HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-2007 Planning Commission PacketSeptember 26, 2007
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
SITE VISIT AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, September 25, 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 #07 -233 20640-3 d Street
Sam Cloud Barn L.P. (owner)
The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee
conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits
are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site
visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony
you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing.
During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda
does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is a
fact - finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear
statements from members of the public attending the Visit.
No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be
carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project.
PAPC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007\SVA 092507.doe
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
. STUDY SESSION AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Arts and Craft Room located at 19655 Allendale 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
September 20, 2007.
APPLICATION ZOA07 -0001 (City - Wide); - The Planning Commission will have a study
session to discuss updates to existing regulations regarding fences, walls, and hedges.
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
proj ect.
Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shweta Bhatt, Assistant Planner
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2007
SUBJECT: Fence Ordinance Update
Application ZOA 07 -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 current fence ordinance and
provide input to staff regarding updates.
DISCUSSION TOPICS:
The Planning Commission held a study session to provide staff guidance on August 07,
2007. During that meeting, the current fence code, possible amendments, and possible
additions to the code were discussed.
These amendments /additions include:
• Exception process for increased fence height or increasing current maximum
height allotments
• Adding provision for arbors /entry features /fountains in front yards
• Color preferences for fencing
• Existing non - conforming fences
• Triangle of visibility for driveway aprons
• Measurement of height
• "Green" fences
• Hillside /deer fencing
/'icrnnitg,, Commission Stucly Session WinoralIA171 2
Zoning 0 -1 -0001, Fence Ordinance L pdate
Staff is providing a draft amendment to the fence ordinance and associated code sections
to initiate discussion (attached). Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined
font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g.,
stfikeeet). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
FUTURE PROCESS:
Staff can continue to work with the Planning Commission through a Study Session
format or an ad hoc committee of two commissioners.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft update to fence ordinance and associated code sections
•
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., 6#ikeeu ). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS
15- 06.341 Height of fences, walls and hedges.
"Height of fences, walls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence,
wall or hedge to a point directly below at either —tom tufal —der the finished grade;
w' iehever sueh grade is a, wef. Where a fence is constructed upon, or approximately parallel to
and within two feet of the top of a retaining wall, the height of the fence shall be the vertical
distance measured from the top of the fence to the bottom of the retaining wall in the manner
prescribed herein. Where there are differences in ground level between adjacent properties,
the fence height is measured from the property with a higher elevation point.
Diagram
Article 15 -80 MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
1 -5- 80.030 Special rules for accessory uses and structures in residential districts.
Entry elements. A maximum of three entry elements shall be permitted within a required
front setback area. Entry elements include fountains, birdbaths, arbors, trellises, or other
similar garden elements that allow substantial passage of light and air. Entry elements
shall not exceed eight feet in height, five feet in width, and five feet in depth.
Mailbox. One mailbox structure not exceeding five feet in height shall be permitted in the
front setback area. Mailboxes proposed within City right -of -way shall be subject to an
encroachment permit from the Public Works Department.
Article 15 -29 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES
15- 29.010 Height restrictions.
(a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or wall. within a
side 'or rear setback area, except as stipulated in subsection b of this code, shall exceed six
feet in height, plus up to two feet of lattice or other material other than lattice that is
typically at least fifty percent open to the passage of light and air. Open, as used in this
subsection, shall be defined as the portion of the pattern uncovered, unenclosed, and /or
unobstructed by materials composing the structure. A solid fence taller than six feet shall
not be permitted. A building permit shall be required for any fence or wall more than six
feet in height.
: -OR
•
•
J
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., st*eset). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Fence Height Exceptions.
The owner of a fence, wall, or hedge may request that the Planning Commission (or
Community Development Director) grant a modification to the height limit of side and rear
fences, walls, and hedges provided the height modification does not extend more than two
2) feet above the height limit established in subsection 15- 29.010(a) of this Section. The
Planning Commission (Community Development Director) may grant this modification if
the following findings are made:
(1) The subject fence, wall, or hedge will be compatible with other similar structures
in the neighborhood:
(2) The subject fence will be completely constructed of materials that that are of
high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable:
(3) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
in which the fence, wall, or hedge is located.
(4) The granting of such modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the
properly or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the
property is located:
(5) All adjacent property owner(s) with shared or intersecting property lines shall
provide written agreement supporting the additional fence height.
The decision of the Planning Commission (Community Development Director) may be
appealed to the City Council (Planning Commission) in accordance with City Code Section
15- 90.020.
(b) Front setback area and exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall
located within any required front setback area shall exceed three feet in height. No fence or wall
located within any required exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three
feet in height. Exceptions to these height limitations are as follows:
(1) A fenee er wall lawfully eenstraeted pr-ier- te- Mareh 20, 1987, may extend to a height lie
exeeeding six feet, if sueh fenee er- wall does not er-eate a safety hazard fer- vehioular-, pedestr4a
,
however-, that upen the destractren -6 r- removal of more than one of the length of s ieh
aeneenfefming fenee or- wall, any r-eplaeement fenoe er- wall shall not exeeed tIff ee feet in .
(2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same,
may extend to a height not exceeding five feet.
(3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the
height requirements of this Section.
(c) Street intersections. No fence, wall or compact hedge located within a triangle having sides
fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or
intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height
above the established grade of the adjoining street.
Diagram
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., stfikeou ). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Driveway Intersections. No fence, all or compact hedge located within a triangle having
sides fifteen feet in length from either side of a driveway where it intersects with a street or
property line.
Provided for reference only, emphasis added:
10- 05.030 Types of obstructions.
The following is a nonexclusive list of obstructions which, under this Article, are deemed to
obstruct the view from vehicles traveling on public streets and the passage of pedestrians on the
sidewalks, and the same are declared to constitute a public nuisance:
(a) Any tree, hedge, shrub or structure overhanging a public street or sidewalk, the lowest part
of which is less than ten feet above such street or sidewalk.
(b) Any tree located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection,
as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no
curb exists, the. limbs of which are less than ten feet above the ground surface.
(c) Any hedge, shrub, sign or other structure located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in
length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges
of the street pavement where no curb exists, the overall height of which is more than three feet
above the established grade of the adjoining street.
(d) Any vegetation, structure or object which is so situated as to in any manner interfere with the
unobstructed view by motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians of approaching or intersecting traffic
or the view of traffic control devices or directional signs placed upon any street or right -of -way
for the safety of the public.
reen Fences. A green fence shall be_ defined as_ a —series of trees or other natural
landscaping planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern such that a boundary is created.
The natural landscaping must be able to stand on its own and shall not require supports of
any kind. Height requirements prescribed in 15- 29.010(a) shall not apply to green fences.
Notwithstanding, the property owner shall consider neighboring_ properties' impact to
views when such a fence is proposed and /or planted.
(d) Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations
contained in Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter.
(e) Pilasters. Pilasters constituting a part of. a fence; in reasonable numbers and scale in
relationship to the nature and style of the fence, may extend to a height of not more than two feet
above the height limit applicable to the fence containing such pilasters.
(f) Light fixtures. The height of a fence shall not include light fixtures mounted thereon at the
entrance of driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than two such light fixtures
shall be installed at each driveway and sidewalk entrance.
3
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., hold double - underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., MFikeeu ). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Swimming Pool Fences. Fences required for swimming pools are governed by City Code
Section 16- 75.010. Swimming pool fences are not subject to Planning Department approval
if the fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than five feet of deck located
between the fence and the water.
(g) Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no retaining wall located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet
in height.
(h) Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The Community Development Director may issue a
special permit to allow a aM fence up to eight feet in height where such fence is installed along
a rear setback area or interior side setback area of a residential site which abuts a commercial
district. The Community Development Director may impose such conditions as he deems
appropriate to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence, including, but not
limited to, requirements with respect to the design and materials of the fence and landscape
screening. Applications for a special permit under this subsection shall be filed with the
Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied
by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council.
(Amended by Ord. 71.86 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71 -106 § 6, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
Existing Non - Conforming Fencing.
Upon destruction or removal of more than one -half length of all non - conforming fences,
walls, or hedges, the fence, wall or hedge shall be constructed to meet height requirements
as prescribed in this chapter or be approved by an exception process described in section
xxx of this chapter.
15- 29.020 Fencing within hillside districts.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences and walls
located within an HR or R -OS district shall comply with the following regulations:
(a) Length of solid fences and walls. Solid fences and walls, having no openings to permit
visibility through the same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as viewed from any
street or adjacent property. This restriction shall not apply to retaining walls.
Materials and Color. Any fence in the hillside districts shall be black or otherwise colored
to blend with*the terrain. Appropriate materials include wrought iron and wire fencina
that complies with 15- 29.020(el.
(b) Parallel fences and walls. Parallel fences and walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance
of not less than five feet. Where two or more fences or walls are approximately parallel to each
other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such
fences or walls shall not exceed ten feet.
(c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and fencing which
constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in
excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the
4
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated, in strikeout font (e.g., str+keou ). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Planning Commission. Encompass and enclose, as used in this subsection, shall mean to
surround such that a boundary is established where the linear distance between any two
points of discontinuation is fifteen feet or less, whie appr-eval Approval from the
Planning Commission may be granted in any of the following cases:
(1) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from
public . streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography,
landscaping or other features of the site.
(2) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety
reasons.
(3) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure has been granted by the
Planning Commission for a "designated neighborhood area," as hereinafter defined, in response
to a petition for such exemption signed by the owners of lots comprising not less than sixty
percent of the designated area. Before granting such exemption, the Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least ten days prior to
the date of the hearing to all persons owning property located within the designated
neighborhood area and within five hundred feet from the boundaries of such area. As a condition
for granting an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish alternative rules concerning
the enclosure of sites in the designated neighborhood area, including, but not limited to, rules
pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of fencing, and mitigation of visual
impacts; provided, however, in no event shall. such rules permit enclosure of more than sixty
percent of-the gross site area, or the installation of any solid fences or walls, or use of any
fencing material having exposed sharp points, or the installation of any fencing within an area
dedicated as open space. The term "designated neighborhood area," as used in subsection (c)(3)
of this Section, means a geographic portion of a hillside zoning district, as designated by the
Planning Commission, consisting of not less than ten lots which are contiguous to each other.
