh�t�" - - -- I � I f -.a.b 'i 1 •�� 1.� =arra I I V ----------- I — -- i VSfC'CJ2I \ d v / { - -- / \ I �s o- N p r�r n . ,. _� -. °IY MPHS a q"I '1iYD t+oa SHxaD.M N 16tyM -�GY11��7 -lei vd.�� T1'31 5HY1(7l S➢�, �IYaD7 •YY.'d M s;Mal MILL � - • W d M ?'3n0 � 4a1NA'd 'GA�MQ'd`hi..'J I+1 SH�II }. � 'rt'YH" � ?t�"t"6QT1� tt`2ad _ -... . •aa�ranl'saa- „ids�yc.tvd 'aooM ^nv 33.^trt� s3 .: Ql c7 71+':niV21 y : :' rmtva..8�stdd ? I•�•2• -.. .._. -__ xN�L� �21Y Qf.- -^Y7L V.�aJj�rrH M'JC JL S7, �'�T.zQ ' A A �k 'YIYN91�� {ty 3f1-1d ViVl�.YH 711 tt 'J�09. ?�',7X'.NW A, Y/D AAWV ?.. w y !Qm i, A�tb Fd�1 ��i17OJ �f11'+AO`2i? 1,? Gd�31 '•, 't"rad �'R^.a^1a t�:.:. 2v i -. , stF",i[Y,X'1tl ip_-..J•' _Y 'C443 J3F11 gilt J'� � 'fiA7' al; 1?'WIti(� ME- N _ -__ 51.71YWIFl9 - O0 ° � •-: _: :- `�t�2�-i`:::ez /r d.UM- :�A'+d91N1s+3_�x4 '�3 'I.7'�NS 2mG1 -��a i- :a?dd� _: fG� ...''ai�?ai-(�a�7Y '1.L1CM1.�.�ctYD9lfllYa bRp a�'t'id{- 4%=J.. 1LH6 TjT�'j._lYl*iV/ , -_ - `O, O. 6ROe,1.ddL�aY�a 3 ^aa 'J 9l�3DrnaslslRl _'nn� fi'kf{ZN3 �^A �::y�a.1111yv3dNYW - . .n.• :::. mad „3��Pttl '.!1?1VH accvH lYNry lb��dS"t�NV 59Jd��3^tf2_?J'Y(a9 to _ _•�ar]a45 :!� v'v -- w•��3o ^at�3v w^y4� mJl i�ho^n as 1+� >,a+� �. -`Ga yp�l y �JNI_ RJ9: Tb7� _ o :S# i,1K3WY.b'J'.E3d f�Sd . - ta•das LAi37L. �'+t 03t6 - ".495 .3WrR07;� i au AB BNOIBIAMU Y Ma IV yWt 1LL - y � f -` :air• �d "> N � i. Z .. -. •s;1Qt.�.v�P. mod= x/11. :ta .u.(: o!X .. 3N+.. Srrt2.t,`n0.7.12 :3tu S.4 .:�ri2i 3ddi:1.`.YL •3 .iAL7It1_3k3i_�L03_L " • • -ELE, -A-T OA Tf�VAN T) I MMED ON CLFANMIM 1000M �E AT1-61- ------ Tl 'c PAW 1!366, OF_ Ili r: '-,WPA'v 5 V T -H V , PAW �q s -Tve, Wt.; MVI- "OLWI, -'al -A - A 11 -VA --9 I -vb, A—w-S44Nr- NOT-. F "ATFEA-ED,-RA f pEVIB10N8 BY rA CC O rn cq i6 O ra tr to I P. cl z 9z ownwlu T8 'I% PR­ M C L"RMIW —H REWGIO S BY VI" Q'T. 1417 CC tl CG N � cl A of I _4 -----T= E-1-L.-T-EIV: A-1--l-11 r urer A AiAd t,-, oxv V- ID ___VaW rtF O=il 8 iW_44ASj - --------- M_.EE PR­ M C L"RMIW —H REWGIO S BY VI" Q'T. 1417 CC tl CG N � cl A Fk4 tA Z a A V ado � �• � Cale : O , ryryppp! w •n n g N p1 ° w N. vim, RO O d A y E i =��3 I - �I I r I T — t.._: - '6�.. ' i �'I�YH W21.�1YtiL' ,v_ I I � I� -r I�: �� � i� '_ ,iaPi � :. � � - ._'Nf9I1Nlf131Y1 � — - i'II. _..I' 1 - __. ✓ ". 'I OVA`: Isi ' � _ _ .. .�.. �_ .' I, ( '�' -r•'•� !, � _ � r� _ ,, • 3117. � I o .o Y'�` _ m ', � !i I.� j . ivvbv�.:. �T I �b� I I "vi '. - '� I -- I j: I don2 � I�_..o'�y =_-{ ` I i .! -' -:f 7 -.; �- K��.bCt'I Nlv�- •' �_ fivii_ 5Hr #5�V7?i8 -:.. ! � ¢v,o:•avv�__i I, i �I ! ;; _ � 91tl1f -i �, 1 w'9'� °W'8 i:91Vldd�`. I� �_.,.. 1... �, .m - •,i i j i — - -- ._ aaa alp_ I z.: — �'� �- t ° wao?Jd34f�17^.6 � �i a01vA3v3 -:. -. "t'tYH`. 11 ymo• -.5 VL3YS ��: � I; .�zl. I� I � II I'. � � o I 3i I i4• � � ii I I� I' �I I � s LtLJ 1 #41, 14 a - pp�� - •�'O :•ob�E'y171i.'c�4.!21 :: -- Q'----- - -'-- ' 1v4S4 Zt ; I*di43. Q9 9C2: ,_ j. on ob .._ 9 E.. 3 �N " bG l a�w�snc 7x1 ze 03yA'�SIM u a r , I it 1 I E i =��3 I - �I I r I T — t.._: - '6�.. ' i �'I�YH W21.�1YtiL' ,v_ I I � I� -r I�: �� � i� '_ ,iaPi � :. � � - ._'Nf9I1Nlf131Y1 � — - i'II. _..I' 1 - __. ✓ ". 'I OVA`: Isi ' � _ _ .. .�.. �_ .' I, ( '�' -r•'•� !, � _ � r� _ ,, • 3117. � I o .o Y'�` _ m ', � !i I.� j . ivvbv�.:. �T I �b� I I "vi '. - '� I -- I j: I don2 � I�_..o'�y =_-{ ` I i .! -' -:f 7 -.; �- K��.bCt'I Nlv�- •' �_ fivii_ 5Hr #5�V7?i8 -:.. ! � ¢v,o:•avv�__i I, i �I ! ;; _ � 91tl1f -i �, 1 w'9'� °W'8 i:91Vldd�`. I� �_.,.. 1... �, .m - •,i i j i — - -- ._ aaa alp_ I z.: — �'� �- t ° wao?Jd34f�17^.6 � �i a01vA3v3 -:. -. "t'tYH`. 11 ymo• -.5 VL3YS ��: � I; .�zl. I� I � II I'. � � o I 3i I i4• � � ii I I� I' �I I � s LtLJ 1 #41, 14 a w..Y . U N C � Ro d � u d � .a o AD o� A o w o ' N w 3 R U O 0 ' r•1' ' M931.F4okic_:CES- 3or2aCx3 '\'*/ podvtw4yY_ kYMf?.51�Nf9 d2 :- • -__.. "..__ _.. .. .__. - ". _v _____ Iuw I "...... ": __ ::: ___: � •ZT�79 H4'.']a�_: :3NdaS't- i1c,7viJ (S._______._... _..._ - ... _ _ _. -. :.__ _ :_._ -- _ _ _- ,,, - 61�Pri4`d9�lUt�� xa - _.,.,_.__--- ..�mae� sirr�e N.rtlA �3�I�o� rppz /m. xaoH4.yr �a�o? •�•�.'� Yrr�s Sai4tn� d?xlcaauL�M'a4 mva•. AatK � g Nm . _re. s�acrJ 2. �_ _.._. _, _.- _ _ P� _ - -- 4 � - -. 'ft'd b.�.. _.....__ .__ _...______. .._._._...__ .. ._ __ -__ -.- __.._.. ". -, �:... "2Ji'�;1'Sn3' :- ikirSa fi+Hs -aaaas "i+a3'�vv �, ,._ :.: -.ol �ilvliigg9 4ilaid.�ora3.)•.x3 - ::: _': -__._ -__.._._. _. --- _._ .._ _. - ;-tv afa �s m�•a a - �+i2,r\s �vv3 �'19�a, tui rn i �'n a•� �PZl+4 �inai:�?1. �W- iv\. st+oP,.+tC1 d :l N;av -r q ^!SS `? . Sb79n0/� E.x kr -.�c9 Paais .. 's'!fl.ylss -3Tnls -x�clvN 01. ,. - _ ---' �YfLl -A/i "1d- . :"d'19Y'li'/tlX. ��N i]T��1 H•JIki.3N1. 100.11'NN4.�.%/a1Yd(Q�3. -'Iaa. "'9N\a \S "anU2l�ZfK1`— ". �• / -.,_ ... -_. .. <,. pt 1Nt .{ Ce+.�1fiN1N? NOLLsaa W" 33 "YTIft4 !'Aaw ?7�1� Y � i. __ __...•. _. d ° _... _ .. _ _ er+v:'zalvvcri:rid� tai Nm1r�v1�N.� *� � m_a3N„s�o.:::.? sr3kLw'n r.: 7: - - - - - ' �NaWX_t1'A�ai+n �1e�=gdWO� :.... -zranV7'Y3�1 13�.'V�'d�� �a'f� d�,dl+II7_V3�J.'tAL t(l1.(y _.:i1•��S1t�_ss �1R��7FL = -• _ a,, ,..__ vs itvwd �aRI. kLL 41 ��?r?YOl "- p11vtA ?fix NM'YC •wmrt{, xe r,: - - - -- -- - ,..`.__ .: - _.- % - - - .._ _. '."__._. _. .. .. .._.._- -._ - - - . ..._..._... ._:._ . _---- ...._.... . ._....__,__.__-.__:... . _ --.--.- .. .._.2f�.. _ ..Z_...1.. r._1 .,.-�._ --�- __-- - rwn ra.__ _.._ls_�mx�[.na_•_ � ; ._:. Y_a an.?_saa ?s avA3 ?: r , - nr . _.. ..... .}_... ._ .. # , _ _9__.�r..:t![.w ter...._`: v Wins- 2 av , o�ztii a -, nn1'* v:art. lvN��s -!.: �:,::r_ fl .•".1,�,:n. ':p_ a-:_ r a! -r.�_ o-1.. - v_:i_ i ^ ��... .� ..w.- - 3-1: ;� ��.s3�,.r�a?�i•�r.��-c-�ma��ssN[nm�'9��txf.�"� : Q�UI_.F:NaN`�mg St+orAaX �F7.tdZ A'1H915 t 9a._'YX1i 3l�__- . - �Nru�vtt.vrz-v3cz -�` � - army -� w66! aa, Aj. >s1w cau :r�rn.at�vMany i2 � s, ?lY1gJX%2 @ i N21� 9�5 `Yian��2S.(,9 - !1i3 ?I;N QO]!ZT.ned �a'IdaVsiASsNOdfrlRbh� a511:iSlfl },$`F3� 4-Ls,aM�w�A ef, 54M- �J.P•lA'ili��NS. �. .li.- _ _4?�I�3NNI ?r1NL�wv4 ..3i1 Yt maw .N. ct3t15 Nd�Y2f36APH 'lRN SNlnari :: N7,Y9 y v.YW A1YY z9�la*idHl. 7��P�da m yl ::i+31m -tLl: �'Ci_W,�,9NI+- `JNif- tiro @.= "�WJliN3dr_ _` kmea,nbatjd ao aNnalvro�_: dz .Naa�w .:3u . alvn . . =`coed ' '"... . i. .- �' ?1� \ I?.: ;- '�... •s'� r - .° k <� � _ �.. - :: :. a�Saalriw '+::�;S�a4 H21a N'WV�d �:kiYi7 i^an5�A�2ivrFLYrAr7•lw,� .. ;m j' - �, ;, �f '� \ �:� �;' _ ,y , � i '" � �I - 1d�Ae. �nMezTd. a. ��v2sanva_ 7. �iii�aaa� 'r+7an.�9dit?N•irrilnsi:aiil�o bailultvagio Hsu_ it lordwl:ixns,n_- asvi,N,w ax �nfx��}s �aoat _�.c m'tdr _:1�uNa s,lv-az._lYrarJ3riA�- v_3sn6.i�:_ CSVa t - �ridarav:d\noaa a. rrtM sr.aaXmalaa..avrn A�f%a? ttm�±i— .. i _ ez m . �, � ?' , � , , •: � ;!; i �' ' i. � - - -�� ,>a- �wsz,Q r�u� �ar2 rr�hs tn. ca � aar�7x�..�,����__ —.. ;, II �. , a b... ""`�•.st .,,n� ,. , ., , - '..3r_ � ! 1 ; � +. � a?s' :,Iafl,a+3� Y � 51ti1. �9:_9Nt'183� .1YaRA- �t3V,._9NJ7,��2 -_32t �P 1t+�1 -)ti 'd:3L:TIJ.ii1 __ ;: rs: r';s. �.;� � ,. �'�,;".." � � s �` ;. `i!;i - `J�A'7A tt�to mi2.HV:_•a'nSa._7fi52 :o} i+al+sir�m Na�t..Rn\ d3ki5 __'rr3sew�J�siSoti_- f�rr�:�1S G : 5 i 1 i r �o- r.� ov: _ vo I a 6 6 8 a C 41" 41 3 3 r a r— lo. " v 0 W � o N N � � 6J u G rn M __ - 1 , .x o iaitzRT= �t TAB oN i u -- O �1_ -E5T E L�11kT.t m Tr- I III XT CIT-1-0-A SN.:WN :To lS�:_11tG>T:LlMtro _` a ee— - - -- " - - -- P t =J =W of e�eers - N ^ x m A A7 o°o n w A a � o y 0 i A ' O A n x, �y w w o O A Sy e-' A' A9 9NOISIA3tl i� RUSS As CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Joyce Hlava PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 24, 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 November 8, 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 #MOD 07 -0001 (397 -27 -010) Pichetti/Cahoon,18935 Hayfield Court: (Continued to a date uncertain) - The applicant requests modifications to an approved Design Review approval. Modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of stone to the front fagade, the alteration of proposed home's placement on the site, the rotation of the garage, and additional windows on the right elevation. The property is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Shweta Bhatt) 2. APPLICATION #CUP07 -0003 (397 -05 -086) Boger, .18681 Vessing Court: (Continued to the December 12, 2007 meeting) - The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install an emergency generator for his residence. The generator would be located in a detached enclosed accessory structure. (Chris Riordan) P: \PC Agendas\2007Wgn 111407.doc 3. APPLICATION #PDR07 -0002 (379 -18 -075) Plyler/Miller, 14765 Fruitvale Avenue: - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,874 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 51,160 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Suzanne Thomas) 16 DIRECTORS ITEM: - None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, December 12, 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 November 8, 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.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to plannin0dsaratomca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us • PA'C Agendas\2007\Agn 111407.doc MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Contract Planner Heather Bradley and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of October 10, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of 0 October 10, 2007, were adopted as submitted. (6- 0 -0 -1; Chair Hlava abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 18, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava 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 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Conformance with the General Plan (John Cherbone). 0 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission found the CIP to be in conformance with the City's General Plan. (7 -0) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 1 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 Application #MOD07 -0001 (397 -27 -010) Picheti /Cahoon, 18935 Hayfield Court (Continued to the November 14, 2007 meeting): The applicant requests Modifications to an approved Design Review approval. Modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of stone to the front fagade, the alteration of proposed home's placement on the site, the rotation of 'the garage and additional, windows on the right elevation. The property is R -1- 40,000. (Shweta Bhatt) Chair Hlava advised that Item. No. 1 would be continued to the meeting of November 14, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning. Commission continued consideration of the request for Modifications to a previously approved Design Review approval for property located at 18935 Hayfield Court to its November 14, 2007, meeting. (7 -0) PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2. Application #ADR07 -0002 (389 -26 -022) Sripadanna, 18524 Montpere Way: Appeal of an Administrative Design Review. approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one -story home located at 18524 Montpere Way. The proposal would enlarge the home by approximately 1,096 square feet (which includes a carport conversion to enclosed garage). Total proposed floor area, including garage, would be 2,730 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure will not exceed 18 feet. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60 percent of the net site area. The lot size is 8,520 square feet and the property is located in the. R- 10,000 zoning district. (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is an appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval for the remodel and addition . to an existing single- family 'residence that was approved by staff on September 5, 2007. Explained that the approval was for an addition of 688 square feet to the living area and the conversion of an existing carport into an enclosed garage adding an additional 408 square feet to the existing home. Total floor area would be 2, 730 square feet with a total maximum height of 18 feet. • Said that the applicants first filed their application in January 2007, which was originally for a two -story design -that came up for review by the Planning Commission on March 28, 2007. Based on concerns that the neighbors raised at that public hearing, the applicants . had an historic evaluation prepared for the property and subsequently withdrew their two- Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 3 story application in favor of the single -story proposal the Commission sees before it tonight. • Informed that the Heritage Preservation Commission did review their plan at their meeting in August and agreed with the applicant's consultant that the property did not meet the minimum criteria for listing as an historic resource. • Reported that the appellant filed this appeal on September 20, 2007, and it was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2007, but was_ continued at the request of the appellant to tonight's meeting. • Explained that the appellant lives in the house to the south or left of the site, adjacent to the side of the subject property where the majority of the addition would be constructed. • Said that the appellant has expressed concerns with the proposed height of the addition and the compatibility of the proposed remodel with other homes in the neighborhood. • Stated that staff has, however, determined that the style of the remodel /addition is in keeping with the contemporary style of the original architecture that is predominant in this neighborhood, which is generally characterized by low -pitch gable and shed roof forms, wide eave overhangs, exposed beams and non - traditional window placement. • Said that the proposed design would add a master bedroom, expand the living room and enclose the covered parking area. The remodel would require raising the existing ridge from approximately 12 feet to 14 feet and adding a shed roof over a bedroom, which would slope from 8.5 feet to 18 feet. • Said that the applicants have proposed many energy efficient strategies that include a green living roof. • Stated that a color and materials board is available for review. • Reported that staff has found that all the Design Review findings can be made to support the project. • Explained that there are a couple of changes to the draft resolution: o Condition #1 — insert, "The proposed home, as remodeled, shall be located and constructed as shown." o Condition #4 — delete, "... the HPG miRutes " City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Said that Conditions #7 and #8 need to work together and proposed the following added text at the end of Condition #7, "If stormwater cannot be retained on site due to topographic soils or other conditions, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plans and compliance with Condition #8 shall be required." • Advised that Condition #8 can stay as it is. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the elimination of the condition prohibiting the conversion of the green roof into a patio or balcony. Planner Heather Bradley explained that this was included in the original conditions of approval. It was eliminated in this resolution because it was considered unnecessary. However, it could be added if it is of concern. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 4 Chair Hlava reported that she didn't realize this was an appeal and that the appellant is the one who gets the 10 minutes to speak. She asked if the applicant should get the same 10- minute allotment of time. Commissioner Nagpal said that would be fine. She asked for clarification that since. this is an appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval, is the action of the Planning Commission this evening final. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer confirmed that the Commission's action would be final. Commissioner Zhao: •. Referenced a letter .received from the appellant, Mrs. Rodgers, which was included in Attachment #8: •. Pointed to the second paragraph that states that Mrs. Rodgers had gone to the Planning Office and was told that this.applicant could not alter the footprint of their home.. • Asked if this is a true statement, as she wants to make sure. Director John Livingstone said that current practice in Code would allow the alteration of a building footprint with a remodel or addition. Commissioner Nagpal said.that there is some discrepancy regarding the average proposed heights in this neighborhood. The appellant's letter says the average is between 11 and 11.5 feet while the staff report says 14 feet. Which is correct? Planner Heather Bradley said that most of the originally designed homes in this neighborhood are approximately 12 feet high. There have been some additions done up to' 18 feet and taller. The most recent additions have been between 16 to 17 feet high. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many, are above 14 feet in height. Planner Heather Bradley replied that there are approximately five homes out of 25. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the most recent. Planner Heather Bradley explained that the taller additions were done in the 1980's while the most recent additions have been between 16 and 17 feet in height. Commissioner Nagpal . asked staff to verify that there is no single -story overlay in' this neighborhood: Planner Heather Bradley replied not in this neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers wanted it in the record that she is not related to the appellant. whose name is also Rodgers with the same unique spelling. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Linda Ho, Appellant & Resident on Montpere Way: • Said that she lives next door to the subject property. • Informed that she finds that some elements of this design do not meet General Plan findings, specifically the Conservation Element Policy to protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga. This design does not meet findings. • Reported that she has prepared pictures of homes in her neighborhood. There are 38 homes of which 34 are between 11 and 11.5 feet in height. All homes have about the same height. Therefore, a 14 -foot roof, with 18 -foot height in one area at the highest point, will tower over neighboring houses and have a negative impact the neighborhood. • Advised that she has submitted a petition signed by 11 neighbors who don't want this design approved as proposed. The height should not exceed other homes in the neighborhood. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Linda Ho for the maximum height of the four remaining homes. Ms. Linda Ho replied 14.5 feet. Commissioner Cappello asked if these homes are within the noticing radius of this home. Ms. Linda Ho replied yes. Commissioner Cappello asked how far away the are. Pp Y Y Ms. Linda Ho said that some are on the same street, others are not far. Commissioner Cappello asked if they are all located within the 500 -foot noticing distance. Ms. Linda Ho said she thought so. Commissioner Cappello asked if this includes additional homes or only those noticed. Ms. Linda Ho replied those homes noticed. Commissioner Kundtz pointed to page three of her photographs and asked about the height of the home at 18506 Montpere Way at the left hand garage incline. Ms. Linda Ho replied 11.5 feet. Commissioner Kundtz said that it seemed significantly higher when seen during the site visit. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Linda Ho to explain the views and privacy impacts this addition would have on her. She pointed out that the Commission must work with the City's idesign guidelines when evaluating a design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Linda Ho said that there is absolutely an impact as she has two bedrooms adjacent to their lot with lots of windows. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is not a screening hedge along that side. Ms. Linda Ho replied no. Commissioner Rodgers asked how far from her bathroom window is the new house addition. Ms. Linda Ho replied: very.close. She added that her lot line is close, probably between 8 and 10 feet. Commissioner Rodgers referred to page two of the photographs where there is a house on a rise and'another to the rear. She pointed out that the topography has hills and valleys. The upper houses appear to be taller but are designed with privacy fences. Ms. Linda Ho said that represents another issue in her neighborhood for which privacy lawsuits are pending. Commissioner Zhao asked if there are any houses in this neighborhood that are 18.feet in height. Ms. Linda Ho replied.no. Cormissioner Zhao-said that she saw a house during the site visit that looked pretty tall and had been newly remodeled. Planner Heather Bradley. said that that is 18511 Montpere Way, which is 16.5 feet tall per plan. Commissioner Zhao asked Planner Heather Bradley if this is the tallest home in the neighborhood. . Planner Heather Bradley replied no, there are some on Quito that are 16.5 feet tall, which is considered the same neighborhood and development. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Linda Ho how long ago a house was refused approval at a 14 -foot height: Ms. Linda Ho said it was two years ago. Commissioner Kumar said that in the staff report, it says that this occurred in.2001. Commissioner Rodgers said that the decisions are based on architecture itself. This project seems more in character with this neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 7 40 Ms. Linda Ho said that she agrees the design is in character, the concerns are the height and privacy impacts. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that the focus must be on Design Review. When Ms. Linda Ho looks at the architecture it is fine and in keeping with the area but the concern she has is privacy. Ms. Linda Ho agreed that privacy as well as character are concerns. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Linda Ho to specify her design concerns. Ms. Linda Ho said that another neighbor has concerns but is not here. Commissioner Nagpal reminded Ms. Linda Ho that she is the appellant here. Ms. Linda Ho said that there is an attic located over the closet at the 18 -foot height location. There are concerns over that. It does not make sense to the neighbors. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are any other architectural concerns. Ms. Linda Ho said no, not now. Mr. Hari Sripadanna, Applicant and Property Owner: • Offered a quick presentation on the design. • Said that he can sympathize with neighbors but feels they are misguided and don't understand the design properly. Assured that their home would not intrude on anyone's privacy. • Said that a home design is the outcome of the owner's wishes. • Advised that this home design took one year to develop and has been balanced too far to the concerns of the neighbor. • Informed that they have made design compromises. The original concern raised was the two -story format. They changed that to a single -story. They hired an Architectural Historian and went before the Heritage Preservation Commission. • Assured that the single -story design has been evaluated carefully during the Administrative Design Review process, input was heard and the approval granted. • Stated that it seems there is no end to the delays for an addition that is just about 683 square feet in size. • Reminded that the footprint of the home is the same. They have reduced the impervious paving. There is no removal of existing vegetation. The Historian has come to the conclusion that there are good bones to this design. It offers a good opportunity to compliment and improve the existing home. It fits well and works well into this neighborhood. • Explained the roof configuration thought process. A north and south orientation allows the winter sun to come in via the clearstory. The overhangs cut off the summer sun. A whole house fan will cool the house so that little air conditioning will be required. They will incorporate radiant heating, insulated panels and a green live roof that will retain rainwater and help the environment. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 8 • Reminded that the peak is located at the middle of the property so that little would be seen from the street. • Assured that they took care to address neighbor concerns. No shadows will be cast on neighboring homes. There is dense vegetation on the west and north sides that offer privacy to adjacent neighbors. The properties on the south and east side are on the same level as his home. Therefore, the single -story addition will not overlook their properties. There, is no interruption of their privacy. • Stated that this approval would not represent a precedent, as there are already some homes higher. than 18 feet.: Said that the main issue is how the design works with its setbacks and heights. • Said that all buildings are on a slope. • Urged support of the Administrative Design Review decision. • Reiterated that there is no impact and this home would be good for the environment and the community. • Thanked the neighbors for attending. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Hari Sripadanna what screening is in place on the east side to ensure views and privacy. Mr. Hari, Sripadanna said that there is an existing 10 -foot high vegetation, which is on the west and north sides as well. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the proposed attic over the closet. Mr. Hari Sripadanna explained that this is so that warm air can rise up and exit. It makes the house breathe better. He reminded that the closet space is in an internal portion of the building but it appears that the neighbors are suspicious that he will try to sneak something in. Commissioner Rodgers asked .Mr. Hari Sripadanna the height of the space above the closet. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that it is a maximum of five -feet per Code to allow storage. Commissioner Zhao asked if one could look at the neighbors from this space. Mr. Hari Sripadanna replied no. He added that.there is a hallway on the other side of this space There is -no access to the attic except for storage use. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that 85 percent of the house is at the 14 -foot maximum height and only a four -foot area is at the 18 -foot height. Commissioner Zhao asked if it was possible to obscure the glass of the attic window. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that, if necessary, that glass could be frosted. Commissioner Kumar asked if the windows and doors on the new addition that look outside on three sides would create any privacy issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 9 0 Mr. Hari Sripadanna assured that none of the openings were to the south side. Commissioner Kumar asked if there would be any views into neighbors' yards from the new addition. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said no, it is only single -story and there are tall screening trees. Chair Hlava asked if people would see the green on the living roof. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that the roofing material is four inches thick. The plant material is about 12- inches thick with a 6 -inch curb. Therefore approximately 6- inches of the plant material would be visible. Ms. Jo Raney Rodgers: • Said that there are bulk and height compatibility issues. • Reported that her family purchased her lot in 1954 and she watched their house being built. • Said that there are two houses, on Allendale and Quito, that have added attics. However, few houses do. For the most part, this neighborhood has maintained a certain character. Most houses have stayed the same. • Added that her biggest concern is not being overlooked from this house. • Advised that these houses were built as garden homes with orientation toward the backyards. They have a unique architectural style and layout that minimize views of neighbors' homes. • Reported that she went to City Hall on. two occasions and was given two different stories on what she could do as far as modifications to her own home. Mr. Tom Stroupe, Resident on Allendale: • Said that he is to the southwest of the subject property. • Stated his support of the design and structure. • Pointed out that in 2007, change is eminent. • Suggested that people look around the neighborhood. There are changes and remodels occurring. • Assured that the 18 -foot height would. not adversely affect his yard. This subject property is to the left of his yard where he has a pool. • Reminded that the neighborhood already has homes at 16 and 17 -foot heights. • Added that it is not fair to not allow this one. • Recommended approval. Chair Hlava verified that Mr. Tom Stroupe lives behind Mr. Hari Sripadanna's home. Mr. Stroupe said yes. He added that this addition is a great idea with a great design that will improve the neighborhood. He stated that he likes it. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Stroupe if he could see the story poles. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 10 Mr. Tom Stroupe replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Stroupe if that bothers him. Mr. Tom Stroupe replied no, it causes no concern at all. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Tom Stroupe if he lives within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out to Commissioner Zhao that Mr. Tom Stroupe shares a fence with the subject property.. .Mr. Gene Ely, Resident on Leigh Avenue in San Jose: • Identified himself. as a licensed architect and friend to Mr. Hari Sripadanna. • Advised that ,Hari has worked very hard on his home design and has created a project that will be an asset to his neighborhood and community. • Said that while concerns have been raised about privacy impacts and height, one cannot see past the fence from the windows in this new addition. Only a small proportion of the roof height is at 18 feet. • Reminded that this is a home for Hari and his family. • Urged support for this design. Ms. Elizabeth Alameda, Resident on Montpere Way: • Said that she lives across the street. • Stated.that this home has a beautiful design and will upgrade the area. • Expressed support. for approval of this project. Ms. ,Cameo Stroupe,. Resident on Allendale . • Said that she is in favor of the proposed plan. • Pointed out that green' design is environmentally friendly. • Called these plans beautiful. • Said the addition would have no view impacts to their swimming pool. • Stated her support for approval. Ms. Trish Seifert, Resident on Montpere Way: • Pointed out that there are houses on Allendale that utilize - clearstory windows without 18- foot height. • Suggested that.-something compatible to that be considered. • Said that it disturbs her that solar heat is not implemented instead of radiant heat. • Reported that a neighbor sought taller than 14 -foot height limits in 2001 and was denied that height. His remodel was limited to a maximum height of 14 feet. • Expressed concern that this request can be approved today while others were told no just a few years ago. This height sets bad precedent. • Asked for consistency. •. Said that this property has the highest elevation on that street. • Opined that a clearstory could be possible without the 18 -foot height. That height might lead to second story additions in the area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 11 • Added that 16 foot maximum is the current highest height so far and suggested that it stop there. • Cautioned that the flat roof portion could become a deck and asked that it be conditioned that this not happen in the future. • Expressed appreciation for being heard. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Trish Seifert if she could elaborate on why her neighbor was denied in 2001. Ms. Trish Seifert said that the neighbor was denied height in excess of 14 feet. She added that consistency in the City's Planning Department needs to be addressed. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out to Ms. Trish Seifert that the 18 -foot height is being used to provide passive solar capability. She asked Ms. Seifert for her impressions on the design. Ms. Trish Seifert said that it was a fine design but this is a planned community and this design does not fit with what was intended and makes sense for this community. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that a mid - Century architect designed this house. She asked Ms. Trish Seifert if she believes it is appropriate to update theses houses at all. Ms. Trish Seifert said that people should be able to do what they want but without hurting surrounding properties. Commissioner Nagpal: • Thanked Ms. Trish Seifert from coming this evening. • Expressed agreement for the need for consistency. • Explained that the Commission is here to evaluate Design Review. • Asked for Ms. Trish Seifert's perspective on the design as it sounds like she has some respect for the proposed design. Ms. Trish Seifert: • Reminded that a few years ago someone else in this neighborhood had a design refused. • Reiterated that consistency is her main concern. • Expressed appreciation that the applicant addressed the original concerns over the initial two -story design. • Reported that this community has been riled up. Commissioner Kumar asked about Ms. Trish Seifert's concern about the potential to incorporate a deck on the live roof. Ms. Trish Seifert said that she does not know if it is possible to convert this live roof, and asked if that possibility has been addressed. Commissioner Kumar asked if she had asked Mr. Hari Sripadanna. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 12 Ms. Trish Seifert said that solar power is the only way to address energy concerns. Chair Hlava asked staff to clarify why they .took the condition out regarding the live roof. Planner - Heather Bradley explained that if the live roof were to be converted, it would represent a second -story feature. The Planning Commission would have to approve it via a public hearing process that would be noticed as this meeting was noticed. Mr. Robert Merritt, Resident on Montpere Way: • Advised that this addition does not impact him directly as his home is located down the street. • Said that he does share the concern about the increased heights in this neighborhood. • - Reminded that these houses encourage indoor - outdoor living and include floor -to- ceiling windows overlooking the backyards. • Reported that he remodeled in 2001. His architect went to the Planning Office with a plan .that included a 15- foot maximum height. The architect was told the maximum allowed would be 13.5 feet. ' That made sense and they went with that. Said that his biggest concern about allowing additional height is when does it stop. • Pointed out that this neighborhood has a certain feel. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she realizes this has created a difficult neighborhood issue. •. Reiterated that the key issue here is design and why a design fits or does not fit. Why is it compatible or not compatible? • Asked Mr. Robert Merritt what he would like'to see different. Mr. Robert Merritt said he does not want an intrusion on the skyline. Commissioner Nagpal asked if he could see this addition from his home. Mr. Robert . Merritt said. no, but he does not want to see precedent established that would change the.character of his neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Robert Merritt if he considers this to be good design. Mr. Robert Merritt replied that it didn't strike ,him as ugly even if he doesn't care for it personally. Commissioner Rodgers said that some houses in the neighborhood have completely different styles while this one tries to be compatible. Is that not a reason to make an allowance for height? Mr. Robert Merritt replied no, it is still an intrusion of height. Ms. Dana Merritt, Resident on Montpere Way: • Stated that her main concern is the 18 -foot height. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 13 • Said that the design appears to run along the lines of the neighborhood and fits fine. • Reminded that this lot is higher than others right next to it. One looks up at it from the street. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Dana Merritt if she saw the story poles. Ms. Dana Merritt: • Said that her main concern is that the 18 -foot height would set precedence. • Added that after that things will just get higher and lead to two -story homes. • Said that the design itself is nice. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Dana Merritt if she stood and looked at the height from the cul de sac. Ms. Dana Merritt said that she looked at it from each house. Commissioner Kumar said that it appears Ms. Dana Merritt likes the design but has a specific concern over the 18 -foot height even though 80 percent of the house is at 14 feet. Ms. Dana Merritt said that her house is 14 feet and she can't complain about 14 feet for this one. She reminded that this house does sit at the highest point in the neighborhood. * Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Dana Merritt if she could elaborate on the 2001 denial due to unacceptable height. Ms. Dana Merritt said they needed to add a master bedroom. They ended up having to reduce the roof pitch to reduce the maximum height. Planner Heather Bradley advised that she tried to research that particular project but it appears to have been just a counter discussion with staff. It was a small enough addition. Commissioner Nagpal said a small addition would likely have been handled over the counter. Ms. Susie Lechner, Resident of San Jose: • Advised that she is a colleague of Mr. Hari Sripadanna and is also a licensed architect. • Said that the architect has a responsibility to the environment. They have the moral and ethical responsibility to preserve natural resources and the environment. • Said that this project does this beautifully with use of natural daylight and low sloping roofs. • Added that the thermal chimney must be located at the highest point. The home uses less energy both for light and thermal comfort. The thermal chimney is small and located at the center of the property to minimize impacts. • Stated that this home is beautiful and uses environmentally responsible measures. • Urged approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Susie Lechner if she could offer any information on the live roof. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 14 Ms. Susie Lechner said that they couldn't be walked upon. They require essentially just a little water during dry months using irrigation to keep it fresh and to keep it attractive year round. Commissioner Rodgers asked for verification that it reduces energy load by 25 percent for just the portion of the house directly underneath or the entire house. Ms. Susie Lechner replied the area directly underneath. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the potential for solar. Ms.. Susie Lechner said that solar is still an option for this house and can be added at any time. However, it might be visible to neighbors if located on the southern roof. Ms. Cheriel Johnson: • : Offered a history of the neighborhood. • Said that at the time, the developer was trying to figure a way to make a single - family neighborhood more useful. • Said that.these houses are built so one is diagonal on one lot, perpendicular on the next, to create big backyards with smaller houses. • Stated that these is an obligation when one buys into a neighborhood to remain compatible. • Said that she lives adjacent to this neighbor and along the creek. • . Said that if these homes are allowed to be bigger and bigger, it will increase runoff into the creek and increase flooding. • Declared that it is not fairIo steal'open space from neighbors. iv Stated her objection as being the height and, loss of garden area that would cause a significant impact to this neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that there is no difference from the existing footprint and the applicant -is removing area. Planner Heather Bradley clarified that the applicant is removing impervious coverage. Ms: Cheriel Johnson said -that they are also ,increasing building area. She added that the live roof is not compatible at all. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff what the average square footage is in this neighborhood. Planner Heather Bradley said that a guess is-about 2,000 square feet counting garages or approximately. 1,600 square feet of living space. Ms. Sassy Murphy, Applicant: • Recounted that when she started this process she didn't know what a setback was. • Said that there is a process to evaluate design and it is important as well as painful and , challenging. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 15 • Said that she, is really committed to the process. • Stated that when she was originally here in March, she was unprepared. • Added that she later followed up with neighbors regarding their concerns. She called everyone and left drawings. Only one meeting was held with the Merritts. • Reported that there are financial impacts from the delay, which she will not detail, and including late nights away from their kids to attend meetings. • Stated that there are two facts here. One, this is a small addition. Two, this is a beautiful design. • Pointed out that they comply with requirements. • Urged the Commission to support what the Planning Department has already approved. • Assured that they responded to feedbacks and requirements. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Sassy Murphy if any feedback was received about the proposed 18 -foot height when she dropped plans off with neighbors. Ms. Sassy Murphy replied that she only met personally with Trish and her husband. The other documented feedback was through emails. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there was no direct communication. Ms. Sassy Murphy said a couple of phone calls and the one meeting. She said that privacy has been addressed and this all now comes back to criteria. Commissioner Zhao asked if the notification forms were provided. Ms. Sassy Murphy: • Said those who supported the project signed off but those with concerns. found it difficult to address their concerns. • Said that the request was to drop the height. Some wanted a maximum of 14 feet while some could support 16 feet. • Added that it has been difficult to know how to respond to a moving target and it has been a long road. Commissioner Zhao asked about the neighborhood incompatibility issue. Ms. Sassy Murphy: • Stated that she is confused as to the definition of neighborhood. • Added that she thought that Saratoga was the community and that the rules applied to all in Saratoga. • Questioned whether it is her responsibility to make that decision as to when the criterion allows that height. Ms. Margo Neitis, Resident on Montpere Way: • Reported that she got turned town for 14 -foot high designs a couple of times in 2002 and 2003. • Said that this request for 18 -foot height should be no since she was told no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 16 • Added that the City has got to stick with it. • Expressed problems with the patio. • Reported. that she has always gotten. permits and her house looks like everyone else's'. • Asked why allow this now? Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Margo Neitis whether she had considered an appeal when she was told no regarding her proposed addition. Ms. Margo Neitis said that a staff member actually told her that she didn't have a permit as he could not find any record However, when. she brought the permit and plans to the City, he realized he was the one who had approved her permit and asked if he could take a copy for the permanent record as they didn't have it on file. She added that it took two years to get permits. Commissioner Kundtz again asked if she had ever considered appealing that action. Ms. Margo Neitis said that she had not. She advised that staff had told her that she could pay the appeal fee but assured her that her request would not be approved so she didn't bother. Mr. Shaun Kamzanzati, Resident on Montpere: • Stated that he is a 12 -year resident of this neighborhood and is an Engineer. Advised that he went and reviewed the plans. • Said that the plans match the existing buildings in this neighborhood. • Added that if it were still a two -story he would object. • Said that only 15 percent of this building would be at the 18 -foot height. •.. Added that the slope of the pitch of the roof would not create privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors. • Stated that he does not see any problem when looking at the plan, including the concept of the live roof. • Reminded that permits would be necessary for this owner to add or change his property in the future. • Informed that he and his wife both support this project. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Shaun Kamzanzati if he could see the story pole for this project from his front yard. Mr. Shaun Kamzanzati said from his bedroom he could see a small part. He added that he also remodeled in 1995 and the neighbor living across the creek in a two -story house objected. Ms. Annette Rowe, Resident on Montpere Way: • Stated that if only other remodels in this neighborhood could be as nice. • Agreed on the need for consistency. • Pointed out that none of the other homes are half in keeping with.this neighborhood as this one is. • Said her home is three doors down and she has no privacy impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 17 Jb• Suggested that this owner should not be punished because others had been denied in the past. • Advised that she can see her neighbor's house from her rear yard. • Said that if she were ever to want to expand her house due to her growing family, she might actually find that it is time to move as this neighborhood is not welcoming to change. ,The question might be "is it worth staying in this neighborhood ?" • Stated that she is in favor of this project. Mr. Alan Alameda, Resident on Montpere Way: • Advised that he is a 32 -year resident. • Stated that this home has a beautiful design and a lot of work went into it. • Said that there are rules and regulations that govern architectural principles. • Added that without ongoing change, people would still be living in caves. • Pointed out that cars are larger today. Things have changed. • Stated that this is a beautiful piece of architecture with aesthetics and beauty in mind. • Reminded that green issues are prevalent today in order to save energy. • Announce that he and his wife, Elizabeth, are totally in favor of this project. Mr. Lee Salin, Resident on Regan Lane: • Identified himself as a former President and Board member of the Santa Clara County Chapter of the AIA (American Institute of Architects). • Said that three issues have been raised including view angle, appropriateness and precedents. • Advised that he can appreciate what he is hearing about height and precedent and can appreciate the concerns. • Said that view angle is relative and needs to be respected. • Added that precedence is a two -edged sword. • Reminded that this project meets the City's guidelines. If those guidelines are subjectively changed, that is also setting precedent. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Lee Salin to complete his comments. Mr. Lee Salin said that in residential design, each property is unique. This neighborhood is unique. It has character and personality. This project reflects that character and is in keeping with the ideas of the original design while taking modern energy efficiency into account. Ms. Katherine Nomoff, Resident on Montpere Way: • Said that she was here in March. • Stated that this is a close and unusual neighborhood (at least her one block area) that is very culturally and ethnically diverse. There are first and second generation residents. Some send their kids to,public school others to private but they play together. • Added that if someone is in trouble, someone else is willing to help. • Advised that a majority on the block do not want to see 18 -foot high buildings as proposed with this remodel. • Informed that in her 43.5 years of living here, there has never been a controversy like this one. Only the height is of concern. Saratoga Planning CommissionMinutes for October 24, 2007 Page 18 • Added that her roof uses white rock and is 15 percent cooler in hot weather. Mr. David Ho, Appellant: • Said that 11 neighbors are against this project. Many have lived here for a long time while he has lived here for two years. • Advised that his family really likes this quiet and peaceful neighborhood and like the architectural design of the homes there. They want to keep this environment as much as possible. • Expressed appreciation .for the architects that have come this evening but they have not lived here. • Explained that they enjoy the open space of this small neighborhood. His house is just 1,200 square feet. The neighborhood has definition. • Said that he understands that 18 feet is not the highest building in Saratoga. • Said that 18511 Montpere Way is an example of a remodel that causes problems to adjacent properties. Little .kids look down from windows of that remodeled house into his master bedroom. Mr. Tom Rumsey, Resident on Montpere Way: • Advised that he just built. • Added that he wished Hari had been his architect because he has created a beautiful design for his addition that should be approved on its merits. • Stated that City Code is City Code and is intended for the entire City of Saratoga. • Said that he is saddened by this experience. • Said that he finds it offensive that Mr. Ho. mentioned, his children. It's ridiculous. He's never met my children or me. Ms. Linda Ho, Appellant: • Said that she appreciates everyone's time tonight. • Agreed that.the neighborhood has become divided and said that she hopes something can be worked out here. • Said that she wants to.come to a solution and not see conflict come between neighbors. • Stated that she respects people's need to expand their house for a larger family. • Expressed respect for everyone's comments and reiterated she is here for a solution. • . Added that while she respects the comments from the architects, they don't live in this neighborhood so they don't understand how we feel. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Linda Ho if frosted glass in the attic window would help resolve her privacy concerns. Ms. Linda Ho said that she does not know, as she cannot visualize this. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that those windows don't even face Ms. Ho's direction Ms. Linda Ho said that she could see the story poles from her bedroom windows and will not have a view any more. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 19 Commissioner Zhao reiterated what Commissioner Kundtz just advised; the window is facing the opposite direction from Ms. Ho's home. Ms. Linda Ho said that there are windows on her side too. Commissioner Cappello asked if Ms. Ho's objection is the 18 -foot height and privacy issues it imposes on her property. Ms. Linda Ho said the first design was for a two -story. Now she has a different degree of concern. Commissioner Cappello reiterated that the windows at the 18 -foot height face the other direction than her home and the windows on her side are at a lower height. He asked Ms. Linda Ho to clarify her point. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Linda Ho to identify what windows cause her concern or is it simply a loss of view of trees and sky. Ms. Linda Ho said that if 18 -foot height were allowed now, there would be more 18 -foot height in the future. She added that there are privacy concerns as windows from the addition also face her yard. IsChair Hlava reminded that story poles are in place right now. She advised that she could not see the 18 -foot maximum height of those poles from the street. She asked Ms. Linda Ho if she could see the poles from her bedroom. Ms. Linda Ho said she could see them from her yard and her bathroom. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is the flat roof and no windows as seen from her yard. Ms. Linda Ho said that design and not privacy is her issue. The 18 -foot height would affect the whole neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers said that there are two types of 18 -foot homes. Some are large and blocky buildings. This one is not. Should that not make a difference? Ms. Linda Ho said she is still concerned about height. It would appear to be 38 -feet as seen from a neighbor's house that is lower down Montpere. Chair Hlava asked staff if the applicant should be given rebuttal time. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that they could allow that but the appellant is the one who speaks last. Perhaps the rebuttal could be limited to the questions raised. i Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that the clearstory window is over 11 feet high and creates no �i privacy impacts. It is intended to bring in light and sun. He added that there is a 12 -foot high row of screening shrubs. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 20 Chair Hlava closed the Public. Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that thin is a difficult meeting. • Agreed that this is a wonderful neighborhood and it is obvious that there is lots of heart. • Stated that she does not believe that anyone can set precedence in the community. No decision sets precedence as architectural decisions are based upon Design Review findings. • Added that she is sorry if there appears to be a consistency issue. • Pointed out that the members of this Commission are just members of the community. We are not staff. We. sometimes disagree with the staff recommendations. • Advised that she has experienced being an applicant before the Saratoga Planning Commission. • Cautioned that the City cannot establish precedence based on past actions. • Reminded that this applicant came with a two -story design. He listened to the comments of the Commission and. the community and redesigned his entire house. • Added that this home has a great design that keeps the original character, indoor - outdoor connection .and has energy efficiency features. • Stated that the Commission does not look at.square footage but rather at design. • Said that she can make all of the necessary findings to support this application. •. Said that she made every effort to ask the appellant to outline her issues but cannot find any unreasonable impact on privacy. here. The project has compatible bulk and height. The design makes sense. • Said that she supports staff's decision and does not find this project to set any precedence. Added that she hopes this neighborhood heals. Said that it would be a different process to affect changes to the Code. Right now, Code allows this 18 -foot height. • Assured that the Commission looks at each application for its unique merits. • Stated that she would support denial of this appeal action. Commissioner Cappello: • -.Stated his concur rence.with Commissioner Nagpal's comments. • Said that this project has good design in terms of its compatibility with its neighborhood. This home fits extremely well in the neighborhood. It fits as far as character. An exceptional job was done with the design. • Advised that he wants to be proud of what he approves as a member of this Planning Commission. He. said he is extremely proud that this project incorporates so many green elements. This home will be a gem for this charming neighborhood. • Said that he hopes the neighbors can be proud as well and this project should move forward. Commissioner Kundtz said that there are issues of consistency in procedure versus results. They cannot be confused. He said that procedural consistency indicates that everyone has the right to appeal a decision once. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 21 0 Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she also agrees with Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that since the attic window is of concern she would like to see that window frosted to prevent any future privacy impacts should this house change ownership. • Stated that this is a fine design with an architectural style that is in keeping with this neighborhood. • Advised that she can make the Design Review findings as required. • Reminded that there is no Code that prevents this 18 -foot height so she cannot support the appellant's argument. Commissioner Rodgers: • Expressed her agreement that this neighborhood represents a different and wonderful pocket neighborhood that the neighbors want to maintain in the same feel. • Stated that this design is fantastic and adds to and enhances the qualities of this mid Century contemporary house. It keeps the character and adds energy efficiency. It has unique features. • Said that it is difficult to deny this project based on hearsay evidence of past counter experiences. • Stated that the City encourages good architecture in Saratoga. • Said that she is confident that in the future this house will be added to the list of homes with unique architecture. • Said that although there are no privacy impacts from the 11 -foot clearstory window she can support the use of frosted glass. Commissioner Kumar: • Stated that this is a very special neighborhood that is a close -knit community. • Expressed appreciation for the neighbors' attendance this evening to express their views. • Said that the focus must be on the Design Review findings. • Stated his agreement with the staff recommendation. • Said he would uphold the staff action and deny the appeal. • Complimented Mr. Hari Sripadanna's new design and efforts. He said he loves the design and hopes it is duplicated in Saratoga. Chair Hlava: • Stated that the applicant went.through a long process. • Said that she looked at the Design Review findings and while the design is not to her taste it fits in beautifully within this neighborhood. There is no interference with views or privacy. There is no perception of bulk from the street. • Reminded that most of this home is at the 14 -foot height with a small element at 18 feet. • Advised that she can make the findings but feels the use of frosted glass is not necessary. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission DENIED an appeal and upheld the Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one -story home located at 18524 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 22 Montpere Way, with conditions as amended by staff and the City Attorney and with the requirement that the clearstory window glass be frosted. 0 Commissioner Cappello questioned the basis for requiring frosted glass. Motion: Upon motion of ,Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission withdrew the original motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission DENIED an appeal and upheld the Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one -story home located at 18524 Montpere Way, with conditions as amended by staff and the City Attorney, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: Zhao ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava advised that the appeal has been denied and the applicant can now build their home. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 ADDlication #06 -118 (503 -28 -008) Hashemich /Sarnevesh, 20951 Canyon View: Application for Design Review and Variance approvals to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story home with a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive. The .average slope of the lot is 39.7 percent sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30 percent slope. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as, specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(b). (Heather Bradley) Contract- Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Variance approvals to allow the construction of a new 3,635 square foot residence on a vacant parcel. Advised that the Variance is required to allow construction on a 40 percent slope. Additionally, a second Variance is necessary to allow the construction of a pool on the same slope. • Reported that this applicant has been working on a design for one year. The original submittal, a Mediterranean -style home, was reviewed at a Study Session in October 2006. The Commission directed the applicant to redesign the home to be more in keeping with this neighborhood. The new design is a Craftsman -style home that includes a smaller footprint. It was reviewed at a Study Session in July 2007. Significant improvements were found and the Commission encouraged the applicant to proceed with their submittal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 23 a• Described the home as consisting of a split -level design that is cut into the steep hillside and contours the site. The Craftsman architecture includes horizontal siding, wood columns, decorative rafters, gable roof forms and wooden garage doors. The color board is available this evening. • Explained that one neighbor had concerns over potential loss of privacy. • Said that the Arborist is supportive of the removal of nine trees with. full value replacements. • Stated the project can be determined Categorically Exempt under CEQA and the required Design Review findings can be made for the house. The Variance findings can be made for the house but not for the pool. • Recommended that the Commission grant Design Review and Variance approvals for the residence but deny the Variance for the pool. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Roger Griffin, Project Architect: Said that this home is considerably different from the original design. • Expressed appreciation for the two Study Sessions held. • Agreed that this current design blends into this neighborhood. It runs along the contours of the hillside and is a thin as possible. It has terraced levels with greater setbacks at each level. • Reported that the pool has been relocated and reduced in size. He added that he believes the pool location is appropriate. • Advised that there are other pools nearby on the same hillside. • Added that they are using permeable pavers for the driveway. There is a list of sustainable features including green roof areas on or around the deck. Two - thirds of the rear and sides of home are below grade and blend into the site. There will be plant material around the retaining walls to partially obscure them while allowing the character of the wall to remain a feature. • Said that there is a provision to limit tree heights on their shared property line to a maximum of 15 -feet to satisfy that neighbor's request. • Requested approval of the home and pool. Commissioner Cappello asked if the pools at any of the other nearby homes are on grades in excess of 30 percent slope. Mr. Roger Griffin replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a Variance was issued for that/those pool(s). Mr. Roger Griffin said that they probably were installed prior to the requirement for such a Variance. 0 Commissioner Cappello asked for the address. Mr. Roger Griffin said it is located at 21215 Stone Drive. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 24 Ms. Julie Hashemich, Applicant and Property Owner: • Said she wants to be a Commissioner as there are lots of things she wants to change. Informed that building a house in Saratoga is very hard. Pointed out that this is a. free country: She is an American by choice and is very proud of that. • Said that the, first item on this evening's agenda surprised her. • Reported that her daughter is a competitive swimmer who has received a college scholarship. • Assured that ' allowing this pool would not represent a special privilege since there are others in the neighborhood under similar circumstances. • Added that the pool would not be that large at 700 square feet. Mr. Roger Griffin clarified that the area of paving is 700 square feet not the pool itself. Commissioner Zhao asked about the flat roof above the entrance and why it was not sloped instead. Mr.. Roger Griffin clarified that there. is as pitched roof over the entry and what she is looking at is a terrace located above the entrance that is accessible by the upper floor. Commissioner Zhao said that the three -level retaining wall looks massive. Mr. Roger Griffin pointed out that there is no parking on the street. They wanted sufficient area for cars to park off the street. He added that each home on the other side has the same curved driveways to allow off- street parking for residents and their guests. He advised that there are five or more feet in distance between each wall. Commissioner Zhao said she is trying to image it but it seems massive. Mr. Roger Griffin said that is the reason they are using stone and plant material to soften the edges of stone without completely obscuring it Commissioner Nagpa.I said that she was also .concerned and asked. if there are other alternatives such as wood siding for these walls. Mr. Roger Griffin reminded that this is a curved element so it would be difficult to use wood to form this curved element. Commissioner Rodgers asked if stone is a facing for the retaining walls. Mr. Roger Griffin replied correct. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Roger Griffin 'how he could be sure that water doesn't pop the stone off. Mr. Roger Griffin said that there would be drains in the wall to prevent that from happening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 25 Commissioner Rodgers said that the story pole furthest uphill appeared short. Mr. Roger Griffin said that the rear post was to represent the back wall. The orange was the peak or high point. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the center core of the house would have some way to be closed off with separate thermostat to allow energy conservation. Mr. Roger Griffin said that there are lanai doors to close off that area. They are double glazed glass with wood frames. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Bruce Shafer, Resident on Sullivan Way: • Asked if the plans include both the house and the Variance. Planner Heather Bradley said that there is a Variance for the house and a second Variance required for the pool. Mr. Bruce Shafer asked about retaining walls. Planner Heather Bradley said there are retaining walls at the rear of the house, close to the house itself. The project has received clearance from the geotechnical consultant. Mr. Jim Solomon, Resident on Sullivan Way: • Said that he has no objection to what is proposed. • Added that he found the lady's remarks to be touching about property rights. Chair Hlava asked about the pool on Sullivan Way. Mr. Jim Solomon said he thinks it's his neighbor's. Chair Hlava said that the staff recommendation is for approval of the Variance for the house but not the Variance for the pool. She asked if Mr. Jim Solomon could tell the Commission anything about the four houses in the neighborhood with pools. Mr. Jim Solomon said that his immediate neighbor has a pool on a severe slope. Mr. Roger Griffin said that in addition to the retaining wall there would also be a valley gutter on the high side of the wall to intercept water. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if they could confirm whether a Variance has ever been issued for a pool on a slope greater than 30 percent. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 26 Planner Heather Bradley said that she researched the issue but did not find any. She also did a. Google -Earth search and saw that there are several pools in the immediate area. It is unclear when they were put in. Chair Hlava closed the Public- Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he has no issue with the Variance for the house or Design Review approval. • Said that he is proud of this design versus the previous. • Added that he knows it is not easy. • Stated that he has an issue with the Variance for the pool and would like to hear the opinions of the others. • Advised that he understands the staff position but it is hard to determine if allowing this Variance would or would not be a special privilege, or it is consistent or inconsistent. Commissioner Kundtz: • Echoed Commissioner Cappello's comments. • Complimented Julie for her passion and flexibility.as well as the project architect. • Asked staff if there is any geotechnical rational for not recommending the Variance for the pool. Planner Heather Bradley replied no, just precedence. There are a few homes with pools in this neighborhood. Most properties do have slope in this neighborhood. Chair Hlava said that at one time one didn't have to have such stringent rules on grading. In the. old days you could create a level pad for pools by cutting into a slope. Commissioner Rodgers:. • Thanked the applicant for the design changes to better reflect the community values and to fit better into this Hillside. • Stated that she has a problem with pools on a steep hillside. • Added that she is more conservative and considers this pool to be a special privilege on a hillside. • Said that while she. is concerned about -a Variance for the pool, she can support the Variance for the house. • Asked if traffic control measures would be implemented during construction as traffic moves fast as demonstrated during their site visit. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the pool area was investigated for geologic conditions. Mr. Roger Griffin replied yes, the proposed area for the pool was evaluated and it is bedrock. Commissioner Zhao: • Stated that she could make the Variance findings for the house. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 27 • Added that since a pool is geologically allowed and there are already pools on sloped properties this would not set precedence. She said if there is no safety hazard she is okay with the pool Variance. • Said that this Commission just approved another Variance to allow construction on a slope for the Sam Cloud building a couple of weeks ago. There are a lot of buildings built before Variances were required so this is not a privilege so she can support the pool Variance as well. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that this could be the reason Variances were made a requirement. She added that she is not sure that precedence is relevant. Commissioner Zhao asked if there is geotechnical clearance for the pool. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes, it was reviewed along with the house by the geotechnical consultant. Commissioner Zhao asked whom the consultant worked for. Planner Heather Bradley said that the applicant hired this consultant. His report was peer - reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant. Commissioner Nagpal: • Reminded that Variances are few and far between. • Added that she is okay with the Variance for the house. • Advised that Variance findings are more onerous than findings for Design Review approval. Reiterated that she can make the findings for the house but cannot for the pool. • Added that it is difficult to grant the Variance for the pool with the information available. • Reported that she is touched that this property owner's daughter is a competitive swimmer. • Asked the City attorney of all three findings for the Variance must be made. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said she couldn't make all three. She expressed appreciation to the architect and property owner for their work on this design. Reiterated that she supports the Design Review and Variance approvals for the house but not the Variance for the pool. Commissioner Kumar agreed with Commissioner Nagpal as far as supporting the Design Review and Variance for the house but not the Variance for the pool. Chair Hlava: • Said that she can make the Variance findings for the house. • Pointed out that this site is across the street from a Councilmember. • Said that she has a hard time approving the Variance for the pool but the fact that there are no geotechnical issues is also pretty persuasive to her. Besides, it seems to her that Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 28 there are other pools in this neighborhood so this is not a special privilege so she can probably make the Variance findings* for the pool as well. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out Finding A that states that denial would be an undue hardship and deny privileges enjoyed by others.. She said she couldn't make the finding for undue hardship. Commissioner Nagpal offered an example. If one property has a tennis court and the adjacent property can't get one, does that property owner get a Variance for that tennis court just because their neighbor has one? Commissioner Cappello said that there are other homes with similar slope that have pools. Commissioner Nagpal said that they were possibly allowed prior to a requirement for a Variance. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he doesn't know but staff states that pools are only allowed on properties with level ground. The Commission does not have information on other properties. • Stated his agreement with Commissioner Nagpal and said he cannot make the findings for the pool. It may open a huge can of worms. Commissioner Zhao suggested that we find out more about the other pools on sloped lots. It might make a difference. Commissioner Nagpal suggested bifurcating the application or having the applicant apply for the pool separately from the house. Planner Heather Bradley said it was possible to do that. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said another option would be to deny the Variance for the pool without prejudice or continue the hearing on the issue of the pool Variance. Commissioner Cappello said he was not sure if these options would help this applicant. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that they likely need a yes or no response. Chair Hlava said that the house could be approved tonight while the Variance for the pool could be continued to a- future meeting. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that staff is recommending the approvals for the house and denial of. the pool. She suggested that the draft resolution be approved and the applicant can appeal the denial of the pool. Commissioner Kundtz said he would rather continue the pool rather than put this applicant into the appeals process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 29 Commissioner Cappello expressed support for bifurcating the home from the pool. Commissioner Kumar suggested asking the applicant for their preferred action. Mr. Roger Griffin said that they would like the opportunity to present adequate information on the slope of pools on those four properties at a future meeting while proceeding with the approvals for the house tonight. He asked if the continuance would be to a date certain or uncertain. Director John Livingstone said either was possible. Ms. Julie Hashemich: • Said that it is really difficult to do grading on her property. It will be almost impossible later on. • Said that if there were any .risk, the geotechnical engineer would not have approved the site for a pool. • Reminded that there are four pools in the immediate area on sloped properties. Commissioner Nagpal asked the applicant if she would like a decision today. Commissioner Zhao cautioned that if she goes for a decision today, that decision would be a denial of her request for the pool. Ms. Julie Hashemich reiterated that it would be difficult to add the pool later on. Commissioner Kundtz: • Clarified that the decision of the Commission right now for the pool is a denial. • Said that by continuing consideration of the pool. The house could be approved tonight and the applicant could bring more information on pools to argue for her pool. • Reminded that two of the Commissioners do not feel that they have enough information right now to approve the pool. Ms. Julie Hashemich said that she was just trying to change their minds tonight. Director John Livingstone said that the quickest action would be a continuance to a date certain. Chair Hlava asked what that date would be. Commissioner Kundtz said November 14th or December 12th Director John Livingstone said November 28tH Commissioner Kundtz said that there is currently nothing set for the meeting of November 2 8th' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 30 Chair Hlava added that because Thanksgiving occurs the week before, there would be insufficient packet preparation time for a meeting on. November 28th. There had originally been talk of bringing the Blight Ordinance to that meeting. Commissioner Nagpal asked if that means no meeting on November 28tH Chair Hlava said that since it occurs the Wednesday after Thanksgiving and City Hall is closed the Thursday and Friday prior, packets would be due on Wednesday, November 20th, which would be a burden on staff. Commissioner Kundtz said_ that'December 12th would be more appropriate. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Variance approvals to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story home with a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO ITS MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2007, consideration of a Variance request to allow the construction of a swimming pool on a property with greater than 30 percent slope located at 20951 Canyon View Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.4 Application #07 -307 (386 -37 -005) Praveen Naravan, 19819 Colby Court: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second -story addition to an existing 3,057 square foot one -story single - family residence. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height.. The net lot size is approximately 15,681 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Chris Riordan) Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the.applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a 1,041 square foot second -story addition to an existing single -story single - family residence. [I • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 31 • Described the property as being zoned R -1- 10,000. The maximum proposed height is 23.5 feet. • Said that project materials include stucco and composition shingle roofing to match the existing structure. • Reported that the adjacent neighbors have been notified and forms were collected. No negative comments were received. • Said that this project is consistent and Design Review findings can be made. • , Recommended that the project be found Categorically Exempt under CEQA and the Commission adopt the resolution approving this request. Chair Hlava asked if the same garage would be used and if the garage door would be replaced. Planner Chris Riordan said that staff suggested a number of times that the garage door be replaced but the owners want to keep their existing door. Chair Hlava asked if the requirement to-replace the garage.door is included in the conditions. Planner Chris Riordan replied no, since this is just a second -story addition and there is no change to the existing house or garage doors. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Applicant and Mr. Narayan, pp Property p rtY Owner: • Thanked the Commission for being here. • Advised that this is his birthday. • Thanked Planner Chris Riordan for his patience with him in working on this project. • Said that he has three kids and is new to Saratoga for only 1.5 years. • Said that their family needs four bedrooms. His mother -in -law has joined his household. They need a bigger home with two additional bedrooms. • Added that if the need for a new garage door is required, he could be convinced to change his garage door later. Right now, he wants to keep the work to a minimum, just the second -story addition, with as little demolition of the first floor as is possible. • Said that receiving approval this evening would be a good birthday gift. Commissioner Cappello advised Mr. Narayan that this Commission requests carriage style garage doors for applications such as this one pretty consistently. He asked Mr. Narayan if he is open to that requirement. He added that he appreciates the need to keep costs to a minimum. Mr. Narayan said that if the garage door were to be a requirement, he would be willing to put one in at a later point of time. He can also do it now if that is necessary. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Narayan if his current garage door is wood or metal Mr. Narayan said his garage door is fiberglass. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 32 Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Narayan if his existing garage and front doors are compatible in design. Mr. Narayan said he would be changing the windows to be consistent but leaving the front door as it is now. Chair Hlava closed the Public. Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Zhao said she could make the findings for the second -story, as there are others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal said she is fine with the required Design Review findings. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is too. She said that the addition of wood carriage -style garage doors has become the standard for remodels. Commissioner Cappello agreed. He said it costs a little but makes a big difference to the fagade since the garage door represents a big part of the home's street frontage. He said he is sensitive to the additional cost but it pays off quite a bit. City. Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that there must be a nexus between this project and the - requirement for a new garage and front door. Chair Hlava asked if the Commission couldn't just routinely require this. Commissioner Kumar said that while this might be okay with a complete remodel, what about just a kitchen or bathroom remodel. Would that condition be imposed for a small remodel like that. Director John Livingstone said that such a small remodel is not a discretionary project. He said that the nexus must be, is the City asking over and above what can be considered a relationship-to the project. If-the addition is larger, there is the nexus to add the requirement for a new garage door. Commissioner Kundtz asked for clarification that staff asks for new garage doors for over the counter permits. Director John Livingstone said that staff does'-not have the authority to require a new garage door but can recommend that.action to the applicant's discretion but cannot mandate it. Commissioner Kumar clarified that the staff recommendation is not binding on the property owner. Director John Livingstone replied absolutely not. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 33 Commissioner Rodgers asked if the project could be asked to match windows on a garage to relate to windows on the house and front door. Director John Livingstone said not to that level just the compatibility of the garage door to the entire house. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the garage is considered incompatible with the front door. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the owner declined to install a new garage door. Planners Chris Riordan said that during plan check staff recommended an update to the garage door but the owner declined to do so. He assured that staff usually asks for that upgrade. Director John Livingstone said that the request is not specifically for a carriage -style door but just to an upgraded wood garage door. Commissioner Zhao said that the Commission tends to ask for carriage -style garage doors. She asked where this requirement is located within the Design Review findings. She said it is hard to require that if it is not included in the requirements. Director John Livingstone said that the recommendation is not just for carriage -style garage 10 doors just higher end garage doors. It is a similar standard to asking for wood windows over aluminum. There is nothing in the guidelines for that. These are just find details that the Planning Commission considers. Another example is a preference for brown versus orange toned clay roof tiles. Commissioner Zhao said that this is done on a case -by -case review. Director John Livingstone said that when staff gets specific standards from the Planning Commission, we recommend it to applicants. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that these garage door upgrades could be considered a feature to reduce the perception of bulk and height. That would be a reasonable determination by this Commission. It can be found to be more consistent with design policies and techniques. Director John Livingstone said that a standard aluminum garage door might cost about $1,000, custom wood garage doors can range between $4,000 and $6,000. Chair Hlava reminded that this applicant is doing nothing to the garage. She said she did not want to impose the requirement for a new garage door. She added that she personally hates wood garage doors and does not see a nexus for requiring a new garage door with this second story addition. Commissioner Kumar suggesting polling the Commission on this issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 34 --Commissioner Nagpal said she generally supports a higher -level garage door. In this case, she is okay without that requirement but she does not want to take away staff's ability to recommend this upgrade. She suggested asking this applicant to look into an upgrade as there is not a. large difference in cost. Commissioner Cappello said either way, he supports this project. Commissioner Rodgers said she would not deny it for that reason but the garage door represents one -third of this home's frontage when viewed from the street. A new garage door would enhance the value of this home. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second -story addition to an existing 3,057 square foot one -story single - family residence on property located at 19819 Colby Court, with the recommendation that the owner consider the replacement of the garage door, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 Application #07 -288 (517 -14 -003) Campagna, 15261 Bohlman Road: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single - family residence and Variance approval for the retaining wall to exceed the five -foot maximum height limitation. The total. floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 6,010 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 1.05 acres. The site is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). (Chris Riordan) Senior Planner Chris.Riordan presented the'staff report as follows: • Distributed a book on Tuscan architecture that has been provided by the applicant. • Said that the . applicant is seeking Design Review and Variance approvals to allow the construction of a new 6,010 square foot, two -story single - family residence on a vacant lot. • Reported that the Variance is required for the inclusion of retaining walls in excess of five feet in height. • Said that the maximum height of the home would be 23.9 feet. • Advised that there is a Fire requirement for a 14 -foot all weather driveway as well as a 40 by 48 foot level staging area. • Informed that Code limits retaining walls to five feet without issuance of a Variance. The proposed maximum height of the retaining walls on this property is 14 feet. • Said that the new home is Tuscan in architectural style. It incorporates tan stucco with wood accents, wrought iron railings and recycled roof tiles. • Said that the retaining walls are necessary to meet the Fire requirements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 35 • Said this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA and recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked about traffic controls during construction. Planner Chris Riordan said that while he made no adjustments to the staff report following the site visit, it would be easy to add conditions following this evening's discussion. Director John Livingstone said that a construction meeting is held with the Building staff prior to construction. They typically use flag persons when deliveries are made to the site. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the retaining wall materials would blend into the hillside. Planner Chris Riordan said that they are using a more rustic cobblestone style on the upslope to match the home. The lower slope will allow more native plants to get a hold and help obscure the wall. Commissioner Rodgers asked if that plant material would lead to maintenance difficulties. Planner Chris Riordan deferred to the applicant to respond. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Jeff Reid, Project Architect: • Thanked Planner Chris Riordan for his help in getting this project finessed. • Said that he hopes it will be approved tonight. • Stated he would welcome any questions. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Jeff Reid about his roofing material choice, as antique roofs are beautiful but also fragile. Why was this material selected? Is there anything available in this country rather than the proposed imported tiles? Mr. Jeff Reid said that there are other materials available. This tile helps preserve the Old World look. However, there are a myriad of solutions, both American and California- based, that could easily be explored as an alternative to that. He said the color of the the was paramount. Commissioner Kundtz counted four chimneys. Mr. Jeff Reid said there were three. Commissioner Kundtz asked which chimney is wood burning as only one can be. Mr. Jeff Reid said that has not yet been decided. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Reid to think about using all gas fireplaces, taking into account the recent fires in Southern California. That is just is suggestion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 36 Commissioner Rodgers said that most people want at least one wood- burning fireplace because they want the larger sized fireplace for its appearance. However, these days you can have a more elaborate fireplace system that is still gas burning. Mr. Jeff Reid said he is aware that inserts have come a long way. ,Commissioner Nagpal said she too counts four chimneys on the plans. Chair Hlava .asked the height of the retaining wall behind the house. Mr. Jeff Reid said it is five feet tall. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the upper story would look out onto the road and would headlights become a problem as seen from within the house. Mr. Jeff, Reid said that the house is located below the road and there is no opportunity for headlights to encroach on-the residence. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Cappello said he likes. this design and can make the Design Review and Variance findings. It is a pretty tough lot to build upon. Commissioner Rodgers said.she could make the findings for approval. Chair Rodgers said that she likes the use of natural materials. This is a pretty house and this owner is brave to build on that lot. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single - family residence and Variance approval for the retaining walls to exceed the five -foot maximum height limitation on property located at 15261 Bohlman Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: ' None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Property, Owner, Mr. Campagna, took a moment to recognize the work of Planner Chris Riordan and commended his help in bringing this project along in the process. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 37 0 Chair Hlava verified that there would be no meeting on November 28tH Director John Livingstone said that meeting is now officially cancelled. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the review of the Blight Ordinance would be changed from the cancelled Planning Commission meeting of November 28th to the following Planning Commission meeting date of December 12, 2007. AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned that the Ordinance is now called the Neglected Property Ordinance (rather than Blight Ordinance). Commissioner Zhao and Nagpal both reported ongoing problems accessing their City emails and asked that this not be used as the only means of communication until it is operational for everyone. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:33 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • Item 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: November 14, 2007 SUBJECT: Request for a Continuance MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court; APN 397 -24 -105 Modification of Design Review Approval The applicant for the above referenced project requested a continuance from the October 24, 2007 hearing to the current meeting date. However, the applicant has not submitted requested plans for the project and thus the application cannot be heard at the November 14, 2007 meeting. Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain. • • Item 2 0 PLANNING COMMISSINON MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner �Y MEETING DATE: November 14, 2007 SUBJECT: Request for a Continuance CUP07 -0003; 18681 Vessing Court; APN: 397 -05 -086 Conditional Use Permit for the Installation of an Emergency Generator for a Single Family Home The applicant for the above reference project has requested a continuance. Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue the item to the meeting of December 12, 2007. • s • • Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: PDR07 -0002 —14765 Fruitvale Avenue Type of Application: Design Review for a New Two -Story Single Family Residence Owner: Michael and Veronica Miller Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner Meeting Date: November 14, 2007 APN: 379 -18 -075 Department Head), John Livingstone, AICP _ � 7 47 _ .. FW-f .2 ` —' 8 R !3 F = t :5ie GR.z �? c � K , I-K A;'.. t. „l "' JIS'AC Ni + y' 216 95 /4 __ W __ Ij{ lei AC „� "„ r C 10.20 AC.8A " ts 1 ?8 s ?� a h,. . �,`.. ;..10. 900 AI NET "I _"I 04_95' l.4 — tn>• � 0 n ` � lq� ... ; w :; . S+ WN nay ,r ` 0.873 AC.: f:: • ? ; • a �' f 0 1aC 1.241 AC. 1.741 AC. la.w 77 0 •Q' �+�, ,. :N ♦`! bol 14 R z I f ` o a- • . � t sa -» s. n ,,•s L05 2 i qty. iii Io. LOtacl W:.. �,. 4,1 •:r... �9y•Ya W. DL'L •;' 2.01 AC (} 1�a~ \. .'(�.- •! •I 2.072 Ac tK„ �0 Q 14 A, PCLA �•' S 'S "✓ °, e- •_ 17i AC. ,OtMI '�•y�!V'•' \' n N• �tD \ ' N 1�. �� uIAG P.1,- ?59Y<0 a' EF o 3i-I yl, 3AC,/ � _ 1 •I t ,� , I .w °•.A 1 0B8 AC. 90 1i 1ABB AC NET wl•a tt .,a4.rc.?NET iu55AC.GR. t •� �" ir• •4• __.____ may._____ + w In AC. I 1.e AC w _ tT3�e 05 1 " ,t p t Subject: �� �1, •�� t •' 14765 Fruitvale Ave � B 1 s v ` ` 1tHA[ L5 At APN: 397 -18 -075 500' Radius "" PCL z s " ` N PCL. A r 14765 Fruitvale Avenue CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07/03/07 10/23/07 10/31/07 10/26/07 11/08/07 The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a 1,030 square foot first floor addition and a new 1,255 square foot second story to an existing single -story single - family residence. The total floor area of the proposed house and garage is 4,874 square feet. The applicant has proposed a 26 -foot maximum height for the proposed residence. The net lot size is approximately 51,000 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. • • A Application No. PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD Very Low Density Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 57,935 square feet; Net: 51,160 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 13% GRADING REQUIRED: No grading required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed addition to the existing single - family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include moss green stucco and shingle siding, white trim, river rock veneer along the front base and on the chimney, grey shingle composition roofing, and wood Craftsman-style garage and front doors. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. Application No. PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue PROJECT DATA: • • • Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable = 35% Building 3,519 SF Porches /patio /decks/ walkways 1,706 SF Driveway 4,481 SF TOTAL PROPOSED 9,706 SF (19.2 %) 17,906 SF Floor Area: First Floor Existing 1,912 SF Maximum Allowable Garage Existing 51,160 SQ FT (Net lot size) (Converted to riving) 602 SF — 8,186 SQ FT (16% New Garage 1,105 SF reduction for 13% slope) 1St floor addition 1,255 SF Second Floor addition TOTAL PROPOSED 4,874 SF 6,060 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement 1 -story 2 -story 1 -story 2 -story Front (west) >250 ft. >250 ft 35 ft. 35 ft. Rear (east) 79 ft 84 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. Left Side (south) 20 ft. 63 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Right Side (north)) 32 ft. 3 in. 36 ft. 4 in. 20 ft. 25 ft. Mei ht• Maximum Allowable Lowest elevation pt. 109.21 ft. Highest elevation pt. 113.23 ft. Average elevation pt. 111.22 ft. 137.22 ft. (26 ft.) Topmost pt. 137.22 ft. (26 ft.) • • • Application No. PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue 0 PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a 1,030 square -foot first -floor addition and a new 1,255 square -foot second story to an existing single -story single - family residence. The total floor area of the proposed house and garage is 4,874 square feet. The proposed residence will be 26 feet high and the footprint of the home will cover less than 7% of the net lot size, which is approximately 51,000 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 40,000. The average slope of the property is 13 %. Architectural Style The owner's parents built the existing house in 1967. The remodeling project is inspired by the Santa Cruz Craftsman home owned by applicant's grandparents and incorporates many of the characteristics that are typical of that style. The porch roofs are supported by tapered river -rock covered supports, and the gables are accented with triangular vents and knee braces. Exposed rafter ends extend beyond the wide overhangs. The frequent use of a multi -pane sash over a single -pane sash, the addition of a window box, and the accent shingles under the gabled roof are all characteristic of Craftsman-style homes. River rock will extend across the base of the front of the house and cover the chimney. The wood garage and front doors will both be designed in the Craftsman style. Trees The Arborist Report, dated June 25, 2007, identified eleven trees regulated by City Ordinance that are in the vicinity of the project. These trees include numerous coast live oaks and Monterey pines, along with a flowering pear, black oak, valley oak, and mimosa. Only two trees are proposed to be removed. The mimosa, which is dead, and one of the Monterey pines, which is in poor condition, are recommended for removal. The Arborist recommends that the pine be replaced with a new tree. The second floor has been designed to avoid the canopy of tree #1, a large coast live oak located to the rear of the residence. Compliance with all Arborists' recommendations shall be included as a condition of approval to ensure that all ordinance size trees will be protected during construction. Geotechnical Clearance This application does not require geotechnical review. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification templates from several nearby properties. No concerns were raised on any of the attached forms. All parcels within 500 feet of the parcel have been notified by Staff and no comments have been received as of the writing of this report (Attachment 4). Energy Efficiency The addition has been designed to protect and preserve the large oak that lies to the west of the house, along with several other trees. These trees, together with the use of large Application No. PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue overhangs, will provide additional shading for the residence, while four skylights will reduce the demand for artificial light. The proposed design also includes the use of energy efficient appliances, including an on- demand tankless water heater, and a high- efficiency heating and cooling system that divides the home into specific zones to reduce unnecessary energy usage. There is very little change to the overall coverage of the lot, with more than 80% remaining natural. The preservation of the orchard to the front, the oaks to the rear, and the numerous other trees onsite, together with this minimal amount of coverage help to protect the natural cooling found in a semi -rural environment. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policy: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 — Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed moss green stucco and shingles, together with the river rock base and chimney will blend with the extensive vegetation that. surrounds the home. The orchard will be retained and the ordinance -sized trees will be protected. 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 of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the majority of the setbacks exceed the. minimum required by Code. The second story addition is located more than 250 feet from the front property line, 84 feet from the rear property line, and at least 35 feet from the side. Visibility of the project site. is shielded by the orchard and several large trees (pine and oak). Homes in this area are built on similar large lots and separated by substantial distances. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve and enhance most of the existing mature trees on the site. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed addition incorporates the existing mature vegetation on the site and, in particular, protects the -44 -inch live oak behind the home. The orchard will be maintained. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that of the 11 trees that are protected by City Code and located within the vicinity of the construction area, only two trees will be removed. Both of these are non - native species and one is dead and the other, in poor health, will be replaced with a similar _ Application No. PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue tree. The applicant is proposing to retain the remaining 9 ordinance -sized trees while implementing recommendations by the City Arborist to ensure protection of the trees. The applicant will also be maintaining the existing orchard. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes and have been incorporated in the design. In addition, the elevations include shingle accents, columns, gable dormers, fenestration details such as multiple lights above a single pane, and a carriage style garage door to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. The property is heavily wooded and the second floor is set back from the first floor to reduce vertical massing. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that there are other nearby homes and structures that extend above the standard 18 -foot single -story height. The home to the right is approximately 30 feet high and a detached garage on another neighboring lot is well over the standard single -story height. The distance between homes on these large lots and the extensive existing vegetation will minimize any impact on the natural light, view, or solar energy potential that this project may have on neighboring homes. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that there will be minimal grading. There will be very little change in the existing coverage. The entire property slopes toward Fruitvale Avenue with natural drainage flowing across 160 feet of orchard and its permeable surface. There is no intent to alter the existing natural drainage that occurs on the site. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of energy efficiency, compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views, as detailed in the findings above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification templates. 3. Arborist Reports and tree fencing by City Arborist Kate Bear, dated June 25, 2007. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A ". Attachment 1 • • RESOLUTION NO Application No. PDR07 -0002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plyler /Miller; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for an addition to an existing residence at 14765 Fruitvale Avenue, which is located in the R -1 -40 district; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes an addition to an existing residence is categorically exempt from the California 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; 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 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 proposed moss green stucco and shingles, together with the river rock base and chimney will blend with the extensive vegetation that surrounds the home. The orchard will be retained and the ordinance -sized trees will be protected. 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. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to meet the following criteria for Design Review specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the majority of the setbacks exceed the minimum required by Code. The second story addition is located more than 250 feet from the front property line, 84 feet from the rear property line, and at least 35 feet from the side. Visibility of the project site is shielded by the orchard and several large trees (pine and oak). Homes in this area are built on similar large lots and separated by substantial distances. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve and enhance most of the existing mature trees on the site. PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the, proposed addition incorporates the existing mature vegetation on the site and, in particular, protects the 44 -inch live oak behind the home. The orchard will be maintained. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that of the 11 trees that are protected by City Code and located within the vicinity of the construction area, only two trees will be removed. Both of these are non - native species and one is dead and the other, in poor health, will be replaced with a similar tree. The applicant is, proposing to retain the remaining 9 ordinance -sized trees while implementing recommendations by the City Arborist to ensure protection of the trees. The applicant will also be maintaining the existing orchard. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The finding can be made in the affirmative in that architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes have been incorporated in the design. In addition, the elevations include shingle accents, columns, gable dormers, fenestration details such as multiple lights above a single pane, and a carriage style garage door to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. The property is heavily wooded and the second floor is set back from the first floor to reduce vertical massing. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The. finding can be made in the affirmative in that there are other nearby homes and structures that extend above the standard 18 -foot single -story" height. The home to the right is approximately 30 feet. high and a detached garage on. another neighboring lot is well over the standard single -story height. The distance between homes on these large lots and the extensive existing vegetation will minimize any impact on the natural light, view, or solar energy potential that this project may have on neighboring homes. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The finding can be made in the affirmative in that there will be minimal grading. There will be very little change in the existing .coverage. The entire property slopes toward Fruitvale Avenue with natural drainage flowing across 160 feet of orchard and its permeable surface. There is no intent to alter the existing natural drainage that occurs on the site. (g) Design policies and techniques. The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of energy efficiency, compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views, as detailed in the findings above; and. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: is PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application number PDR07- 0002 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 October 17, 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 dated July 3,.2007. The chimney shall be covered with stone. 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. 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. PDR07 -0002; 14765FruitvaleAvenue 7. 'To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. 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, if applicable, 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. CITY ARBORIST 12. All recommendations-contained in the City Arborist Report dated June 25, 2007, shall be followed. 13. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 14. Prior to 'issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $84,750.00 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 15. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE DISTRICT 16. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. • PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue PUBLIC WORKS 17. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right -of -way. 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. 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. • PDR07 -0002; 14765 Fruitvale Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City. of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of November 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava 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 F� • • • Attachment 2 • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form C E /!, D PROJECT ADDRESS: �c 2 �O 1,—�� JUL J 3 2007 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. � z Neighbor Name:. �� p L2: mate: /67 Signature: —�- -.-� Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: &g =19 7 _V T 1f 'l have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): rr 1 2 ApplicantName: � i l 6 ` Date: Application Number: Revised 10/24/06 PAForms & Procedures \design review applications.doc 6 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form D E C d PROJECT ADDRESS: JUL U 3 2001 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 0roject plans. Neighbor Name: 42 _ ��.eo i Date: 6 IS L.�- Signature: Neighbor Address: I2urrVAt-e Ave �A•Q�T°� Neighbor Phone #: - o � l / 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: plication Number: Revised 10/24/06 PAForms & Procedures design review applications. doc 6 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Foram . p E C E DW E PROJECT ADDRESS: (,E7(a 6�&6" Ate-- JUL 0 3 2007 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: I \ V AS Date: l0 Signature: NJ Neighbor. Address: Neighbor Phone #: If I 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: Revised 10/24/06 PAForrns & Procedures\design review applications.doc 6 • • • City of Saratoga 0 neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: (�1 lOcs C�� JUL G 32007 Dear Neighbor, CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. y signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary ject plans. quvo4ai 61X40 Neighb� Name: e: Signature; 191.1S11V V1 lltllTaHa•1• 1 �f7(5 5 r" aA 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: A r — Date: Islication Number: Revised 10/24/06 PAForms & Procedures \design review app] i cations. doc 6 • C7 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 14765 Fruitvale Avenue ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -18 -075 Owner: Michael and Veronica Miller INTRODUCTION Application #: 07 -379 June 25, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owner of 14765 Fruitvale Avenue has submitted plans to the city to remodel and add on to their home. Eleven trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this project. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy of the Site Plan. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet CS, Cover Sheet and Topographic Survey, dated June 12, 2007, by DiMattei Construction, Inc. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Eleven trees are potentially impacted by construction. They include four coast live oaks ( #1, 6, 8 and 10), three Monterey pines ( #2 — 4), one flowering pear ( #5), one black oak ( #7), one valley oak ( #9) and one mimosa (#11). Trees 92 —11 are not shown on the plans and should be surveyed and included on the revised set of plans. No trees are shown to be removed. However, tree #2 is in poor health and tree #11 is dead. Both should be removed and the pine should be replaced with a new tree. Oak tree #1 can be adequately protected during construction if the following guidelines are met. Care has been taken to design the second floor outside of the canopy of the tree so that pruning will be minimized or unnecessary. If some pruning is required, it should be done under the supervision of a certified arborist prior to the start of construction to avoid limb breakage during construction. The foundation for the addition and the garage will require pier and beam footings. The holes for the footings should be hand dug for the first two feet and no roots measuring two inches or larger may be cut. If roots larger than two inches are encountered, the location for the piers should be adjusted to miss the root. Roots measuring less than two inches may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. Installation of the piers for the garage should also take care to avoid cutting roots from pine trees 43 and 4. This requires hand digging all of the holes for the piers and adjusting their locations if roots are encountered. Page 1 of 3 14765 Fruitvale Avenue The plans don't say if the driveway needs to be widened to meet fire department requirements. If it does need to be widened, I recommend widening it on the side away from trees #9 and 10. If the driveway will be removed and replaced, trees #9 and 10 will need to be added to the bond and no excavation may occur within ten feet of them. If a new driveway is part of the project, it should be constructed of pavers or other pervious materials on top of grade in the portions under tree canopies. All locations for utilities (including trenching for water, sewer, drainage, gas and electrical) should be shown on the plans so they can be evaluated for impacts to trees. If landscaping will be done, plans need to be evaluated for impacts to trees and should include locations of irrigation lines, valves and controller. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond in the amount of $84,750, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value of trees #1 — 8, is required- Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and the map showing locations of trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain -link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground.and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the • fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 3. Owner shall provide a tree.protection bond in the amount of $84,750 prior to obtaining building division permits. The amount of the bond may be changed if the number of trees impacted by the project changes. 4. I recommend removing trees #2 and 11, and replacing tree #2 with one 24 inch box tree on the property. No replacements are required for tree #11 as it is dead and there are a lot of trees on the property already. 5. The foundation for the garage and the addition on the back side of the house shall be of pier and beam. construction. Holes for piers shall be hand dug for the first two feet. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and the hole shall be adjusted to miss the root. Any roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. If any questions arise, call the city arborist, Kate Bear at 868 -1276 prior to cutting roots. 6. If the driveway is widened or removed and replaced, no excavation may occur within ten feet of trees #9 and 10. If anew driveway is constructed, it shall be of pavers on sand or other pervious materials under trees 9 and 1.0 and no compaction shall occur to construct it. 7. Any grading or trenching under a tree's canopy shall be approved by the city arborist prior to performing work. If approved, it shall be done manually using shovels. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and tunneled under; roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. Page 2 of 3 14765 Fruitvale Avenue 0 8. Plans shall show locations for all utilities including electrical, drainage, water, sewer and gas lines. 9. Trees shall be watered every three weeks during the dry summer months or more often as necessary to ensure their continued good health. Water using a soaker hose or drip line midway between the trunk and the edge of the canopy. Use enough water so that the soil is moist to a depth of one foot deep. 10. 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. 11. If landscaping will occur, design the plans 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 the canopy. d. Plant only drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks under the oak trees. Do not include lawn within the drip line of any oak tree on the property. 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. g. Establish edging material proposed beneath tree canopies on top of existing soil grade by using stakes. 12. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Tree #1 shall be pruned, if necessary, prior to start of construction. 13. The disposal of potentially harmful products (such as chemicals, oil, gasoline, rinse water from cement or paint, herbicides, or other potentially harmful materials) 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. Attachment: Tree Inventory Table Map Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing • Page 3 of 3 TREE INVENTORY TABLE Total Appraised Value, $107,550 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: June 25, 2007 14765 Fruitvale Ave. • • Coast live oak 1 3 100 a, Good High 3 $47,900 a o °o o b 3 w o 3 o Q, a a �� py C b^ a� o a U Poor Remove �° i 110, 3 o a M w U oTREE U '0 ° on °E o ' •° � ac . N 80 80. Good v 3 co NO. TREE NAME X? $4,740 � o ° Q. Total Appraised Value, $107,550 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: June 25, 2007 14765 Fruitvale Ave. • • Coast live oak 1 Quercus a ri olia 44.9 60 100 90 Good High 3 $47,900 Monterey pine 2 Pinus radiata 23.4 1 30 20 0 Poor Remove 3 X X? $220 Monterey pine 3 Pinus radiata 29.3 30 80 80. Good High 3 X X? $4,740 Monterey pine 4 Pinus radiata 24.5. 30 80 80 Good High 3 X $3,320 Flowering pear 5 Pyrus calle I rya,na 10.5 25 90 90 Good High 3 X $2,470 Coast live oak 6.8, 6 ' Quercus a ri olia 7.4 15 100 90 1 Good High 3 X $2,230 Black oak 7 Quercus kello ii 9-1- 15 100 100 Good Hi h 3 X $3,370 Coast live oak 8 Quercus a ri olia 29.4 40 100 100 Good High 3 X $20,500 Valley oak 9 Quercus lobata 14.8 25 100 100 Good High 3 X $9,700 Coast live oak 141 10 Quercus a ri oha 15.5 30 100 100 Good High 3 X $13,100 Mimosa 11 Albizia 'ulibrissin 1 16 0 0 0 Dead, Remove 4 X $0 Total Appraised Value, $107,550 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: June 25, 2007 14765 Fruitvale Ave. • • _._ -_: 148:68 - - ---- - - - - -- , i i t 1 t I 4i ~ 1 I i i 1 i I I t r i I V9'60J7 N r I ( 1 I I ( l 1 I ( ! _ � 1 l ( l I i ! l ( I o ( j l CO N I I I I I r l •vy .r,f,.. 1 'T F 1 i __- _- _- _- _- - - - -_- I I I 6S' 14765 Fruitvale Avenue LEGEND Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy i ! N • Attachment 4 • 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 14th day -of November 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: #PDR07- 0002/ 14765 Fruitvale Avenue APPLICANT: Plyler/Miller APN: 379 -18 -075 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single family residence. The total floor area of the proposed. residence and garage will be approximately 4,874 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 51,160 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- iriformation packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, November 5,.2007. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is -the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In -some cases, out -of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result -in notices not being delivered to all.residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner 408 7868 -1212 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 26`h day of October , 2007, that I deposited 44 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 0 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: Address: 14765 Fruitvale AP N : 397 -18 -075 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 1 Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • :tober 26, 2007 0' Ownership Listing •epared for: 7 -18 -075 ILLER FAMILY TRUST 765 FRUITVALE AVE ►RATOGA CA 95070 -6136 7 -17 -012 397 -17 =013 ?NKAT & ANJANA KALKUNTE JOHN S & ELIZABETH ROLLINS Z CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 521 FARWELL AVE 19551 FARWELL AVE �RATOGA CA 95070 -5506 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5506 7 -17 -024 ,MES A & SYLVIA KATZMAN 2 CURRENT OWNER 607 FARWELL AVE �RATOGA CA 95070 -5506 7 =18 -022 )UIS M & SANDRA THORPE Z CURRENT OWNER -550 FARWELL AVE �RATOGA CA 95070 -5507 7 -18 -027 kMl KARIMI Z CURRENT OWNER 805 FRUITVALE AVE �RATOGA CA 95070 -6137 397 -18 -016 SCOTT A & LORI EMERY OR CURRENT OWNER 14780 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5511 397 -18 -023 GARY E MARCOS OR CURRENT OWNER 19520 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5507 397 -18 -028 DIANA G MATTHIESEN 4102 NW 30TH TER GAINESVILLE FL 32605 -1526 7 -18 -035 397 -18 -036 J -SUNG & SUSAN WON SHANTI REVOC VINOD & LAURA Z CURRENT OWNER SARUP 870 BARANGA IN PO BOX 2221 �RATOGA CA 95070 -5501 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0221 7 -18 -038' 397 -18 -069 CHARD & C SCUDELLARI JAMES P & SUZANNE RIVERS Z CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT. OWNER 855 BARANGA IN 14760 LIVE OAK LN �RATOGA CA 95070 -5501 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5511 7 -18 -076 )NALD & GAIL JOSEPH Z CURRENT OWNER 751 FRUITVALE AVE d;' ATOGA CA 95070 -6136 397 -18 -078 ROBERTT & PATRICIA MOORE OR CURRENT OWNER 19608 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5507 397 -17 -014 GIBSON ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19571 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5506 397 -18 -018 EDWARD M & JANE COOK OR CURRENT OWNER 14750 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5511. 397 -18 -024 HENRY DRINKER OR CURRENT OWNER 14711 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-61' )6 397 -18 -029 FRANK L & ELSIE GIPPETTI OR CURRENT OWNER 14847 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6137 397 -18 -037 ROBERT W & SHIRLEY GUEST OR CURRENT OWNER 14835 BARANGA IN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5501 397 -18 -075 MILLER FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 14765 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6136 397 -18 -079 JAMES R & MARILYN SWANSON PO BOX 3466 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1466 7 -18 -080 397 -18 -083 397 -18 -084 )RVAL J & EILEEN NELSON ROMULUS & JULIE PEREIRA WEN LIN t CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 612 FARWELL AVE 14765 LIVE OAK LN 14788 LIVE OAK LN ,RATOGA CA 95070 -5507 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5511 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5511 • ;0-18 -085 397 -18- 089 397 -18 -090 3RIAN & JULIE KELLY WILLIAM K & JUDY YAMAGUCHI PEGGY PLATO 4jjLLIVE OAK LANE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ' OGA CA 95070 14755 FRUITVALE AVE 14775 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6136 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6136 ;97 -18 -105 ,UNG -SIAEN CHIEN )R CURRENT OWNER 9600 FARWELL AVE ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5507 ,97 -32 -007 TOWARD W & MARCIA SUMMERS )R CURRENT OWNER 4800 ANDREW CT . ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -6101 .97 -32 -010 )AVID C & CYNTHIA MCCROSKEY )R CURRENT OWNER 4865 ANDREW CT ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -6101 97 -36 -008 :ONALD S COHN )R CURRENT OWNER 9475 RIESLING CT OGA CA 95070 -6115 97- 6 -011 �ROENEVELD- SIMION )R CURRENT OWNER 4761 GRANITE WAY IARATOGA CA 95070 -6131 ;ITY OF SARATOGA kTTN: Suzanne Thomas 3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE �ARATOGA CA 95070 • 397 -32 -001 ALICE M HEINZE OR CURRENT OWNER 14803 GRANITE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6131 397 -32 -008 WILLIAM M & SANDRA WEST OR CURRENT OWNER 14801 ANDREW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6101 397 -36 -001 MING -YU LIANG 1539 BERGERAC DR SAN JOSE CA 95118 -3920 397 -36 -009 MORRIS & TERI JONES OR CURRENT OWNER 19472 RIESLING CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6115 397 -36 -033 SHIOUPYN SHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 19468 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6130 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 397 -32 -006 LEE & HUANG OR CURRENT OWNER 14842 ANDREW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6101 397 -32 -009 THOMAS K & MUNDY LIAO OR CURRENT OWNER 14833 ANDREW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6101 397 -36 -007 KWANG W & DUK KIM OR CURRENT OWNER 19461 RIESLING CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6115 397 -36 -010 DENNIS R & KATHLEEN THOMAS OR CURRENT OWNER 19450 RIESLING CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6115 397 -36 -035 PAUL C & CHING-LI CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19486 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6130 Attachment 5 • • LU L_ l < -� 0 LL p l.5 cv r, i =l'- < UJ �1l_.f7 f�_.�'✓ u) C_1 UJ Q c� 0 uj. Q C4 W D. z LLI w C9 > Q w Q LU �- J �. LO N> 0� a OWE I I C, Z5 f 0lat21 m W J 1 ZW.71 '.. ✓ 1 -1i �avra O� Z� 1 Ix OLLZI M LU 009 JI WZ1 ztnol I 1 I I I I i i ! 6 z 0 °w 0 4 and 0 ..0 ispection by Me City. Me N .. 1.1S of record shat porjde e writ@n certitiaaon Mar 0/9 ° building sett"F are Per the X: 7..d �- 'd 104ISF 1ST FLOOR, (EI AC PATq hl ( Y iE NDT .. THE ) 148.68 \. / I 1 ! z WIZ .ncb odd � O o! • �OmFb! _! TREE w ° I Paarecrlve A I w z 0 TKI. - o �I ! I � 1 I I I I i I I i II I I i 1=I r ? I I /� B j ° / V +. 13 I 4S PROPOSED-D2N01 ANTLY CHANGE THE-- )US AREA THE ° FROM' HE \ CE FLOWS OVER A ORCHARDTR%VEUNG 'ORE FLOWINGirdI`0� ZAINAGE DUCH. NO-, E CHANGES F I l ID I i a i I I I I I i I i I I I 1 i li-- °,ro p ---.1 °y0/ \14765 FRUITVA NEIGHBORING SING FAMILY DWELLING SITE, DRAIN AND ACRQSSFRUITVALE LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALES - =270- I faro I sEao ss s. i I �J- 26-0--i,3: I I bldnr le ! IaEQ'o s.s.a in t I Im 1 Im I I ! Im oi z ! z I loi o 0 g0 I i z j W 1 � 4 I O ! w I I x I o NEIGHBORING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO MILLER RESIDENCE SCOPE OF WORK A NEW HOME BY DEFINITION ( >THAN 50% OF, EXTERIOR WALLS REMOVED OR REBUILT). TO (E)1967 S.F.D. ADD 1105 SF TO 1st FLOOR CONSTRUCT (N) 1255 SF 2nd FLOOR w/ MASTERBEDROOM SUITE RELOCATE 602 SF GARAGE. RELOCATE KITCHEN TO REAR SHEET INDEX . CS SITE/DRAINAGE PLAN. ASSESSOR'S MAP PROJECT & SITE DATA SHEET' C-1a ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, TREE LOCATIONS AND VICINITY MAP A -1 (E)1st FLOOR PLAN A -1a PICTURES (E) HOUSE A -lb NEIGHBOR VIEW PICTURES (E) HOUSE A -2 (N) 1st FLOOR PLAN A -3 (N) 2nd FLOOR PLAN A-4 FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS A -5 RIGHT AND LEFT ELEVATIONS A-6&7 SECTIONS A-8 ROOF PLAN ARB-FA ARBORIST REPORT AND FLR AREA BOXES BPCB BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET 'O 02IL", I 1 CAPE NOTE j f NO ¢IjANGES TO i LAN C/}PINGARE ! I .., ,T., PR SED ".'.<. °. < °,,,.. ...< :+ •Q< JJ II - 397 18 nvE _ I i I _ • � '.� rr K I 1 i I i i y rDP OF GNK I 1 v -�-{ -j- ` - ������. I I I 9 � '�iwrNi�..awa •nac _ lei. = i ef �#.: • J L--- - - -; / —�, ' j _i4_ 9.02 I �' 1 <.+ 1.33 A FUTURE STREET LINE11 1 �. _ TH cE OArcs to i Project and site data REV IM'l5'07 MWmI and Vercrwa Miller (408) 839 -0474 oe I HIGHEST E) GRADE H.EV PT BDG EDGE I Merap■ = AVERAGE GRADE ELEV PT I J prh pared number 3718-075 1 I 'd utlhec� Zoning dletria R- 1-40.000 I�tr Ian 1 I sEao ss.e.l � ° Site area 57935 SF OI 0/e FUR - Pi REaosse. I � �. DRAiN 253' ml T � IGNII PER i i i ' • OUNOI 17 ft4ure street lrhe across east frontage on FNfAale FSID r -T-I 11._ OVd °DI 16p'+ E l D N j 20' im I 1390 SF u O I I I i 51160 SF Y iE NDT .. THE ) 148.68 \. / I 1 ! z WIZ .ncb odd � O o! • �OmFb! _! TREE w ° I Paarecrlve A I w z 0 TKI. - o �I ! I � 1 I I I I i I I i II I I i 1=I r ? I I /� B j ° / V +. 13 I 4S PROPOSED-D2N01 ANTLY CHANGE THE-- )US AREA THE ° FROM' HE \ CE FLOWS OVER A ORCHARDTR%VEUNG 'ORE FLOWINGirdI`0� ZAINAGE DUCH. NO-, E CHANGES F I l ID I i a i I I I I I i I i I I I 1 i li-- °,ro p ---.1 °y0/ \14765 FRUITVA NEIGHBORING SING FAMILY DWELLING SITE, DRAIN AND ACRQSSFRUITVALE LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALES - =270- I faro I sEao ss s. i I �J- 26-0--i,3: I I bldnr le ! IaEQ'o s.s.a in t I Im 1 Im I I ! Im oi z ! z I loi o 0 g0 I i z j W 1 � 4 I O ! w I I x I o NEIGHBORING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO MILLER RESIDENCE SCOPE OF WORK A NEW HOME BY DEFINITION ( >THAN 50% OF, EXTERIOR WALLS REMOVED OR REBUILT). TO (E)1967 S.F.D. ADD 1105 SF TO 1st FLOOR CONSTRUCT (N) 1255 SF 2nd FLOOR w/ MASTERBEDROOM SUITE RELOCATE 602 SF GARAGE. RELOCATE KITCHEN TO REAR SHEET INDEX . CS SITE/DRAINAGE PLAN. ASSESSOR'S MAP PROJECT & SITE DATA SHEET' C-1a ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, TREE LOCATIONS AND VICINITY MAP A -1 (E)1st FLOOR PLAN A -1a PICTURES (E) HOUSE A -lb NEIGHBOR VIEW PICTURES (E) HOUSE A -2 (N) 1st FLOOR PLAN A -3 (N) 2nd FLOOR PLAN A-4 FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS A -5 RIGHT AND LEFT ELEVATIONS A-6&7 SECTIONS A-8 ROOF PLAN ARB-FA ARBORIST REPORT AND FLR AREA BOXES BPCB BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET 'O 02IL", I 1 CAPE NOTE j f NO ¢IjANGES TO i LAN C/}PINGARE ! I .., ,T., PR SED ".'.<. °. < °,,,.. ...< :+ •Q< JJ II - 397 18 nvE _ I i I _ • � '.� rr K I 1 i I i i y rDP OF GNK I 1 v -�-{ -j- ` - ������. I I I 9 � '�iwrNi�..awa •nac _ lei. = i ef �#.: • J L--- - - -; / —�, ' j _i4_ 9.02 I �' 1 <.+ 1.33 A FUTURE STREET LINE11 1 �. _ TH cE OArcs to i Project and site data REV IM'l5'07 MWmI and Vercrwa Miller (408) 839 -0474 I HIGHEST E) GRADE H.EV PT BDG EDGE 14765 Fnalmlo Avaruc AVERAGE GRADE ELEV PT 11171' lyl pared number 3718-075 I 137.72' =M'0' 'd utlhec� Zoning dletria R- 1-40.000 Site area 57935 SF i 253' Eascmcros t 17 ft4ure street lrhe across east frontage on FNfAale 1490 SF 3B4 17 hllcrc street 6nc Q south side of pp(y l 3395 SF 20' 17 S.S. Easement !diagonal on easfuty third)' 1390 SF Site area less easements above. Net ste area 51160 SF = 1.17 acres OriS,anY louse bull In 1967 Prop used Floor areas exkft additions (N) total Mein floor 1912 - 'fft 1105 - (E)Garage (relocated) 677 ,4' {77 (N)Garage 602 Subtotal lst floor 3619 Upper floor 1255 . 1255 Upper floor area Opel to below ilel locals 2589 it �`Il 22115 4874 Prop'd U:elfing s¢0/= 4874 L.rt ;.00229 x 1 x L)rA . -o0/ aor.c:a:.er.na- •ssra.uaco contour Intervals= 2 length of corn' ices= 3W5 Lot sloped 13 I Average slope Percentage of Not Site '( 120.0130X W% plus 3% far carob 1 % '.1 30% . _.. Net site= 51160 deductlon= } 51160 SFx.iO% 1 13. 16.6 ,1y2. % 9 51160 - 8188 !!I 42974 Net site area rounded up lo nod saner 43000 Size of Lot Floor Area (Afiawable floor area Net Site area Standard >5000 to be determined by pkst vm corn mssiafi 5.001 - 10.000sf 2.400 of plus 160 of for each 1.000 of net site area over 5.C'00 of 10,001 - 15.0xw 32C-O of plus 170 of for cooh 1.000 of ocl site mra over 10,003 of 15, 001 - 40,030sf 4.050 or glue 78 of for each 1.000 of nct'sitc area ow 154th of - 40. 001: - 80000ef -? 6,000 of plus 20 of for each 1,000 of nel 6te area over 40.000 If. 60.001 - 200,0017sf 6.800 or plus 10 at for each 1.000 at nel'site area over 80.000 of 2W.03C4 8.000 sf is maamtrn allowable square footage r f00U+Q43000 10M I ; - X60 Allmable flow area Structural Coverage. buildings, garage & cc decks 35% max ,( existing budding t912 1 proposed adddono 1105 garage 602 (E) rear ae patio and wak 1246 driveway 4461 Il (E) guest bedroom deck 144 (N) front porch 314 total 9806 = 19.2% I Max Imperious coverage= 17906 = 35- I of net site 7 Lion length of contour 118 2: 118 9f 114 19( 112 21( 110 23: 108 15! 108 15! 104 15( 102 15( 100 15( 96 21( 98 24( 94 28( 92 30( 90 34; 88 34: 83 32( 84 14( REVISIONS By 8127/07 sp 10/16107 sea U N - C � O m U 2-- N co r m In to � m Orq n m r, U - v m N N n Q ow J F O LL m r LLI Z LU 0w W N 0 Y� ILL O LLI to J nor C F- W w VJ W O char MAW noted on each S. Pyler 408 3905971 col Job: MUJJ-R CS d sh� Y� LOVYEST GRADE BEV Pi�BOG EDGE 10921' j HIGHEST E) GRADE H.EV PT BDG EDGE 1132T AVERAGE GRADE ELEV PT 11171' lyl TOP MOST ELEV PT OF STRU7URE I 137.72' =M'0' 'd utlhec� & Sr e Frond 253' 2tl 709 t Sided 323 3B4 l Side PoSarrlh 20' 63' Lion length of contour 118 2: 118 9f 114 19( 112 21( 110 23: 108 15! 108 15! 104 15( 102 15( 100 15( 96 21( 98 24( 94 28( 92 30( 90 34; 88 34: 83 32( 84 14( REVISIONS By 8127/07 sp 10/16107 sea U N - C � O m U 2-- N co r m In to � m Orq n m r, U - v m N N n Q ow J F O LL m r LLI Z LU 0w W N 0 Y� ILL O LLI to J nor C F- W w VJ W O char MAW noted on each S. Pyler 408 3905971 col Job: MUJJ-R CS d sh� i. rf 1 NEIGHBORING GLE ° FAMILY DWELLING ) _____�, I ° S 88'd35'00" W 389.56 ( =_ ` _______ 1 2nd FLR REQ'D R.S.B. - m . 60f-011 11 oF 0 � Q O LL vi °�0 °� CNp rl NSW N c� ° ° ° ° I REQ'D R.S.B. rn ��e� �, p e 04 w 1 °may — — — — �- 79' -0" 253' -0" I TREE PROTECTIVE (E)FRONT SETBACK �j�`ON° ` (I �y FENCING (fYP) � 10921 — ► ° r ° e-1� O RESIDENCE I I (E)1912 SF Z I ° \ J TREES FRO REDWOOD T p j. FF= 114.56' (E) REDDOD j 1 REPORT'SH $ O —DECK 144 sq ft 3 I NUMBERED AND`B LD ,16fD' o Y Q.m I 1 o ° oe °� LL c6 co ---------------- LANDSCAPE NOTE: NO CHANGES TO \ LANDSCAPING ARE PROPOSED r 1 REWSUM By &27/07 sp 10/16{07 sp U cr c O = m U C3 2 N c `D m C O m U m N N A F O uZ Q 0 w U Z W Ow W a �LL-o W Lo JnQ J�U Icl Z W J W Q IL ~ W ZQF_- wa(o 7/3107 5. P�Ie.;08 390597, ce. ANDFR sh.W C -1 a sh. R ALLENDALE Al SITE' w i.. J 0 PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT. THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE COMPILED FROM RECORD DATA AND REPRESENT THE BEST GRAPHICAL FIT BETWEEN RECORD INFORMATION AND THE SURVEY MONUMENTATION FOUND.IN THE FIELD. PURSUANT TO THE CLIENTS DIRECTION PERMANENT SURVEY MONUMENTATION WAS NOT PLACED AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY CORNERS. THIS SURVEY IS BASED UPON A PRELIMINARY REPORT PREPARED BY OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY (DATED 5- 21 -07, ORDER y 0616002999 -SR) IRON PIPES WERE FOUND AT THREE OF THE FOUR PROPERTY CORNERS, AND WERE SET AS PER THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY, FiLED FOR RECORD IN BOOK. 27 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 21, SANTA CL.ARA. COUNTY RECORDS. THE REMAINING PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTATION COULD NOT BE FOUND, AS WAS SHOWN ON THAT CERIAIN PARCEL MAP, WHICH WAS FLED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 359 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 40. SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. EGFND - - -- PROPERTY LINE 'BU/LOING FOOTPRINT TREE .,t FIRE HYDRANT ' WATER VALVE WATER METER JOINT POLE SANITARY" MANHOLE ! SANITARY CLEANOUT CONTOUR LINE -- CONC CURB R GUTTER 11 CATCH BASIN -- -�- - SANITARY SEWER LINE (APPROX. LOCATION) �.,., RETAINING WALL FENCE LINE EDGE OF PAVEMENT I I �L c M II �w N (.s 0 �.^ 0 ul c N � • O N N m x o pt� G V) .. mo xv• �I U ifY C in O J 1 ova ` < i I y 1 a I: W Q o W LL a Q { LL IN FEET 1 Q r � W Z � U 2 0 CL .1 z ga m a O i SHEET OF ,1 I.�� 1 DATE 6 -25 -07 10781 N0. 078 i 1 i EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLSF 1 EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE DEMO'D 00% E TOTAL LEFT WALL OF BEDROOM #3 5LF REAR WALL OF GARAGE. SERVICE PORCH, LIVING. & ENTRY 57LF E GARAGE LEFT WALL 28LF FRONT WALL OF GARAGE 10TCHEN FAMILY 57LF LEFT WALL OF HALL NEAR BR #1 3LF TOTAL WALLS TO BE DEMO` D 15" 57.0% OF E 70TAL INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DEMUL) WALLS: LF EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE CONVERTED TO INTERIOR WALLS BR#3 LEFT SIDE 5LF GARAGE LEFT WALL 25LF LEFT WALL OF HALL NEAR SR #1 3LF TOTAL EXT WALLS TO BE CONVERTED TO INT WALLS LF EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE REBUILT IN SAME LOCATION 33LF 12.5% OF E TOTAL E GARAGE LEFT WALL 31-F E GARAGE FRONT WALL g� TOTAL EXT WALLS TO BE CONVERTED TO IN WALLS 1 111 F 4.2 %OF E TOTAL XLF EXTERIOR WALL TO BE REBUILT IN SAME LOCATION BLF EXTERIOR WALL TO BE REBUILT IN SAME LOCATION GARAGE 57LF EXTERIOR WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED SERVICE �` —'i i s� 1 KEY (E) WAIL -� WALL TO BE DEMOUSHED EXT WAIL TO BE N CONVERTED TO OR 5 LF EXT WALL TO .l BE CONVERTED TO INTERIOR WALL -II \ I !ENTRY LMNG WARDROBE a � f KITCHEN FAMILY ROOM HALL BATH #2 $ �lG10E 57LF EXTERIOR 3 LF EXTERIOR WALL ( -.� i TO BE DEMOLISHED TO BE CONVERTED .1 ,j ', TO INTERIOR WALL EXISTING FLOOR PLAN �i `_';;� BATH SCALE 1/4' =1'0' I' =zar L ase - -�–___ EXISTING ELEVATIONS SCALE vr--110- 1 �I �I M DECKI Yom' i genslONs erz7ro7 10!16/07 U _C N i; O— w+ � U I? O m L p O E vT w m U E oa m o F O LL N� W U Z w OL W i � U- W MO, J J�co 0 Z w F-OZ R -j w LL a =07 S. PMar 408 390.597 DeR7atlai M sea tltle Jet MILLER A -1 d, Y' 1 � r J:. �s , 1 T. i n f AV- i J ~ti t' sF y[- r h j >a - S 1 4 ,�,hy[, b4• S i r - Y•�, s ; 4. yr Y Sti. 4� mss•- -..�_- -�°„" _ , .,," FF,,rr.. �(..1-- f.SiS'.. _ '. •a.: is �Y Vs i` r�?o• y :^;z NNy�. C F fry �.`•- 7- - k. a 1 `! •} Y. x x r f a a a r d m r ao 1i t Ste® _ 1ts _ t 1 S r- fflg- e _ -.,rte. - -f✓ +[ ` _ - ' J • Y - d- L ! � f 1 A . •'r-�r rJ - M 4 f�' s 4 - I• .tit Te V t. t M. s _ , • & F, � � ll t 11 Nip - ratT,'-' '�T� -�y�� ��`- ,?�,..'[- 2- :� } 4�' � �'S�_ .��i � ,- �- .• -,:� � >'e �r ,jt k§ i�':, --'� "fit a�� -` _..?; - 4 ' i r•�. �: n�, 1 i 11 J .'' .: sye [. Vii' �. ,.� ..�: �t,�,aT�y_f�.�. .� -.��� -ti: ) -' 1.� 1. f fly, •rG �' n'� �.... .dr L z.�� -•. ,fie.- " :'. :t. >_ r,'�'r° �.C..- 'r -v: 5zry,[ .4�;,. � `�, 7 2f T - .!- '`5. - r-`�t• .nom ":t. .f :Yi R - r� ... y ;.�2w- - � k-" �' ` .�' ' ' - too h;`�m:,£:• -- '.r h - t• l- xR 4'�� 1 - (Y. �,� s� 1A p•F R81 �yA�� Ip �. As F 1 i r � IL fI f i �I r l tii + � 1 byl p (. , , IZ SI F rl P'. I i ' I cl, I .rig ,� • r wr; 3}.x' � 1 1. y'tr ' Y.� � Y G l•T � � MWK". t� ;y J' ..:, , I 'Y •�' r' TT-;, ! .r+, al k! ,�" '',•.ya�ts. `�>y�y' 1 '1 ks4 ;•,�% , 'v ,, � � � 11 r/ � . 1" , t � i•va:�:� � � �� a °'�,. p �,, ,v r ,. -1 t PYy y,, or� � a 4 ' r l ;' y � � , I r� '• RCF .1 t y t .. t• l- xR 4'�� 1 - (Y. �,� s� 1A p•F R81 �yA�� Ip �. As F 1 i r � IL fI f i �I r l tii + � 1 byl p (. , , IZ SI F rl P'. I i ' I cl, I .rig ,� • r wr; VFW 11 ` �� P 1.� R� {� '� J� t _ 1 YL . t •k`,r k �( • i' �. 1 ygn } I'RI jp' 4f i 1.'r 3�7j Y y i T',.+tS�YWC 1 Fz r " 111 � o�7 h ;l J 'I . v if � � a° �'' "�• ppg���' +' �'r � � 1r ii,�i ` Irl� �d,il 'r�'', �ri �����, 1, ll ', `r�'�•��... rig _ ,6J1;� 'r �J ^\ � ��C' R�'�.c +_k...�i.l .«�� %I; i �I A ii 1. ,ri iil J.6 r 4 } j .S' •3 {�l fi� .� r II IU � 9 'ra'�r' � >,� �R'��n , .�`� } �' Ij( /�: tv.:i: r ' w -,:t ����� � � tll�•I �� I�I�i { �. .� it 41 • 5 3 ,E,Iyy�' 1 #C- .lR'1l :� 433 r I �`.$''{' P ! ,: \ t 1,< • Ir - �km+.r' ' _ __A � _I t ! _ 11 ��� ! � If t. y1f ' i4P1 y�. � j;l'`� _ ,• I I4 t� r, M��- 'full r, -Y }R .' II ,��I R • Ja'1 J, • ;�` J f�,..r� . s R jj,� ! `/ lI 1, , 'Z :rt E�rQy �2R� t ,�tr� ?�,t m y�l r�' �iY'' I � ,,,:. 'pit r 1 nlr � \` � �� � , r f^ m�✓ � l s � ;, Irk + \,���' � �•A � ,+1 R `' tf�' -. • JbN � r! y ` .v'li�' ,�... � �0 %_ A � � "' � :+ tS `I.k r��Y pre (�+ � 5l '� , p.' . n?' f t` ✓a ��r^r' c ,!'1 ).:- `, -. 1'.y � \�NYi S!ti�. � {i II 9, 3�1y l • �, ." �g�,:�t. � a, m l..' , {i. r .- \ ik,,: / 111t k°,f °x Y ,�' � �r 9r �^� ' ! � ? P 7'::• 'iJ " ?,� r+�'»i�r� k � t11j+ II IIT' 4' :� I�,I i��TY.