Lots which are separated only by a street shall be considered contiguous. If a petition for
exemption is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded subdivision or tract map, the
-Planning Commission may, in its discretion," require that all of the lots shown on such map be
included within the designated neighborhood area. Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to
an.existing designated neighborhood area upon application by the property owner and approval
by the Planning Director, based upon his determination that the additional lot has similar
topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within the designated neighborhood
area.
(d) Wildlife trails. No. fence shall . unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals
utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site.
(e)-Wire fences. ' Wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire, shall be
permitted only if the space between the wire is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a
sphere having a diameter, of four. inches and the -wire is black or otherwise colored to blend with
the terrain. ,Chain link fencing shall be permitted only for recreational courts and shall similarly
be colored. to blend -with the terrain. No barbed wire or electrified fencing shall be allowed
except.as permitted by Section 15- 29.050 of this Article.
(f) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any property located within and constituting
apart of Tract 7763; as shown on the subdivision map .thereof recorded in the office of the
5
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
0 County Recorder. (Amended by Ord. 71.89 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71.98 § 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § 3,
1992)
15- 29.030 Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets.
(a) For the purpose of noise mitigation, a solid fence exceeding the height otherwise prescribed
in this Article as the limit for such fence may be located within any required setback area
abutting Prospect Road, Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, the portion of Saratoga Avenue
between Fruitvale Avenue and Lawrence Expressway or the portion of Cox Avenue between
Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue, upon the issuance by the Community
Development Director of a fence permit and subject to the following provisions:
(1) Where the solid fence is located within an exterior side setback area or rear setback area
abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence shall not exceed eight feet in height
at the property line, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback
from the property line, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within a
required setback area.
(2) Where the solid fence is located within a front.setback area abutting one of the arterial streets
specified herein, the fence may be located no closer than ten feet from the front property line and
shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five
feet of setback from the front property line in excess of ten feet, up to a maximum height of ten
feet if the fence is still located within the required front setback area.
(3) Where a street line is located within a site, the location and setback of the fence as specified
in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this Section shall be determined by the street line rather than the
property line.
(4) The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the
entire exterior side of the solid fence facing the street, in accordance with a landscape plan
approved by the Community Development Director. All or any portion of such area may be
located within the public right -of -way, subject to approval by the Community Development
Director. The landscaped area required herein shall be not less than five feet in width, except that
where the available space between the fence and the interior edge of the sidewalk, or the edge of
the street pavement where no sidewalk exists, is less than five feet, the Community Development
Director may approve a landscape area of not less than two feet. Prior to issuance of the fence
permit, a landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in
the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the
land.
(5) The design of the solid fence shall be subject to approval by the Community Development
Director, based upon a finding that the fence is compatible with existing or proposed strictures
on the site and upon neighboring properties.
(6) No permit shall be issued if the Community Development Director finds that the solid fence
will constitute a hazard for vehicular or pedestrian traffic or will otherwise be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare.
(b) Applications for a fence permit under this Section shall be filed with the Community
Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a
10 processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council.
(Amended by Ord. 71.110 § 2, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
6
Text to be added is indicated_ in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., s#ikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
15- 29.040 Fencing adjacent to.scenic highways.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to
State designated scenic highways shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence or wall which faces and is located within
one hundred feet from the right -of -way of a State designated scenic highway without first
obtaining a fence permit from the Planning Director. Application for such permit shall be
submitted to the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied
by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City
Council.
(b) Setback. No fence or wall shall be constructed within fifteen feet from the property line
abutting the right -of -way of a scenic highway. The Planning Director may require this minimum
setback to be increased to a maximum of one hundred feet if he determines that such increased
setback is necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway.
(c) Color, material and design. Fences or walls adjacent to scenic highways may be constructed
of. wood; stone, stucco, masonry, wrought iron or similar material, but no chain link, plastic or
wire fencing shall be permitted. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Director, based upon a finding that the fence or wall will not
adversely affect the scenic qualities of the highway and will be compatible with the natural
terrain.
(d) Landscape screening. The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area
parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of the fence or wall facing the scenic
highway, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director. Such
landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area,
fast growing, and require little or. no maintenance. The Planning Director shall not approve the
landscape plan unless he finds that the proposed landscaping will effectively screen the fence
from public view and enhance the visual appearance of the scenic highway. Prior to issuance of
the fence. permit, a_ landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and
recorded in the office of the, County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant
running with the land.
(e) Height.-The height of any fence or wall adjacent to a scenic highway shall comply with the
regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article; provided, however, where the applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that his property is subjected to greater
noise impacts from the. scenic highway as compared generally with other properties located
adjacent to such highway, the Planning Director may approve a fence or wall not exceeding eight
,feet in height. As a condition of such approval, the Planning Director may require increased
setbacks and landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the higher fence or wall.
(f). Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fence_ lawfully constructed prior to March 20,
1987, if such fence does not. create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and
does not _obstruct the safe access to or .from adjacent properties; and provided further, that upon
the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence, any
IN
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
0 replacement fence shall comply with the permit requirement and restrictions specified in this
Section.
15- 29.050 Barbed wire and electrified wire prohibited.
No fence or wall constructed or installed within the City shall contain barbed or electrified wire
unless approved by the Planning Commission, based upon a finding that the barbed or
electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when
appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts of such wire.
15- 29.060 Fences adjacent to heritage lanes.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to a
designated heritage lane shall comply with the following requirements: .
(a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence or wall which faces and is located within
fifty feet from the right -of -way of a designated heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in
height, without first obtaining a fence permit from the Community Development Director.
Application for such permit shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided in Article
13 -20 of the City Code. If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance, the Community
Development Director shall issue the permit in accordance with those recommendations and any
condition related but not limited to the design standards set forth in subsections (c), (d), (e) and
(f) of this Section and pursuant to the process prescribed in Article 13 -20.
(b) Supporting data. The level of detail of the supporting data required by Section 13- 20.030
shall be determined by the Community Development Director to allow adequate review of the
proposed fence or wall.
(c) Setback. No fence or wall which exceeds three feet in height shall be constructed within the
required setback area fronting a heritage lane. This minimum setback may be required to be
increased to a maximum of fifty feet upon the finding that such increased setback is necessary to
preserve the historic qualities of the heritage lane.
(d) Color, material and design. Fences or walls adjacent to the heritage lane may be constricted
of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the
fence or wall shall be approved based upon a finding that the fence or wall will not adversely
affect the historic qualities of the lane and will be compatible with the design and materials of
existing buildings on the site and structures on adjacent properties.
(e) Height. The height of any fence or wall adjacent to the heritage lane shall comply with the
regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of the City Code.
(f) Landscaping. The applicant shall landscape and maintain an area within the right -of -way,
parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of a fence or wall in excess of three feet
in height and facing the heritage lane, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the
Community Development Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees
and vegetation that are native to the area and require little or no maintenance. The landscape plan
may be approved by the Community Development Director upon the finding that the proposed
8
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., stFikeeut). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
landscaping will effectively blend the fence with its environment and enhance the visual
appearance of the lane.
(g) Exemption. This Section shall not apply -to a fence lawfully constructed prior to September
16, 1992, if such fence does not-create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic
and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; and provided further, that
upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming
fence, any replacement fence shall comply, with the permit requirement and restrictions specified
in this Section: (Ord. 71.110 § 1, ,1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
•
•
9
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
0 AGENDA
•
DATE: Wednesday, September 26 - 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 September 12, 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 September 20, 2007
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS:
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b).
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants /Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
1. APPLICATION #07 -233 (APN 503 -24- 071/073) Sam Cloud Barn L.P. (owner)
20640 - 3rd Street; The applicant requests Design Review, and Variance approval to construct a new
commercial building attached to the historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse currently undergoing
renovation. The proposed structure is three stories with a full basement. Total square footage of the
addition is 7,506 square feet and the maximum height is 35 feet. The maximum building coverage is 77%
of the site. The gross lot size is 4,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH -1. The Variance application is
necessary to allow development on a lot with a 48% slope.
P: \PC Agendas\2007 \template.doc
DIRECTORS ITEM:
- None
COMMISSION ITEMS:
- None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, October 10, 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 September 20,
2007 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning (ti.saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us 0
•
PAPC Agendas\2007 \temp1ate.doc
\ O
"I
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 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, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, City Arborist Kate
Bear and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 8, 2007.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner
Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of
August 8, 2007, were adopted with a correction to pages 4,6,9,10,11,13,14
and 16. (6- 0 -0 -1; Commissioner Kumar abstained)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
There were no oral communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Ms. Nancy Kundtz, Resident on Heber Way:
• Stressed the need for enforcement language to make ordnances easier to enforce and
have more clout.
• Stated that there is a lack of resources for enforcement.
• Asked that the City focus time and energy to make enforcement easier.
Chair Hlava asked the Commission what direction, if any, should be given to staff to make
enforcement easier and to enforce fines quickly.
Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to determine
. how enforcement will occur.
Saratoga Planning. Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 2
Commissioner Kundtz said if the authority does not fall with the Commission staff could be i
asked to follow through on this. issue with Council.
Director John Livingstone agreed that Council is the ultimate authority on the issue of how
ordinances are to be. enforced. He pointed out that there are two ordinances before this
Commission on tonight's agenda that Council has asked the Commission to evaluate. The
aspect of enforcement can be considered as part of that discussion.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2007.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent items.
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).
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1'
Application #07 -342 (APN 386 -10 -043) McDonald's USA, LLC, 18578 Prospect Road:
The, applicant is requesting Design Review. approval and modification to a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit for a - McDonald's restaurant with a 24 -hour operation to
occupy an existing 4,090 square foot vacant commercial building previously occupied by
Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Design Review approval is necessary to allow minor exterior
modifications to the building.- The lot size is 2.14 acres and the site is zoned CN (Commercial
Neighborhood): (Heather Bradley)_
Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows:
• Reported that an additional email was received late this afternoon from Karen Mack with
the City. of San Jose's Public Works Department and is being distributed this evening as a
table item.
• Explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a modification to a previously approved
Conditional Use Permit that includes Design Review approval for minor changes to the
exterior of the building and'a signage request.
• Described the zoning as Commercial Neighborhood and the tenant space on site is closest
to the Prospect/Lawrence intersection.
• Said that the colors remain unchanged but the existing drive -up window will be relocated
and a second added. The interior will be,completely remodeled with seating for 65.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 3
• Said that an additional menu board would be installed outside and the applicant contacted
staff regarding the possibility for additional signs including a corporate flag.
Advised that a consultant to the applicant prepared a transportation impact analysis that
was subsequently peer reviewed and accepted by the City of Saratoga, City of San Jose,
Roads District and the high school district. It was determined that there would be no
increase in traffic.
• Recommended an amendment to Condition 14 to read, "The applicant or property owner
shall work with the City of San Jose to assess the need for a fair share contribution to the
cost of future median improvements so deemed necessary by the City of San Jose. If
deemed necessary by the City of San Jose, the applicant or property owner shall enter into
a deferral agreement or other agreement satisfactory to the City of San Jose to make their
fair share contribution at the time it is requested."
• Provided other proposed minor changes to the resolution. In Condition 9, the text should
be added, "as dated July 9, 2007, and peer reviewed by follow up report dated July 25,
2007. Condition 11 should include the text, "subject to the Public Works Director's
approval. Condition 13, line 4, should replace the word "conditions with "standards."
Informed that staff finds this proposal to be .Categorically Exempt under CEQA and
recommends that the Planning Commission approval this application.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the proposed 6 x 5 sign is wood and, if not, had a wood sign
been discussed with the applicant.
. Planner Heather Bradley replied no, it is plastic, and no discussion of a wood sign took place.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the flag is a new addition.
Planner Heather Bradley said that the American flag is not new but the addition of the
McDonald's flag is a new element.
Commissioner Cappello asked if the McDonald's flag would fly on the same flagpole.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes.
Commissioner Rodgers asked how large the two flags would be.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Sign Ordinance covers the flying of the American flag.
Planner Heather Bradley clarified that the flying of the American flag is acceptable but the
flying of the McDonald's flag is to be considered as a form of signage.
Commissioner Kundtz asked if the flag would be lit from the bottom up as required.
Planner Heather Bradley deferred this detail to the applicant.
Chair Hlava asked if there was a master sign program for this shopping center.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes.
.Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 4
Chair Hlava asked staff how many signs Krispy Kreme had.
Planner Heather Bradley said that Krispy Kreme had one wall sign and signs in the windows
that were not counted in total sign area.
Commissioner Kumar asked if the inclusion of 'the McDonald's flag is incorporated into the
draft resolution.:
Planner Heather Bradley replied that the flagpole and the American flag are included on
Exhibit A.
Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the McDonald's flag is currently not depicted on that
exhibit. -
Planner Heather Bradley said that is correct.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney for McDonald's:
•.
Stated that there are a few things that she wanted to clarify.
• Assured that the American flag is properly lighted.
• Said that the addition of the McDonald's flag is a desired addition but not mandatory.
• Said that if 'it is allowed, the McDonald's flag could either be the same size as the
American flag or it_ could be a lot smaller. They are just asking because the City's
standards can be varied during the Use Permit process.
• Asked that Condition 8 be modified to include the McDonald's flag.
• Pointed out that this represents the relocation of an existing McDonald's from a site across
the street to this new site. It will include 65 inside seats and the continued use of 16
outdoor seats. as originally approved for Krispy Kreme.
• Stated that they are in agreement with the revisions to Condition 14 regarding fair share
contribution to the median.
• Said .that: other comments have been received from the school district and other tenants,
which are no problem to the - applicant.
Advised that other representatives are here tonight including Jeff Elia from Hexagon
-Transportation Consultants; Kate O'Reilly - Grumley, the project manager; the franchisee;
and Diane Zimmerman from McDonald's USA, LLC.
• Informed that the 36 square foot plastic sign is internally illuminated.
Commissioner Kundtz -asked if the total of 65 seats includes both interior and exterior seating.
Planner Heather Bradley said that the architect advised her of 65 seats. They may not have
included. the outdoor seats but the applicant can clarify that fact.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley, Construction Manager for McDonald's, said that the 65 seats
indicated by the architect are the interior seats with the assumption that the. previously -
approved 16 outdoor seats would continued to be allowed to be used.
•
•
•
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 5
Commissioner Nagpal asked how man interior seats Kris Kreme had. Was it 65.
Co gp Y PY
Planner Heather Bradley said that she believed they had fewer interior seats.
Commissioner Kundtz questioned the impact on parking and traffic with 65 interior and 16
exterior seats for this use.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that she believes the City likes the inclusion of outdoor
seating.
Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Kate O'Reilly- Grumley if she could accept a maximum
number of seats allowed.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley replied yes.
Mr. Jeff Elia, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., said that the traffic analysis was
based upon 82 seats.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the outdoor seating would take up any of the existing parking
spaces.
Chair Hlava pointed out that with 16 outdoor seats and 65 indoor seats, the total is 81. She
asked if the outdoor seats would be on the existing paved patio area.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley replied yes.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested revising Exhibit A to depict the outdoor seating.
Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to see a wood sign considered using the same
colors and logo.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that their sign was modeled after what was there previously
for Krispy Kreme. She said that if the Commission were open to external illumination of a
wood sign, they could consider one.
Commissioner Cappello asked staff if it is safe to assume that the traffic study, which was
peer reviewed by City staff, used 82 seats when evaluating this site.
Director John Livingstone replied yes.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if 82 seats were within ordinance limits for a restaurant.
Planner Heather Bradley said that while site parking does not meet standards, upon analysis it
has been determined that adequate parking is available based on the criteria used. She
added that the Commission is able to approve an exception to the parking standards.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 6
Commissioner Zhao said that the outside seating area is pretty small and asked how many
tables would be there.
Ms. Jolie Houston said that there would be four tables with four seats at each as was used by
Krispy Kreme. She assured that there is room for thelt number as well as a nice landscaping
area.
Commissioner Cappello asked if the umbrellas would include any corporate logos.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that the tables are a fiberglass material that is weighed down
with concrete so as not to be stolen. She assured that there are no logos on the umbrellas.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a finding to make to support the- parking exception.
She also asked if this application includes Design Review too.
Planner Heather Bradley said that the drive up window, new roof and trellis location are
design issues. The parking exception is mentioned in the Parking /Circulation section of the
report. .
Commissioner-Nagpal asked about the resolution..
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that Code allows, a variation from standards and that
no specific finding is required for a parking exception.
Ms. Jolie Houston asked Mr. Jeff Elia to present the traffic analysis overview.
Mr. Jeff Elia, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.:
• Said that the original study had the assumption of a maximum of 82 seats, including
outdoor.
• Said that the parking demand was calculated and included a surplus of 15 spaces in the
current lot.. With that surplus, 38 additional seats could be allowed for a maximum of 119
before there is a parking shortage.
• Assured that the worse case scenario was considered.
Commissioner Cappello asked if the analysis took a look at the existing McDonald's location
and the parking demands there.
Mr. Jeff Elia replied no. He . added that that is a shared parking site with no true parking
demand.
Planner Heather Bradley said that the City's-Traffic Consultant asked for a traffic count for an
hour at peak-time at the-existing location.
Commissioner Nagpal asked what is the peak time for McDonald's.
n12 n 2
Mr. Jeff Elia replied 'between and p .m.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 7
Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are other restaurants serving lunch on this site.
Mr. Jeff Elia said that the middle of the day is the peak time and the count was done at that
time.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jeff Elia if he has seen the email from City of San Jose.
Mr. Jeff Elia replied yes.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the extension of the median island and how they would
work with the City on this.
Mr. Jeff Elia said he couldn't answer that. He added that the impacts. are not caused by this
project rather they are already there. They are perhaps adding one canto an already long
que. He said that a fair share allocation is the fairest alternative.
Commissioner Kumar said that Krispy Kreme had no drive -thru.
Mr. Jeff Elia said that they did indeed also have a drive -thru.
Chair Hlava asked if drive -thru traffic would be served faster with two windows.
0 Mr. Jeff Elia replied yes.
Commissioner Kumar said that it is not clear whether McDonald's wants the flag sign.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that it was an afterthought and she does not want it to hold up
what they are asking for here. It is not a dire thing they have to have but rather something
that would be nice to have if possible.
Commissioner Zhao questioned the use of two windows with one lane.
Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that one window is the pay window and the next is the pick up
window.
Ms. Jolie Houston added that there would also be two order stations before the pay and
pickup windows.
Mr. Chuck Soontag, Resident on Paseo Cerro:
• Stated that he used to go to Krispy Kreme and found that the drive -thru was not used that
much.
• Pointed out that one already has to wait to get out of this parking lot.
• Said that McDonald's has more drive -thru traffic.
* Ms. Marti Foster, Resident on Saratoga Avenue:
• Stated her tendency to frequent only businesses located in her community.
• Said that she has seen no problem getting in or out of this site.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 8
• Stated that she has no problem with the size of the American flag.
Chair Hlava clarified that the American flag is not at issue but rather the corporate McDonald'
flag proposed to fly below it.
Ms. Marti Foster said she has no problem with the corporate flag.
Ms. Jolie. Houston said that they are conditioned to paint the curb red to disallow parking along
Prospect so visibility entering and leaving the site will be improved.
.Mr. Jeff Elia said that 82 seats was the original assumption but parking data shows a surplus
of parking that could serve up to 119 seats. He added that there is a different parking
dynamic for-fast food versus a typical sit -down restaurant. Fast food turns over many more
cars in a shorter period of time.
Commissioner Zhao asked what is the restaurant parking standard for Saratoga.
Planner Heather Bradley said that it is based on the total floor area requiring one parking
space per 400 square feet in tenant space..
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Said that he has no issue with the ,outdoor seating and could support language "not to
exceed 81 seats."
• Said that as for the sign being made of wood, if this site were close to the Village, he would
be more concerned with the illuminated plastic sign proposed. However, since Krispy
Kreme had a backlit plastic sign; he has no issue with McDonald's having one too. He
said it is possible that a wood sign could look better and he is curious as to what the other
Commissioners might have to say on the issue.
• Added that if the McDonald's flag flying below the American flag supports their business,
he thinks that is good.
Commissioner Kundtz:
• Said he agrees about the flag.
• Added that he feels more strongly in support of a wood sign that could offer a softer look
and still incorporate the corporate.colors and external gooseneck lighting.
• Stated he is fine with the proposed number of seats.
Commissioner Kumar:
• Said that he finds outside seating to be more vibrant.
• Added that he likes the idea of the flag.
• Said that he loves the idea of requiring a wood sign, which is more of a Saratoga feel.
Commissioner Nagpal:
•
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 9
• Said that she is excited that McDonald's will retain the existing exterior. It will be a nice
look for them.
• Added that they are spending time and money on the interior.
• Said that the parking and traffic study was a decent one.
• Expressed support for a maximum of 81 seats to be split however they want to between
indoor and outdoor seats.
• Said that a wood sign would look nice and is her preference. It is nicer for the architectural
appearance.
• Stated that she is in support of the American flag. While the McDonald's flag was not in
the original request, if it is consistent with signage limitations she can support it.
• Stressed that there be no logos on the umbrellas.
Commissioner Zhao:
• Said that either a plastic"or wood sign is fine.
• Said that the seating should not exceed the 82 used in the traffic study.
• Stated that she can support the inclusion of the McDonald's flag as it would be visible from
Lawrence and help people find this location.
• Advised that she can make the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit findings to
support this application.
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Said that she is delighted that McDonald's is going into this corner.
• Stated that she can make the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit findings.
• Agreed that her preference for the sign would be wood. She pointed out that Starbucks
used a wood sign at the Village location, which looks classy, as would this one for
McDonald's.
• Pointed out that the flagpole is 30 -feet tall. If the McDonald's flag were as large as the 8 x
12 American flag, half of that 30 -foot flagpole would be covered.
• Admitted that she is concerned about allowing an exception to parking standards.
Chair Hlava:
• Said that she can make the Design Review and Use Permit findings.
• Stated that she would like to keep the maximum seating close to 82 but giving them
flexibility on the number of tables.
• Suggested that the McDonald's flag be 2/3 the size of the American flag.
• Said that requiring them to use a wood sign instead of the internally illuminated sign
penalizes them and is not a good idea especially since Krispy Kreme had an illuminated
sign on this site.
• Added that everyone knows the McDonald's sign and noted that there is a lot of sign
pollution in this area and the sign needs to be easily seen.
• Agreed that the umbrellas must match the building and not look like a circus with yellow
tables and red umbrellas.
• Stressed that no signs or logos be included on the umbrellas.
Commissioner Nagpal said that a wood sign would result in a unique McDonald's.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 10
Commissioner Cappello said that all the other signs in this center are plastic and back lit.
Having this one sign be wood could end up looking odd.
Chair. Hlava said that there appears to be consensus for a motion and asked about the
proposed maximum number of seats.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested 70 interior seats and 15 exterior seats.
Commissioner Rodgers said that more'parking would be required.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested staying below 82 but letting them split as they see
appropriate.
Chair Hlava asked if the 2/3 size McDonald's flag seems reasonable.
Commissioner Cappello proposed leaving that detail to staff.
Commissioner Hlava asked about the issue of wood . sign versus plastic.
Commissioner <.Nagpal said that if the rest of the center has lit plastic signs she is willing to
have an open mind.
Commissioner Kundtz stated that the flag is what would draw customers to this location.
Commissioner Kumar said that this is a very contemporary designed McDonald's and a wood
sign would be very fitting.
Ms. Diane Zimmerman, McDonald's USA, LLC, said that they prefer the illuminated sign.
The Commission informally discussed plastic versus a wood sign.
Commissioner Nagpal said that if the applicant prefers the illuminated plastic sign she is
willing to support their preference.
- Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner
Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Use
Permit Approvals _(Application #07 -342) for a McDonald's restaurant with
-hour operation on property located at 18578 Prospect Road, with the
_24
following amendments:
• Seats not to exceed 82;
• No logos on any outdoor furniture and /or umbrellas;
• Outdoor furniture subject to approval by the Community Development
Director; and
• The size of the McDonald's flag subject to approval by the Community
Development Director;
by the following roll call vote:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 11
AYES:
Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES:
Kundtz
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #07 -397 (APN 386 -34 -053) Makhiiani, 12576 Scully Avenue: The applicant
requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single -story resident.
The addition includes approximately 148 square feet to the existing first floor and a new
approximately 1,146 square foot second story to the existing 2,755 square foot single -story
residence. The total proposed floor area would be approximately 4,049 square feet. The
maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the-26-foot height limit. The
maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 55 percent of the net site area.
The lot size is approximately 14,184 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 12,500
zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code
Section 15- 45.060. (Heather Bradley)
Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows:
• Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a 1,150 square
foot second story addition to an existing single -story residence as well as a 150 square
foot first floor addition.
• Described the site as being approximately 14,000 square feet located on the corner of
Scully and Largemont.
• Advised that a balcony is proposed that faces Largemont and one neighbor has expressed
concerns about that balcony.
• Reported that the applicant is proposing additional landscape screening to alleviate that
neighbor's privacy concerns.
• Stated that there are no trees being impacted by this project and that the project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
• Advised that the Design Review findings can be made.
• Distributed a materials board.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Ms. Seema Mittel, Project Architect:
• Stated that this project has been well defined in the staff report.
• Advised that her clients have been very responsible in the design that they wanted and
worked hard with their neighbor over the concern raised.
• Advised that they are willing to plant two large trees right away.
Mr. Makhijani, Applicant and Property Owner:
• Reported that his family has resided in this house for six years and they love the house,
neighbors and schools in this community.
Saratoga Planning.Com mission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 12
• Distributed some photographs and explained that he asked his builder to climb up on the
roof to take these photographs of the view from their proposed balcony.
• Reminded that there are lots of mature trees in their backyard. No trees are impacted and
he likes having them there.
• Said that they have taken care to design their house to look like an original house and not
like a remodeled house.
• Informed .that his wife, Nita, went to a nursery and they recommended the planting, of
black- stemmed pittasporum, which is an evergreen that is intended to serve as a
screening hedge. It grows up to between 15 and 20 feet high and between 10 and 12 feet
wide. This would do a good job screening the view of his neighbor's windows.
Mrs. Nita Makhijani explained that while her son is off to college, her daughter is now a junior
in high school and she - ,wants her to be able to. enjoy living in the new house before she too
--_-- goes - off to college.—,.She. -added -that .it is likely that parents will move into their home some
time in the future.
Commissioner Rodgers asked about adding lattice on the side between this home and the
neighbor's on the balcony.
Mr. Makhijani said he would prefer not as he. wants to be able to look onto his pool. He
assured that the trees should grow quickly. However, if the Commission feels that the
temporary use of .lattice is necessary, he would work with. this neighbor.
Commissioner Kundtz complimented the Makhijani 's on their sensitivity to their neighbor's
privacy concerns. He added that this privacy goes both ways.
Commissioner -Zhao .asked how long it would take the screening to reach 15 to 20 feet in
height.
Mr. Makhijani said that they grow about two feet per year. He added that a couple of feet
above the fence is all that is needed to adequately screen this area.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Kumar said that he liked the PhotoShop rendition. He said that he is in support
of the Design Review. findings.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Agreed and said he too can -make. the findings.
•= Added that the view and privacy concerns have clearly been addressed and that he has
the sense that the neighbor is more comfortable.
• Said he would support this project.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested that the screening landscaping be planted as soon as
possible.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 13
Planner Heather Bradley reported that the applicant wants to retain and reuse their existing
garage door. It is aluminum painted to match and is depicted on plan sheet A5 -1.
Mr. Makhijani explained that the first thing he did when he moved in was to put in a garage
door so it is still relatively new. It is the same type of door used by other homes in this
neighborhood. He added that a wood door is more unusual in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Cappello said that he supports a requirement to include a carriage style door.
Chair Hlava said that this owner has a less than six - year -old door and she hates to have him
replace it.
Commissioner Nagpal said she couldn't specifically recall their existing garage door.
Mr. Makhijani pointed out that they are not replacing the entire house here. The garage itself
is not being touched. He added that 18 of 20 homes in his neighborhood have the same door.
He added that he wants to save the unnecessary expense of replacing this door and would
appreciate it if they could keep what they have.
Commissioner Cappello suggested leaving this issue to the discretion of the Community
Development Director.
Commissioner Rodgers said that the Director could look at other garage doors in the area to
see what is consistent. She agreed that this is a remodel and not a new house.
Commissioner Nagpal asked staff.for any comment on this issue.
Director John Livingstone said that his recommendation is to upgrade the door, as this would
be a brand new house.
Commissioner Cappello said that a carriage door is a beautiful door and is typically,asked for.
Commissioner Kundtz asked the project architect for her opinion.
Ms. Seema Mittel said that with a remodel of this scale she usually loves to see a new garage
door but she is also sensitive to the client's budget and there are others in the neighborhood
just like this. She said while a new door would be nice, the current door does match and it
saves $6,000.
Chair Hlava said that she used to live in this neighborhood. It is not a fancy neighborhood.
She said that it is not fair to replace an almost new garage door. It doesn't seem right. She
asked for additional comments on this requirement.