` •, .P .. }'�l�'1 �IA J �l�r 1'��AidI SL!'r ��+ L? T:l K7 cl j r 's 71'is t s,crylln` v; yB 5 x' err ql+ ,, i,' � r •,��' II �p,Fr �, 1 dk�t'pr si .frrl��" J.e1� _ ^"`• 1 ,. :� -f�'.y f r t [_! ,r'�'T,� .','. I r t xi � R S r yPy P11 f. �S .., ✓ r ', 1 i I A• . 1"_ ,+ `.1 LF ! � ' S4 a �,y4 1F < .�, � .;d �� "� t y;, � +t A > +s � R, �v v:P`• �, t n t y F 'n Ft 1 1- N 3 is Z_ 'o t 3}.x' J t' e,J'rP } ♦ �� awj �' } I 'Y •�' r' VFW 11 ` �� P 1.� R� {� '� J� t _ 1 YL . t •k`,r k �( • i' �. 1 ygn } I'RI jp' 4f i 1.'r 3�7j Y y i T',.+tS�YWC 1 Fz r " 111 � o�7 h ;l J 'I . v if � � a° �'' "�• ppg���' +' �'r � � 1r ii,�i ` Irl� �d,il 'r�'', �ri �����, 1, ll ', `r�'�•��... rig _ ,6J1;� 'r �J ^\ � ��C' R�'�.c +_k...�i.l .«�� %I; i �I A ii 1. ,ri iil J.6 r 4 } j .S' •3 {�l fi� .� r II IU � 9 'ra'�r' � >,� �R'��n , .�`� } �' Ij( /�: tv.:i: r ' w -,:t ����� � � tll�•I �� I�I�i { �. .� it 41 • 5 3 ,E,Iyy�' 1 #C- .lR'1l :� 433 r I �`.$''{' P ! ,: \ t 1,< • Ir - �km+.r' ' _ __A � _I t ! _ 11 ��� ! � If t. y1f ' i4P1 y�. � j;l'`� _ ,• I I4 t� r, M��- 'full r, -Y }R .' II ,��I R • Ja'1 J, • ;�` J f�,..r� . s R jj,� ! `/ lI 1, , 'Z :rt E�rQy �2R� t ,�tr� ?�,t m y�l r�' �iY'' I � ,,,:. 'pit r 1 nlr � \` � �� � , r f^ m�✓ � l s � ;, Irk + \,���' � �•A � ,+1 R `' tf�' -. • JbN � r! y ` .v'li�' ,�... � �0 %_ A � � "' � :+ tS `I.k r��Y pre (�+ � 5l '� , p.' . n?' f t` ✓a ��r^r' c ,!'1 ).:- `, -. 1'.y � \�NYi S!ti�. � {i II 9, 3�1y l • �, ." �g�,:�t. � a, m l..' , {i. r .- \ ik,,: / 111t k°,f °x Y ,�' � �r 9r �^� ' ! � ? P 7'::• 'iJ " ?,� r+�'»i�r� k � t11j+ II IIT' 4' :� I�,I i��TY.` •, .P .. }'�l�'1 �IA J �l�r 1'��AidI SL!'r ��+ L? T:l K7 cl j r 's 71'is t s,crylln` v; yB 5 x' err ql+ ,, i,' � r •,��' II �p,Fr �, 1 dk�t'pr si .frrl��" J.e1� _ ^"`• 1 ,. :� -f�'.y f r t [_! ,r'�'T,� .','. I r t xi � R S r yPy P11 f. �S .., ✓ r ', 1 i I A• . 1"_ ,+ `.1 LF ! � ' S4 a �,y4 1F < .�, � .;d �� "� t y;, � +t A > +s � R, �v v:P`• �, t n t y F 'n Ft 1 1- N 3 is Z_ 'o t KEY (E) WALL (N) WALL Tz>oeccs EXT WALL TO BE CONVERTED TO Rfr 1$-P- ime zne m aza a.o i T KITCHEN 6' -0" x 1 T -2" 1 �3 -17• =* I I WARDROBE I fe�a 7 ,72 T�,� I 7 GARAGE ` '', 21'_7• x 27'-6" _ I I �—s -tr 9 :'.UDRCDA § cur =�_: i.. ? • a.eix l nyo•,aatR �— BEDROOM#2 gr — O N – t i ' ...Td .I.. i G � � � _ I I � s{ E -1 i I 1 mm OFFICE �s.t• ti 152 sq ft e UP BATH I .e.aa DINING �( 229 50. 9 BATH B J G� I IVlNG 9 Yaa FURNAce I, �� //° I ,•� ma mu ma I U BATH #1 PORCH I / `� — wAROrioBE — A a mm I s -fo k u� fua r us El _I GUEST BEDROOM, A I 294 so ft 6 s. PROPOSED 1st FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/,C =1'0- I REVWON5 BY 827ro7 sp 10/16407 sp U Cro N O� U `? L- 0 w U) c aD m VO N r m m m N N , E m m Q .+ 3 C� F- o r G � r W Z W ow W a U (9 LO W wQ J nQ J �U Z og Wa o� Iz o Wo AU- e� MW S. Pyle, - 30859 „ce9 jw MRLER shW A -2 a s�.w TT-0 N O O m 0 N a r-- O O X Z a SECOND MILLER RESIDENCE DeMattei Construction Inc. e m' FLOOR PLAN 14765 FRUITVALE, 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, Calif 95126 8 W SARATOGA M4108295-75M $S Fax 408 286 -6589 Llc 478455 I.,. m on m Lj01.1- 1 1k. 141-1 PRO 1,011 1 ri CI 4 Lj01.1- 1 1k. 141-1 PRO 1,011 1 v mim ON j!A .0 I 1 1: DeMattei Construction Inc. 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, Calif 95126 Ofe 408 296-7516 Fax 408 268-6589 Uc 478465 49 .49 • a 011i v mim ON j!A .0 I 1 1: DeMattei Construction Inc. 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, Calif 95126 Ofe 408 296-7516 Fax 408 268-6589 Uc 478465 49 .49 r- m -II m• <I �I Z� fl, s� w e G) m r D O Z l a I g a 1 O 0 O C CO, 3m OT a If LEFT AND MILLER. RESIDENCE DeMattei Construction Inc. e D g. RIGHT 14765 FRUITVALE, 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, Calif 95126 a "' g ELEVATIONS SARATOGA ofe408295 -7516 Fax 408 286 -6589 Lie 478465 FRONT WALL VIEWS FAMILY ROOM & KITCHEN LEFT WALL VIEWS KITCHEN REAR WALL VIEW KITCHEN, NOOK AND FAMILY ROOM RIGHT WALL FAMILY RM 1 111711 1111911,11111 LEFT WALL OFFICE LEFT WALL VIEW DINING ROOM LEFT WALL LAUNDRY ROOM LEFT WALL REAR WALL RIGHT WALL MASTER BATHROOM SECTION FRONT TO BACK LOOKING LEFT SECTION FRONT TO BACK LOOKING RIGHT SECTIONS scA.LE: 114'=1'4r I. i an ol REVMONS By 8127107 SP 10/16/07 SP to 00 L- 0 co US C4 CD 'o .a 0 tL cl w C) Z W LLf LL w tn Jima) U) Z 0 F- w do. 7rm? J� —PW940a 39OZ971 cel J-k KZLLER sh.m A-6 111 F IF m1 mo - FRONT WALL VIEWS FAMILY ROOM & KITCHEN LEFT WALL VIEWS KITCHEN REAR WALL VIEW KITCHEN, NOOK AND FAMILY ROOM RIGHT WALL FAMILY RM 1 111711 1111911,11111 LEFT WALL OFFICE LEFT WALL VIEW DINING ROOM LEFT WALL LAUNDRY ROOM LEFT WALL REAR WALL RIGHT WALL MASTER BATHROOM SECTION FRONT TO BACK LOOKING LEFT SECTION FRONT TO BACK LOOKING RIGHT SECTIONS scA.LE: 114'=1'4r I. i an ol REVMONS By 8127107 SP 10/16/07 SP to 00 L- 0 co US C4 CD 'o .a 0 tL cl w C) Z W LLf LL w tn Jima) U) Z 0 F- w do. 7rm? J� —PW940a 39OZ971 cel J-k KZLLER sh.m A-6 U) m 0 -q 0 z N n a b; 0 ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/4 " =1'-n" D/S (NP) fitP FF� eep(i a a} P A 6G R qal 7At � i iI it d °a a t' ! I pt iii] ■1R� k t �g e It It ��.tg•B:Ow�.P ��.��� �: �� B'e.:'g$g,��. •p�`m$.i,YO �q� F " ® e g 99 to a rut �� `tom+ sc• :=N �3��. e°F �� � 1a� � ����p� ++ N 1ND OH 1 R F F Lg 8 tov�osiTe o�e� L°=- -k .� g A R R .HATCHED)_- -„ T r r 9 ` - - - - - - -- } tz 2 y 2; r 71 ,- ' C i OWOIAAWa C A.WWiONe 6 VWWVWW� m xxxxxx�. 0. m tM ANN . �i1N 61WlAPN G � QONIO �DOia t g, � OtTNNOtJ C am_unilu.oii a a y Ni ?ImA rDN y tD1VVN01� Q u 111TlTlTln i JN t AN 4 t 9g t >1 y FLOOR AREA MILLER RESIDENCE BOXES 14765 FRU'rVALE, W S ARBORIST ARATOGA D REPORT I g, gi N .7 a T r Ch D r r- 17 0 00 7, Dm a C„;0v 0 DeMattei Construction Inc. 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, CaIB 95128 Ofe 408 295 -7518 Fax 408 288 -8589 Lie 478455 qa-1 OAK iI` e a i�1�A�A�99A i� IA, b wmA,p,nl a 8 c a U x N g g rt,ImoM 6nyyfp%a. •�aa�wluo.,laox- ox -wpp) � � F � IWIIIry Rn /m,nxWn C x1+411sM.rlo.) �.n�l.w,�.•,I I M Adw•1 r _ Arpnna vq, iii] ■1R� k t �g e It It ��.tg•B:Ow�.P ��.��� �: �� B'e.:'g$g,��. •p�`m$.i,YO �q� F " ® e g 99 to a rut �� `tom+ sc• :=N �3��. e°F �� � 1a� � ����p� ++ N 1ND OH 1 R F F Lg 8 tov�osiTe o�e� L°=- -k .� g A R R .HATCHED)_- -„ T r r 9 ` - - - - - - -- } tz 2 y 2; r 71 ,- ' C i OWOIAAWa C A.WWiONe 6 VWWVWW� m xxxxxx�. 0. m tM ANN . �i1N 61WlAPN G � QONIO �DOia t g, � OtTNNOtJ C am_unilu.oii a a y Ni ?ImA rDN y tD1VVN01� Q u 111TlTlTln i JN t AN 4 t 9g t >1 y FLOOR AREA MILLER RESIDENCE BOXES 14765 FRU'rVALE, W S ARBORIST ARATOGA D REPORT I g, gi N .7 a T r Ch D r r- 17 0 00 7, Dm a C„;0v 0 DeMattei Construction Inc. 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, CaIB 95128 Ofe 408 295 -7518 Fax 408 288 -8589 Lie 478455 qa-1 OAK iii] ■1R� k t �g e It It ��.tg•B:Ow�.P ��.��� �: �� B'e.:'g$g,��. •p�`m$.i,YO �q� F " ® e g 99 to a rut �� `tom+ sc• :=N �3��. e°F �� � 1a� � ����p� ++ N 1ND OH 1 R F F Lg 8 tov�osiTe o�e� L°=- -k .� g A R R .HATCHED)_- -„ T r r 9 ` - - - - - - -- } tz 2 y 2; r 71 ,- ' C i OWOIAAWa C A.WWiONe 6 VWWVWW� m xxxxxx�. 0. m tM ANN . �i1N 61WlAPN G � QONIO �DOia t g, � OtTNNOtJ C am_unilu.oii a a y Ni ?ImA rDN y tD1VVN01� Q u 111TlTlTln i JN t AN 4 t 9g t >1 y FLOOR AREA MILLER RESIDENCE BOXES 14765 FRU'rVALE, W S ARBORIST ARATOGA D REPORT I g, gi N .7 a T r Ch D r r- 17 0 00 7, Dm a C„;0v 0 DeMattei Construction Inc. 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, CaIB 95128 Ofe 408 295 -7518 Fax 408 288 -8589 Lie 478455 qa-1 EXCERPT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA FOR STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL Sec. 4 16.010. Discharge of pollutants into sloml steins and 14temommes. a) No person shalt pace, deposit. dam-. discharge. or cause to be placed. deposit dumed p. or c1schamed into any natural M - rubdat Storm derma or waercewses x11 Polhaams or waters -.Ng a„ y pollutants. Of The term •watercourses.• as used in ties section. stall mean end imxuCe all thou! waterways and deflate Charnels and depressors in Ind earth which carry wales, even though such waterways may only onry water during murs and storms and do " Carry slurp lers at ono dunng an times and seasom. cl The tens - polkdams• as used in this section, strap mean and induoe all sewage. sewage sludge. 9arttrpe. biological materiels. moroachve materials. and dwmiral. industrial, and agnalturml waste discharges. vtrelner in a solid a lipoid state, and any hazard material as donned in Section 8- 05.050(e) of this Code. d` Arty violation of this searon sham constitute a misdemeerror. Each aandde every separate drscnarge an a pollutant iao me sham be considered separae orense. w Sec, 6.15.010. Obstruction of watercourses. a No person shah dace a In_. or oust to M paced a th— imo any simam or Creek wthin the City or Into the bed or upon the banks thereof. any (Mush. IimDH. lumber. hunk. garbage. debris. cans. boats or --- o' eny demo anima: pmvid d. that this Sedion shall not apply Ica eras., limber Ix lumber, or doer maeri -M -lame for Ine polmoron -of me banks of slams and papery secured so as trot to be cameo away by the wider. u The terns •aretur and •Creek- as used In ties Semen, shall mean and Include all natural waterways and definite mamels,aM depressiorss in the earth -hush Gary wmer .. even InUlgh Suen watervraYS may only ­V w,def during n or storms and do cal carry sgrmwaen at are dunrg all times and seesom. c Any violation of this Soonsn shall Constitute a ,ouldentearror. Each and every seperste deposit imp a stream or week of any materiel as described in -Wee"' (a) of this section sham be considered a sepa ate offense. Urban Runoff Pollution In the Santa Clara Valley, storm drains flow directly to local creeks and San Francisco Bay — with no treatment. Urban runoff pollution is a serious problem for wildlife depending on our waterways and for the people who live near streams or baylands. Some common sources of urban runoff pollution include spilled oil. fuel, and other fluids from vehicles and heavy equipment: construction debris: and other used materials such as paint. concrete, and soil. Thirteen valley cities have joined together with Santa Clara County and Santa Clara Valley Water District to educate and engage local residents and businesses in preventing urban runoff, pollution. We hope you will join us by using the practices described here. Spill Response Agencies Dial 9 -1 -1 For currently omumng spa Santa Clara Valley Water District Environmental Compliance Division For spas in creek (408) 265 -2600 Santa Clara County Environmental Health Services (408) 29915M For more information on related topics, contact agencies listed below: Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program (408)?99 -7300 Santa Clara County Office of Toxics and Solid Waste Management (408) 441 -1195 Santa Clara County Recycling Hotline (0001533 -8414 San JoseiSanta Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (408)945-5300 asmle Ssrwro. solo Jo », Sau. clam. Sommull Santa Clare V ?u. y i I"n R.—ff Pollution Prevention Program (800)794 -2492 Blueprint for a Clean Bay Best Management Practices for Construction Activities I y. - a _ 1 ! K f r Vp General Construction and Site Supervision Am I Fresh Concrete and Mortar Application Painting and Application of Solvents and Adhesives Advanced Planning ❑ Schedule excavation and _ .grading activities for dry weather periods. Plan water flow and runoff across site so as to reduce movement of soil, especially during excavation. ❑ Train and inform employees on stormwater requirements. U Inform subcontractors about their responsibility to follow stormwater requirements. 'J Designate an area away from creeks and storm drain inlets for auto parking, vehicle refueling and routine equipment maintenance. O Prepare, maintain and implement a site specific Grading. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. J Provide proof of NOI filing (to RWQCB), which includes a .site specific SWPPP, if 1 acre or more of land is disturbed (during all phases of the project). Advanced Planning/ Housekeeping O. Train and inform employees on stormwater requirements. ❑ Designate an area away from creeks and storm drain inlets for equipment washing. O Dispose washwaters into a dirt area or capture for recycling or off -site disposal. O Designate an area away from creeks and storm drain inlets for material and waste storage. ❑ Protect catch basin inlets and weeks from runoff containing concrete residue and fine sediment. Consider use of a fabric mesh to catch fine silts. O Repair equipment off -site. ❑ Never dispose of washout water into street.. gutter, storm drain, drainage ditch or creek. Advanced Planning J Train and inform employees on stormwater requirements. ❑ Inform subcontractors about their responsibility to follow stormwater requirements. • Designate an area away from. creeks and storm drain inlets for material and waste storage. • Designate an area away from creeks and storm drain inlets for mixing paints and cleaning equipment. Housekeeping 7 Contain or divert water used for paint preparation away from the street gutter, storm drain and creek. O Store and use all liquid paint products away from the street. gutter. storm drain and creek. Provide light - fitting lids and secondary containment for paints, solvents, thinners. glues. etc. Special Note: As a contractor, site supervisor, owner or operator of a site, you may be responsible for any environmental damage caused by your subcontractors or employees.. Housekeeping • Designate an area away from creeks and storm drain inlets for material and waste storage. • Cover piles of soil and other construction materials prior to and during rain. O Cover and maintain dumpsters. Minimize litter around site. U Provide secondary containment for solvents, paints, vehicle fluids, etc. O Maintain portable toilets and check frequently for leaks. J Repair equipment off site. ❑ . Clean -up spills and leaks immediately using -dry methods.' 7 Dispose of all wastes properly - recyclable, hazardous. garbage. O Never hose down to dean pavement or other surfaces. O Never miry or leave waste materials in streets, gutters. or near creeks. During Construction O Mix only amount of fresh concrete or mortar that will be used in a day. ❑ Use tarps or heavy plastic drop cloths under small mixers and other equipment ❑ Collect and dispose of all wastes and excess materials properly - recyclable. hazardous, garbage. O Protect materials from Wind and rain. O Cover and maintain dumpsters. Minimize litter around site. ❑ Clean -up spills and leaks immediately using -dry methods.' O Never allow slurry or runoff from saw cutting to reach or enter storm drain. O Never bury or leave waste materials in streets, gutters, or near creeks. Clean Up O Cover all materials prior to and during rain. U Clean -up spills and leaks immediately using 'dry methods. - O Dispose of all wastes properly - recyclable. hazardous, garbage- C) Never hose down to clean pavement or other surfaces. U Never dean brushes or equipment in the street. gutter, storm drain or creek. J Never pour solvents. wash water or other liquids in the street, gutter, storm drain or creek. 7 Never bury or leave waste materials in streets, gutters. or near creeks. Road Work and Paving Operations Advanced Planning Schedule excavation and grading activities for dry weather. 7 Train and inform employees on stormwater requirements. U Inform subcontractors about their responsibility to follow stdrmwater requirements. • Designate an area away from creeks and storm drain inlets for auto parking, vehicle refueling and routine equipment maintenance. • Prepare. maintain and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for embankments. rJ Provide secondary containment for solvents, paints, vehicle fluids, etc. J Cover or seal catch basins and manholes while applying seal coal, slurry seal, fog seal, etc. U Repair equipment off site. Housekeeping U Avoid excess dust when breaking asphalt or concrete. ❑ Avoid over - watering during dust control operations. U Cover stockpiles prior to and during rain. • Shovel or vacuum sawcut slurry, keeping residue from entering flow lines, catch basins and creek. • Clean -up spills and leaks immediately using 'dry methods.' • Remove and dispose of all wastes properly - recyclable, hazardous, garbage. • Do not use diesel oil as a lubricant. • Never wash excess material from equipment, exposed aggregate concrete or similar treatments into a street. gutter, storm drain or creek. O Never. hose to clean up mud/ dirt tracks. Heavy Equipment Operation I f I • Train and inform employees on stormwater requirements. • Inform subcontractors about their responsibility to follow stormwater requirements. ❑ Designate an area away from flow lines, creeks and storm drain inlets for vehicle and equipment parking and refueling. U Provide an off -site location' for major equipment repair and maintenance. 7 Provide regular maintenace for all equipment Check frequently for leaks. ❑ Provide secondary containment for solvents, paints, vehicle fluids, etc. J Dispose of all wastes properly - recyclable. hazardous, garbage. J Do not use diesel oil as a lubricant. O Advanced Planning During Construction Earth- Moving O Schedule excavation and O Protect existing trees and grading activities for dry vegetation. Remove only what Activities weather periods. is necessary. O L3 Train and inform employees O Protect catch basin inlets and dumpsters. Minimize litter on stormwater requirements. creeks from runoff. Consider • ❑ Designate an area away from use of a fabric mesh to catch fluids in separate containers, creeks and storm drain inlets fine silts. • for auto parking, vehicle O Divert water flow and runoff immediately using 'dry refueling and routine across site so as to reduce • equipment maintenance. movement of soil. from equipment into a street or 7 Repair equipment off site. O Plant temporary vegetation -43 J Prepare, maintain and early, especially in exposed catch basin inlet. implement a site specific areas not scheduled for . :• r Grading, Erosion and immediate construction. near creeks. Sediment Control Plan. O Install erosion and sediment . '— ❑ Provide proof of NO[ filing (to controls before it rains. f RWQCB). which includes a O Cover piles of sal and other site specific SWPPP, if 1 acre construction materials prior M or more of land is disturbed (during and during rain. 1, ail phases of the project). Detecting Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Contaminated groundwater is a common problem m the Santa Clara Vat Look fa' t indications of contamination during excavation and grading waric x Unusual soil conditions. discoloration. or odor x Abandoned wells x Buried barrels, debris, or trash r III Abandoned underground tents i . For more atonhaeOh w.en m,nm,euted ands or 0ro,md+nter Is suspe ad. Call lid Santa tiro VeMV WM Dtsmd a 265 -2500 or toe R.gwhhalwane ou.* coma alum. San F.— say Rena, a is 'III OM 2" I Advanced Planning Housekeeping Heavy Equipment Operation I f I • Train and inform employees on stormwater requirements. • Inform subcontractors about their responsibility to follow stormwater requirements. ❑ Designate an area away from flow lines, creeks and storm drain inlets for vehicle and equipment parking and refueling. U Provide an off -site location' for major equipment repair and maintenance. 7 Provide regular maintenace for all equipment Check frequently for leaks. ❑ Provide secondary containment for solvents, paints, vehicle fluids, etc. J Dispose of all wastes properly - recyclable. hazardous, garbage. J Do not use diesel oil as a lubricant. O Use drip pans and/or drop cloths while conducting maintenance activities. Cover equipment and materials prior to and during rain. O Cover and maintain dumpsters. Minimize litter around site. • Collect and contain all spenl fluids in separate containers, with fight fitting lids. • Clean -up spills and leaks immediately using 'dry methods.' • Never wash excess material from equipment into a street or storm drain inlet. -43 Never dean equipment over a catch basin inlet. O Never bury or leave waste materials in streets, gutters. ar near creeks. This material adapted from: -dery volley uaeh mwnmr/ Pollution Phi-n hen plogron