Commissioner Nagpal said that it is what the Director is suggesting. She said while she is
10 sensitive to cost, this new door would also add value.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 14
Commissioner Rodgers said that this is a lovely area of Saratoga. It is a quality neighborhood
•
and would be an upgrade.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to
allow a first and second story addition to an existing single -story
residence on property located at 12576 Scully Avenue, with the
requirement to change to a carriage style garage door as approved by the
Community. Development Director as well as the planting of two screening
shrubs as soon as possible, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: Hlava and Kundtz
ABSENT: _ None
- ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hlava explained that she voted no because she did, not feel the requirement to change
the garage door was fair.
Commissioner Kundtz agreed that it is unnecessary to change the existing garage door.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #APT07 -0001 (APN 386 -11 -035) WU, 12571 Paseo Cerro: The applicant is
appealing the denial of a tree removal permit application (HTRP07 -200) and conditions of
Administrative Design Review approval ( #07 -255) that require he retain a coast redwood tree
in the front yard of the property. 'Pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 90.010,
applicants can appeal the denial _of a tree removal permit and conditions of Administrative
Design Review approval to the Planning Commission. (Kate Bear)
City Arborist Kate Bear presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the appellant handed -her two letters this evening for the Commission.
• Reported that the appellant is in' the process of building a new home on his property and
the original home has been demolished.
• Explained that the appellant wants to remove a redwood tree that he feels is too large and
a danger to his home., It is also lined up directly with the front door and he feels that it is.
not possible to develop around this tree.
• Informed that staff was not able to make the findings to allow this tree removal as the
criteria was not meta The redwood tree is not in eminent danger of falling. It is not
interfering with utilities. It is in fair health and does not appear diseased. It does not
threaten damage to the house.
• Stated that the appellant dug a trench near the house and took out two -inch roots.
• Said that the lot is flat so erosion its not a concern.
• Pointed out that this- redwood is one of only two trees on this property, the other being an
orange tree.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 15
• Said that removal of this tree would create a significant loss with respect to shade and
landscaping on the property. The tree is in fair health and the property can handle the
addition of a number of trees.
• Said that during the design stage of the project, the house could have been designed with
the front door offset from the redwood tree or in another location. In .fact, the previous
house did have the front door in another location that was not directly opposite the
redwood tree.
• Added that a landscape could have been designed around the redwood tree using it as a
focal point. The landscape plan submitted showed one small tree to replace the redwood
that he wanted to remove.
• Reiterated that removal of this tree is not required, as alternatives do exist.
• Said that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution denying
the removal of the redwood tree and implementing the recommendations from his
arborist's report.
• Proposed two minor changes to the draft resolution. One is to delete the second line of
the description reading, "and denying modifications to approved plans." The appellant
never requested modification of the conditions of approval. The second change, at the
end of the resolution add the following text to the final NOW THEREFORE sentence to
read, "The redwood tree shall be retained and the appeal of the tree removal permit shall
be denied."
Commissioner Cappello asked whether the excavation of the trench and cutting of roots was
done in the context of determining whether the tree's roots were causing damage to the
foundation and/or whether the cuts to the roots is jeopardizing the health of the tree going
forward.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that the appellant told her that he felt the tree was threatening his
foundation. She added that she told him that she needed more information and he should
have a structural engineer or somebody look under the house at the foundation. Instead he
dug the trench and as a part of that cut the roots that were headed toward the house.
Commissioner Cappello asked if those removed roots would not have become a threat to the
foundation of the new house going forward.
City Arborist Kate Bear replied that she is not finding a problem at this time. However, she
added that she would not say that in the future there would not be a problem.
Commissioner Cappello asked if she believes a problem is unlikely.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that she won't say it is unlikely because roots will grow from the
end of the cut root and it might be years and years and years before there is any issue.
Redwood trees can cause problems to foundations but small roots don't cause problems.
0 Commissioner Cappello asked what about two -inch roots.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that they could become six -inch roots in time.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 16
Commissioner Cappello asked City Arborist Kate Bear'if the health of the tree is jeopardized
and becomes an issue in her opinion.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that the roots cut were approximately 15 feet from the trunk so
she was not that concerned. She was a little surprised but not overly concerned because the
trench was filled in right away.
Commissioner- Nagpal said. she has questions about the possibility of improving the condition
of the tree. She said that it doesn't appear to be the best looking tree and appears to have
suffered some stress. She asked if implementing the recommendations in the arborist's report
would help improve the condition of this tree.
City Arborist Kate Bear. said that she had asked the appellant to implement the
_ recommendations of his arborist and evaluate the tree one year down the line. If nothing had
improved, then reconsideration of the situation could occur. She said that she did not believe
he had implemented the recommendations but is not sure that he has not.
Chair Hlava:
• Pointed out that in his arborist's report, she speculates that this is a big tree that grew
quickly, due to access to ground water and that ground water supply seems to be going
away. She asked City Arborist Kate Bear if she agrees with that assessment.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that it is a very large redwood but that she hesitates to speculate
about the groundwater situation. She agreed that redwood trees need a lot of water and you
can see 40 to 50 year old redwood trees that are not as large as this one is.
Chair Hlava:
• Said that while the Commission was on its site visit, the tree looked like a nice, healthy tree
when up close.. However, when they looked back at it as they were driving away, it did not
look so good. It looks sparse with branches falling off.
• She asked if a 25 of 100 ranking represents. a tree in fair condition.
City Arborist -Kate Bear said that -she identified it as being in fair health while Debbie Ellis, the
appellant's arborist, said it was in poor health. She added that she agrees that the tree is not
in good health.
Commissioner Rodgers recounted that when. they were driving away, they turned around and
looked at it.
Commissioner Nagpal said that obviously it didn't look great but this has been a construction
site. She said that from her perspective, the .question is what are the chances of success if
.the recommendations are followed. She asked City Arborist Kate Bear to ,verify that her
recommendation is to implement the suggested conditions and evaluate the tree after one
year.
one should an think that t
City Arborist Kate Bear said. that is.correct. She said that she did not y
have to wait five years to see if this tree turns around.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 17
Commissioner N agp al said that the conditions likely need to be implemented right away.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that at the very least the tree needs to be watered.
Commissioner Rodgers asked City Arborist Kate Bear if she knows if the water table in
Saratoga is increasing or decreasing and whether that makes a difference in the life of a tree if
the water table fluctuates over 10 years.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that she is not familiar with the water table in Saratoga. She said
that if trees can tap into a relatively high groundwater source, that's an asset for them. She
added that redwoods like a lot of water and would take advantage of that if that were the case.
Commissioner Nagpal said that this is about a 40- year -old tree.
City Arborist Kate Bear said that 90 percent of the roots for most trees are located in the. top
two to three feet of soil. She added that it doesn't mean that they won't tap into a water
source down 15 feet. It's a possibility.
Commissioner Rodgers said that there is evidence that it has been trimmed in the past. She
asked if the needles on the interior of a branch ever re -grow and how does this affect the
health of the tree.
City rborist Kate Bear said that it definite) affects the health of the tree. She said that the
Y Y
tree does have the appearance of having been trimmed a little excessively on the interior.
She added that she has not noticed that the tree is sending off any new growth.
Commissioner Rodgers reported that she heard that in the past someone anchored the tree to
a neighbor's tree during a storm as it was swaying so much.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Charlie Wu, Appellant and Property Owner:
• Explained that he bought this property in 2000 and this tree was there.
• Said that the tree has always been like it is. There has been no change.
• Said that when the house was originally built, the door was in the front and was later
moved to the side.
• Reported that people always comment to him, "you have a big, ugly tree!"
• Said that about five years ago his neighbor asked him, 'When are you going to take down
that tree ?"
• Said that it was at the beginning of this year that they decided to rebuild their house.
• Added that even if they had remodeled instead of rebuilding, they would have relocated
the front door to the front.
• Informed that they applied for a tree removal permit and were denied.
• Said that when his expert arborist, Ms. Debbie Ellis, saw the tree her first comment was
that there was something wrong with the tree. It is in poor health.
• Stated that over the years he has asked how to make this tree healthier and no.one know.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 18
• Reiterated that the key point is that this tree is in poor health.
• Pointed out that even City Arborist Kate Bear gave a rating of 25 out of a possible 100.
• Said that this is a big and ugly tree that is not healthy. It is also a hazard due to its size
and proximity to the house. It is just 12 to 15 feet from the front door. It is huge and it is
close. This tree is five times the height of the house.
• Said that he has a letter from his neighbor, John, who lived in the neighborhood since the
1960's and even before this tree was planted.
• Reported that on windy days they can hear small branches falling on their roof. One
branch almost landed on their neighbor's car.
• Advised that he spoke with City Arborist Kate Bear regarding the trench and the tree two-
inch roots that he cut. He added that you could see roots 30 feet into the foundation.
.. Added that they have a letter from a structural engineer that states in their opinion any root
growing underneath a house would eventually impact the structural integrity of the
foundation. It may not happen now but it could 20 to 30 years down the road.
• Reminded that no one from the neighborhood likes this tree. It blocks visibility to the
house. It doesn't match the house or the neighborhood. It is the tallest tree in this
neighborhood.
• Added that he proposes to replace it with three to five new and healthy trees to match the
new house and the neighborhood.
• Said that one cost is the personal liability as his neighbors are worried about potential
damage to their property.
• Suggested .that the health and condition of this tree is not likely to improve.
• Advised that it is.easier to remove this tree now, before the construction of the new house.
o Reminded that he has 15 signatures of support from the neighborhood and three of his
neighbors are here tonight.
Chair Hlava asked if there are questions for Mr. Charlie Wu.
Commissioner Cappello asked how far away the neighbor who wrote the letter is located.
Mr. Charlie Wu said right next to his house.
Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Charlie_ Wu if he has an estimate of the cost to take this tree
down.
Mr. Charlie Wu replied no.
Commissioner Kundtz said he imagined it would cost a lot.
Mr. Charlie Wu said that he would do what it takes.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Charlie Wu if his arborist is here tonight.
Mr. Charlie Wu replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 19
. Commissioner Nagpal said that the Commission must look at nine criteria, including removal
for physical or threatened damage. She asked if there is any damage yet.
Mr. Charlie Wu replied not anything significant that he can recall although there is threatened
damage with falling branches.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Charlie Wu when he bought the property.
Mr. Charlie Wu said that he bought the home "as is." He added that he had no plans to
rebuild the house at that time. He said that the original owner agrees that the tree is too. big
for the lot it is on. It was only six -feet tall when it was planted.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about positioning the new home away from the tree and pointed
out that City Arborist Kate Bear is recommending that the tree be looked at again one year
from now.
Mr. Charlie Wu said that it is very unlikely that the condition of the tree would improve. It
would be even more costly to take this tree down when the new home is in place.
Mrs. Wu assured that the tree is watered all year round with irrigation. She added that no
matter where the door is placed, this tree is in the way.
0 Mr. Charlie Wu agreed that they have watered this tree.
Chair Hlava asked Mr. Charlie Wu to verify his understanding that it would be easier to cut this
tree now rather than later.
Mr. Charlie Wu said that is correct.
Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Charlie Wu, why not move the door to one side or the other
or move the house back.
Mr. Charlie Wu said that it would look awkward if the house is 15 feet deeper on their lot than
are the homes of his neighbors. He added it is his understanding that this goes against the
recommendations of the residential design guidelines.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Mr. Charlie Wu has made the decision to locate the
house where it is.
Chair Hlava asked staff to comment on the issue of whether a house should be located the
same distance from the front property line as the surrounding homes.
Director John Livingstone disagreed and said that varying front setbacks somewhat is
desirable.
Chair Hlava asked about pushing the house back further on this lot.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 20
Director John Livingstone said that it looks like this house is maximized on this lot.
Chair Hlava said if it were smaller it could be moved further back.
Commissioner Rodgers added that a second story is possible.
Director John Livingstone said that since the original house was demolished, there is a clean
slate here- and the options are_ endless.
Commissioner Kumar said that there is some confusion as to whether the roots are
encroaching on this house in a way that could lead to an unsafe foundation in the future.
Mr., .Charlie ` Wu said that he found :three larger roots that eventually would impact his
foundation.
Commissioner Cappello asked about the landscape plan submitted that retained this redwood.
Mr. Charlie Wu said that it is just a simple schematic. His original submittal showed the
removal of the redwood tree but he had to retain it on the plan in order to proceed with the
process for the house approval.
Commissioner Cappello asked Mr.. Charlie Wu if' he would move forward with his landscaping
immediately were this tree be allowed to be removed.
Mr. Charlie Wu assured that he would be willing to install landscaping that is acceptable to the
City and his. neighbors. He added that this is a part of the requirements prior to occupancy. -
Mr. Chuck Soontag, Resident on Paseo Cerro:
• Reported that he lives right across the street.
• Assured that he loves trees but it 'is time, even past time, to remove this tree.
• Said that it should be taken out due to its health problems of which there has been no
change over the last three years.
Said that he once heard the noise from inside his house when'a big branch fell from this
tree.
• Opined that this.is a "weird looking tree" that.does not provide much shade.
• Said that the site needs more amiable street trees. They don't want a 100 - foot -high tree
by itself that ,is only ranked 25 out of a possible 100.
• Advised that his wife is afraid if it falls it would fall onto their house.
• . Recounted that a fallen tree killed a friend after landing on his car.
• Stated that this tree is past.its prime-and it is time to put some good trees in there.
Ms. Dorothy Bookman, Resident on Paseo Cerro:
• Said that she is the immediate next -door neighbor with two large maple trees on her
property.
• Agreed that this tree does not provide shade and represents a constant worry to her.
• Said that she wants to support'the Wu's.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 21
• Reported that she has resided here 40 years and was there when this tree was planted.
• Recounted that 10 years ago, the tree was swaying badly and the neighbor at the time
asked if he could anchor this tree to their tree.
• Assured that the previous neighbors took care of this tree as have the Wu's.
• Asked the Commission to please allow the removal of this tree so the neighbors can all
feel better.
Ms. Marti Foster, Resident on Saratoga Avenue:
• Stated that the redwood is a deep- rooted tree.
• Reported that she has an even larger one in her yard.
• Said that she does not see that this tree is being taken care of.
• Added that these owners have designed a house that encroaches on this tree.
•- - Suggested that - if one does not -like trees, one should not move -onto a property with trees.
• Said that cutting roots is not the way to check root systems.
• Recounted that California has the oldest living redwoods.
• Stated that this tree should not be cut because they don't like it. It needs to be taken care
of.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Marti Foster for the location of her house in relation to this
one.
Ms. Marti Foster said that she is located kitty corner from this house.
Ms. Debbie Ellis, Arborist for the Wu's:
• Explained that she has been in business for 24 years and is a resident of Saratoga.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed out to Ms. Debbie Ellis that nine findings must be evaluated.
She asked about the condition of this tree and advised that City Arborist Kate Bear is
recommending the, implementation of the conditions Ms. Ellis has developed and have this
tree evaluated again in a year.
Ms. Debbie Ellis said that this tree is in very poor condition and it is reasonable to allow its
removal because it is diseased and dying. She added that it is not worth saving in this
location.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the conditions recommended are followed, could this tree
survive.
Ms. Debbie Ellis said there is a very low possibility of survival and she said that in her report.
Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Debbie Ellis to outline her credentials.
Ms. Debbie Ellis: `
• Advised that she has a four -year degree in Horticulture; a Master's; is a California
agricultural advisor and a certified horticulturalist.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 22
Ms. Donna Dittrich, resident of Verde Moore Court, asked the City Attorney who assumes Is
liability in the event that this tree were to fall.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that liability is the responsibility of the owner of the tree.
There is immunity offered to cities for their Planning decisions.
Ms. Donna Dittrich questioned why the City would not be liable if they will not give permission
to remove this tree.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if a score of 25 for a tree means that it is 25 percent safe.
City Arborist Kate Bear said it means it is 25 percent healthy.
__Commissioner "Nagpal asked if _it means. it is_ in fair condition._._
City Arborist Kate Bear replied yes.
Mr. Charlie Wu:
• Recounted that when he was in school a score of 25 percent was to fail.
• Said that he had consulted an attorney on this issue of this tree who advised him that even
if the City rejects his tree removal request they are still not responsible for his tree legally.
• Reminded that he had, an arborist look at this tree that says that it is not healthy.
• Questioned why he should have to retain liability in the event this tree causes damages
since he believes that smaller and healthier trees would be better for his house and his
neighborhood.
• Added that new trees would grow "and blend into the neighborhood.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Said that on the issue of safety, a ranking of 25 does not mean the tree is only 25 percent
safe or.has a 75 percent chance Hof ffaIling. It represents fair condition according to the City
Arborist:
• Stated that the tree needs to be cared for
• Reminded that the tree canopy has value for the community.
• Pointed out that the owners knew this .tree was there and could have designed the new
house around.the tree.
• Advised -that the City has a strong tree policy.
• Assured that she would not ask anyone to retain a tree that is not safe and that she trusts
the City Arborist's expertise.
• Added that she does not consider this tree to be ugly and would vote to retain it, as there
are no grounds to remove it under the ordinance.
Commissioner Zhao said that while she respects City Arborist Kate Bear she does not agree
with her recommendation. She said that the threat of damage is possible. She asked if all
nine findings must be made or is one enough.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 23
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that just one will do but all nine should be considered.
Commissioner Zhao said that she finds that per Condition 8, there is a threat to public health
and safety and a potential hazard with this tree. She said that she could support removal.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Said that this is a difficult decision.
• Reported that she was involved in putting the Tree Ordinance together.
• Said that the City tries to accommodate trees, especially mature trees, as they are difficult
to replace.
• Stated her agreement with City Arborist Kate Bear and said that there is no evidence
compelling enough to change her view.
• Reminded that City Arborist Kate Bear has not said no outright but rather requires further
evaluation of the tree in one year.
• Stated her support for denial and said it is best to give this tree more care and evaluate its
health again in one year.
Chair Hlava:
• Said that her inclination was to wait a year and see.
• Added that she prefers to defer to City Arborist Kate Bear and is normally against tree
removals.
• Pointed out that tonight there are several in the neighborhood who support this removal.
People who have been there a long time are saying this tree is dangerous. Fifteen of them
signed a petition.
• Said that the Commission must give fair and serious consideration to this request.
• Advised that she does not always vote with neighbors but in this case the tree is not doing
well and meets the definition of being diseased.
• Added that the whole front yard is not available for any other landscaping due to the
extreme size of this tree.
• Said that there can't be any other trees due to the size of this one.
• Stated that there is no big advantage to wait another year when there is so much evidence
from neighbors over a long period of time.
• Said that the diseased tree results in a public safety issue.
• Advised that she can make findings to support the appellant's request to removal this tree.
Commissioner Kundtz:
• Stated that he is sure City Arborist Kate Bear knows how much she is respected as is Ms.
Debbie Ellis.
• Said that safety is the biggest concern.
• Added that Mr. Wu makes the point that it is better to plant new and better trees now.
• Described the redwood as a big old tree that sticks out and looks out of sorts.
• Agreed that there is disclaimer language that protects the City of Saratoga from liability.
• Said that he is sensitive to the neighborhood's safety concern and supports the reversal of
the tree removal permit denial.
• Asked Mr. Wu to do a really good job with replacements.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 24
Commissioner Cappello-
Said that he agrees with the conditions in the report but takes issue with Condition 2.
However, if the house were designed different, this could be met.
• Stated that good points have been made including seeing what happens in one year.
• Added that if no. new house were proposed, he could see giving the tree that year to see
what happens.
• Said that because the house is being completely rebuilt and landscaping is going in on this
site, he would rather not wait one year.
• Suggested that he would rather see action taken today allowing the removal of this tree
and allowing the Wu- project to move forward including a more pleasing landscape.
• Opined that eventually, this tree would cause damage to this home either by branch or by
roots:
• Stated that he cannot make Finding 2, which he feels is the overwhelming condition.
Commissioner Kumar said he agrees with Commissioner Cappello that action should be taken
today - rather than waiting a year. It is in the best interest of everyone to have this tree
removed. He stated his support to reverse the denial and to allow the removal of this tree.
Chair Hlava.asked if the Commission has to agree on the findings.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer:
• Said that it appears the majority can, agree on Finding 2 and Finding 8.
• Suggested that the Commission direct staff to revise the resolution as there needs to be
come conditions imposed.
• Said that either the Community Development Director can determine the number of
replacement trees or the Commission can decide tonight.
Chair Hlava asked if all supporting the reversal agree on Findings 2 and 8.
Commissioner Kumar said he supports using, Findings 2, 4 and 8.
Commissioner Cappello said only Finding 2 works for him.
Commissioner Kundtz agreed that he could only use Finding 2 to support his position.
Chair Hlava said that, if possible, using Finding 8 too is better as it gives an overall:sense of
what ,the Commission is saying.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that as many as possible would be nice but using only
Finding 2 is fine.
Commissioner Zhao said she could use Findings 2, 4 and 8.
Commissioner Cappello said Finding 2 is a strong criterion for this appeal.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 25
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner
Kundtz, the Planning Commission GRANTED an appeal ( #APT07 -0001) of
the denial of a tree removal permit (HTRP07 -200) to allow the removal a
coast redwood tree in the front yard, on property located at 12571 Paseo
Cerro, based on Finding #2 and directed staff to work with the applicant on
the number of proposed replacement trees, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz and Zhao
NOES: Nagpal and Rodgers
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - -ITEM NO: 4--
APPLICATION ZOA -07 -0003 (City Wide) Proposed Blight Ordinance: The Planning
Commission will consider a draft ordinance to set standards for the minimum level of
maintenance on private property in Saratoga. The ordinance would establish standards for 1)
general property maintenance (e.g., overgrown vegetation, unsecured structures or conditions
of deterioration or disrepair that creates a substantial adverse impact on neighboring
properties); 2) single family residential use landscaping; 3) multi - family residential use
landscaping; and 4) park strips between sidewalks and City streets. The ordinance would
also specify enforcement and appeals procedures. (Jana Rinaldi)
Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Explained that at it's April meeting, Council directed staff to work with the Planning
Commission on an ordinance that would require property owners to keep their properties
free of blighted conditions.
• Said that Code Enforcement staff does receive complaints from residents regarding
blighted conditions on properties that are overgrown with weeds, deed or dying trees or
poorly maintained homes.
• Stated that City Code currently prohibits property owners from maintaining clear risks to
public health and safety or that violate specific Codes but do not deal with blighted
properties that are a risk to public health and safety.
• Said that the attached ordinance would expand the definition of nuisance to include
properties that the City finds to be blighted and to allow the City to respond to complaints
of property conditions that create aesthetic impacts to the neighborhood.
• Said that existing ordinances provide tools to address fire hazards and weed abatement
through the Fire District and County Vector Control on issues of rodents, mosquitoes and
other pests of that nature. However, if the situation is not far enough along to require the
Fire District to abate weeds and /or if large piles of brush do not yet house rodents, there is
no action available.
• Said that the new ordinance would allow the City to enforce those types of issues and
avoid conditions such as unsecured buildings, buildings in a state of disrepair and /or
overgrown weeds or other vegetation.
• Added that the ordinance would impose landscape maintenance requirements as well as
requiring that property owners maintain the park strip in front of their home.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 26
• Said that staff has also added the comments received at the Study Session from the
Planning Commission as well as from the audience.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer presented a few proposed amendments as follows:
• Section 7- 50.050b — add, "... if there is the potential of harboring rats,. vermin, vector or
other similar nuisances in the building or structure."
• Section 7- 50.050e(3) replace "and" with "or."
• Section 7- 50.060a — the question is whether to apply this to vacant parcels. If not, the text
should be modified to replace "shall" with "may" not apply, which leaves some discretion
for the City Manager.
• Section 7- 50.060b — it is better not to call out specifically Weed Block as the only weed
barrier alternative as other permeable options such as tan bark could work too.
• Section 7- 50.080 — the last line should replace "shall" with "are authorized to be
recovered."
•
'Section. 7-50.090b - .last phrase replace "or" to "and /or."
Section 7 -50 -120 should be combined with Section 7.50.110.
Chair. Hlava said that text should be added that reads, "Failure to meet the landscaping
requirements constitutes blight."
_Commissioner Kundtz:
• Asked. if it is intended that Section 7- 50.060 include vacant parcels.
• Suggested that the answer is yes as vacant parcels can get overgrown and become safety
hazards. Vacant parcels should be required to be maintained but not landscaped.
• Said that proposed language regarding enforcement should be included.
• Reported that San Jose sends out a letter, imposes a find. If no correction takes place, the
owner if fined more.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that specific language about enforcement is probably
valuable when a case is taken to court. He said that per Section 7- 50.030, once a property is
deemed to be blighted, all other enforcement tools come into play. He said that Council would
have to determine if they. want to set up an Administrative fine approach.
Commissioner Rodgers said that although she does not feel her property has any blight, there
are conditions on her hillside property that could be considered blight under this draft
ordinance. She asked if she should recuse herself on this item.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied no, the ordinance applies to all Saratoga property
owners so she doesn't have.to recuse herself.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda -Item No. 4.
Ms. Donna Dittrich, Resident on Verde Moor. Court:
• Distributed some photographs.
• Stated that she is very glad to'see this issue being addressed.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 27
• Reported that she attended the Study Session and was happy to be there. This has been
too long in coming.
• Said that she has lived for 26 years in the same house in a. small cul de sac. About 20
years ago, a new owner came in at the entrance to this cul de sac. Conditions on that
property have continued to deteriorate from the beginning.
• Described that property as having siding boards that are peeling back, a house that is in
desperate need of paint, a yard that is overgrown with weeds and black plastic hanging
feet beyond where stones were piled up.
• Added that a realtor in the neighborhood refers this house as looking like a crack house.
• Said that this condition diminishes the values of the other homes in this neighborhood.
• Stated that it is embarrassing to have visitors come to the neighborhood with this house
that is an eyesore.
• Said that she believes the City has the right to enforce changes with this ordinance. She
added that it is unfortunate that it has come to this but owners have to have enough pride
in ownership.
• Thanked the Commission.
Mr. E.L. Vincent, Resident on Westover Drive:
• Said that he does not know who initiated this blight ordinance but commended the
Commission and Council for opening the issue for discussion and the approval of an
ordinance on blight.
• Said that he agrees with the comments so far.
• Agreed that the City has the right to require abatement of weeds but not how to do it, as
there are other options available in addition to Weed Block.
• Recommended that specific requirements for enforcement including penalties be spelled
out in the ordinance.
• Said that staff needs to be insulated from a violator and his anger.
• Said that he would like to see immediate pain for violators.
• Suggested that a tax lien could be one enforcement inducement, one that owners are most
likely to comply with.
• Said that using a Notice of Code Violation would require an owner to clean up before sale
of their property, it is not much of an inducement if they have no immediate plans to sell.
Mr. Doug Diemer, Resident on Wardell Road:
• Said that he was not at the Study Session.
• Suggested that some people may simply not be able to afford landscaping.
Chair Hlava said that there are provisions in Code for exceptions for those with financial
hardship.
Commissioner Rodgers listed out a number of existing programs that would also qualify
homeowners to be exempted from the requirements of this ordinance.
Mr. Doug Diemer:
• Asked how people can be expected to plant landscaping if they can't even afford health
care.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 28
• Stated that he and his wife can barely make it on what he is paid.
• Added that they are.worried that they will be layered with one more problem that makes it
impossible for them to live here.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Chair Hlava said that more specific requirements and penalties need to be incorporated into
the draft ordinance.. She said that the issue of affordability must also be taken into account,
as exempting people doesn't catch everyone.
Commissioner Rodgers aid that there is also an income level standard.
Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that that amount is only $22,000 for a household with two
- :members:. __ .. - - - -- -- - =- =— -- - - -- -
Chair Hlava said that penalties and specific requirements should outline the procedure from
the initial letter, time for correction, fine and discretion of the.City Manager.
Commissioner Kundtz questioned .whether there is the time available tonight to craft specific
language for a progressive penalty process. He suggested tabling the issue of enforcement to
a- future Study Session for a process that is both fair and enforceable.
Chair Hlava asked if others agreed with that approach.
Commissioner Cappello said he did. He added that specifying enforcement. in the ordinance
might be difficult.
Chair Hlava said that the process could begin with a letter with a 60 -day compliance period. If
nothing is done, a $100 to $200 fine could be imposed. The next level fine could be at the
discretion of the City Manager.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the administrative fine approach is used by San
Jose. - There are - limits for a general law city to the amounts listed in Code. San Jose is a
charter city. He said a first offense fine could be $100, a second offense fine could be $200
and a third offense fine. be $500: However, it is not always possible to get a judge to award.
Commissioner Kundtz asked if the City is empowered to assess fines.
.,City Attorney- Jonathan Wittwer suggested either holding out the enforcement portion or
continuing this item to .a future meeting. He said that this Commission is looking for the
strongest enforcement it can impose. He suggested that staff be given some direction and
come back. with a report on specifics of enforcement.
Chair Hlava pointed out that this item didn't even have to come to this Commission. Council
sent it to us for advice and input. We could still go ahead and send it to Council with the
suggestion of. including specific enforcement processes.
[��l
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 29
40 Commissioner Nagpal said that there are other things to be talked about too.
Commissioner Rodgers reported that she lives on a hillside property with a 40 percent slope,
which exempts it from this ordinance. She added that critters are a part of a hillside property.
Commissioner Nagpal said that as for expectations for vacant parcels, they should not require
landscaping but should require weed maintenance. Therefore she agrees with the
amendment to read "developed" properties.
Commissioner Cappello said he agrees but said that more than weeds can mar a vacant
parcel if items are dumped there or cars stored there.
Commissioner Nagpal said that some properties are not landscaped to the very edge but
rather are just disked for weeds.
Commissioner Rodgers agreed.
Commissioner Nagpal said that those on agriculturally zoned parcels, properties with 40
percent slope and /or financial hardship are exempt.
Commissioner Kundtz said that the ordinance is particularly important to cover homes located
iin dense neighborhoods.
Commissioner Nagpal stated that what is considered blight in one neigh is not blight
gP g g g
in another.
Commissioner Rodgers said that the point has appropriately been made that some cannot
afford expensive landscaping. They can be held to the standard of keeping their property
clean with the weeds down.
Commissioner Nagpal said that expectation on landscaping needs to be made very clear.
Commissioner Rodgers said it appears the standard is simply no dirt yards.
Chair Hlava said that it is unfair to neighbors to not have some sort of property landscaping
even if it is weed block with tan bark instead of dirt.
Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that the standards depend upon the neighborhood.
Commissioner Zhao said that having different standards for different neighborhoods causes
concern.
Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that most neighborhoods have specific CC &R's. The first
thing that Code Enforcement could ask a reporting party is if their neighborhood has CC &R's.
If the answer is yes, they can be directed to work with their HOA to enforce their CC &R's.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 30
Chair Hlava said that it is not easy to enforce CC &R's and some neighborhoods no longer .
have functioning HOA's.
Director John Livingstone said that the City Attorney has made several corrections to the draft.
Under landscape requirements, the work. "shall" has been edited to read, "may." This change
gives the City Manager more discretion.
Commissioner Cappello said that it really comes down to the discretion of the City Manager,
as they cannot write every potential type of case into the Code.
Commissioner Nagpal said that financial hardship issue needs to be looked at further too.
She added that there are different areas of the community with different people. There is the
wildlife, issue that exists in certain habitats. There is the issue of native landscaping. She said
there needs to. be some way to allow property owners to disk and have a clean appearance,
but no landscaping.
Commissioner Kundtz said that the tighter and more specific the enforcement procedures the
better enforcement will be. He agreed that one size does not fit all circumstances.
Commissioner Nagpal agreed that ordinances are difficult to craft and .they last a long time
once adopted. She said she would rather look at this ordinance further, perhaps in a Study.
Session.
Commissioner Rodgers said that Council wanted the Commission's analysis and input. She
stated. the importance of building in some common sense to deal with hardship cases.
Commissioner Nagpal said that the need for a blight ordinance must also be weighed against
some people's economic issues.
Chair Hlava said that the Commission is not ready to make a decision tonight. This item can
be continued either to a .Study Session or to another Public. Hearing. She suggested that the
staff come _back with a clean copy of the draft that reflects the changes made to this point; a
staff report that deals with hardship and how landscape requirements apply throughout the
City and enforcement processes.
Commissioner Kundtz said the difference between a charter versus general law city must
also be made clear.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is any urgency on Council's part.
Director John Livingstone said this ordinance-,has not yet been scheduled for Council.
Chair Hlava said that the sooner the better. Council needs to adopt the news rack ordinance,
fence ordinance and this blight ordinance in order to make time for the sign ordinance.
Commissioner Rodgers said there are still things in this ordinance that worry her including the
9
concern that one issue on a property can equal blight.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 31
Chair Hlava said that enforcement is based on complaint and always will be.
p Y
Commissioner Rodgers said that her property has exterior walls with signs of past termite
infestation. She has a cracked driveway. She questioned if there would be any exception for
natural disasters and /or earthquakes. She added that the misdemeanor criminal penalties
seem inconsistent.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the draft ordinance could be provided to each Commissioner in
Word format to allow individual editing that could be brought back to the, next meeting.
Director John Livingstone said that he could provide that document.
-Chair Hlava asked if this item would not require further noticing if it were to be continued either
to a date certain Study Session or date certain Public Hearing.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said yes.
Director John Livingstone said that it appears that a Study Session is the preferred venue.
Commissioner Cappello said it depends on the level of staff comfort with the input provided
this evening. If staff can edit the draft based on tonight's comments perhaps it can be brought
back directly to a Public Hearing.
Commissioner Nagpal said she is okay with a Public Hearing.
Commissioner Kundtz said that a Study Session might suit the .Commission's work style
better.
Commissioner Kumar said that there are a lot of missing links here just yet and a Study
Session might be better.
Commissioner Rodgers said that she still has lots of notes that have not yet been discussed
so she too prefers a Study Session format.
Commissioner Zhao said she could support either.
Commissioner Nagpal said she would support a Study Session too.
Chair Hlava asked for a specific date. Is September 11 th too soon?
Director John Livingstone said that there is already some architectural training scheduled for 5
p.m. on September 11th. He suggested that another option might be prior to the September
12th regular meeting. He said that a Study Session on the Fence Ordinance is set for
September 26 th but perhaps that could be pushed into October.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 32
Chair Hlava asked.for a preference between September 12th at 5 p.m. and September 26th at
5 p.m.
Director John Livingstone said either is fine and that no additional noticing would be required if
continued.tol a date specific.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this item might not have to go back to a Planning
Commission Public Hearing after the Study Session.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner
Nagpal, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of a draft
blight ordinance to a Study Session to be held at 5 p.m. on September 11,
2007, 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 ZOA -07 -002 (City Wide) Proposed News Rack Ordinance: The Planning
Commission will consider a draft ordinance to regulate the placement of news racks on public
property in the City of Saratoga. The ordinance would establish permit requirements and
procedures, news rack design standards, placement specifications, maintenance
requirements and enforcement and appeals procedures. (Jana Rinaldi)
Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Explained that Council asked the - Planning. Commission to review a proposed news rack
ordinance to require permits for the placement of news racks on City streets.
Said that often news rack placements can be a nuisance to pedestrians.
• Said that in August a Study Session on this issue was held.
• Advised that while news racks are protected activities under the United States
Constitution, cities are allowed to regulate placements with a reasonable ordinance.
• Reported that this draft has been based upon existing ordinances from other communities
including Los Gatos, Los Altos and Carmel.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Mr. Paul Hernandez, Resident on La Vista Drive:
• Said that he has been affiliated with Saratoga Oaks Lodge since 1955.
• Expressed his surprise that there are not more people here tonight on this item.
• Said that it is very appropriate to condition placement of newspaper racks. Some are
rightly considered to be blight.
• Said that he very much minds having to dodge those that are in the way of pedestrians on
the sidewalk.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 33
• Pointed out that some are located so close to the curb that passengers are unable to exit
vehicles parked along that portion of the curb.
• Stated that lots of thought has gone into the design guidelines and would represent a big
improvement over big metal boxes.
• Advised that he is familiar with laws requiring the provision of space for publications.
• Asked if rents are collected for placement of these racks in the public right -of -way. If not,
why not since space is not free.
Mr. Tomas V, circulation manager for Saratoga News, said that while space is not free speech
is.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Chair Hlava expressed concern that the design standards not be so restrictive that only one
company can provide said racks. They should have to be "substantially equivalent to the
other stands named."
Director John Livingstone said that they are all very close in size and shape so the ordinance
description covers it fairly well.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said the term "substantially equivalent" equals flexibility.
Commissioner Cappello said that basically these racks need to be able to fit into the
enclosure.
Commissioner Rodgers asked why these enclosures are 11 feet long.
Director John Livingstone said that was taken from the other cities' ordinances.
Commissioner Nagpal said that she is comfortable sending this along to Council.
Commissioner Zhao asked if there is an existing News Rack Appeals Officer.
Director John Livingstone replied no.
Commissioner Nagpal asked why not use the Planning Commission or Council to consider
appeals.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that it might end up being the existing hearing officer. He
said that due process is required.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed news rack ordinance (ZOA -07 -0002) to regulate the placement of
news racks on public property in the City of Saratoga, by the following roll
call vote:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 34
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
There were no Commission Items.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hlava
adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:41 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission
meeting of September 1°2, 2007, at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
•
11
•
Item 1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. & Location: 07-233; 20640 Third Street
Type of Application: Design Review and Variance
Applicant/Owner: The Sam Cloud Barn L.P. (owner)
Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner
Meeting Date: September 26, 2007
APN: 503-24-073 Department Head:
John F. Livingstone, AICP
q
We 0
E. D. Cj 0.6"� 'q. 7?-1
KL
.0 1 AC. NET
S.
V
2 B !.._ ....... _ .� ... __ BIG BASIN . . . . . .
ICL
TNn N. x
S
OAK -----iTRECT
47 Subject: 20640 3rd Street
APN: 503-24-071
AAA-1— A I �'i 503-24-073
500' Radius
20640 Third Street
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting completed:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
01/25/07
09/05/07
09/12/07
09/06/07
09/20/07
The applicant requests Design Review, and Variance approval to construct a new commercial
building next to -the historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse (hereafter referred to as the
"barn "). The proposed structure is three stories with a basement. The street level is adjacent to
Third Street while the basement level will have an entry door adjacent to Parking District #1.
The total proposed square footage is approximately 3,798 square feet with an additional 1,142
square feet of basement area. The maximum proposed height is 30 feet. The building coverage is
50% of the site. The gross lot size is 2,378 square feet, and the site is located within the CH -1
zoning district. A Variance application is necessary to allow development because the lot has a
48- percent average slope.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS
No permanent conditions of approval are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review, and Variance applications by adopting the attached Resolutions.
•
•
c�
PROJECT DATA
0 ZONING: CH -1 - Commercial Historic District.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR - Retail Commercial/Village
MEASURE G: Not applicable.
PARCEL SIZE: 2,378 square feet
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE: 3,798 square feet (with an additional 1,142 square
feet of basement area)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 48 %.
GRADING REQUIRED: 338.5 cubic yards of cut (an additional 117 cubic yards of cut has already
been removed from the site to accommodate a retaining wall required to shore up the area around
the existing trash enclosures)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposal is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15303 (c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures: "A store,
motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of
hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the
exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet
in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not involving the use of significant amotmts of
hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the
surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive."
PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS
The proposed colors and materials will be compatible with those found on the barn located on
the property next door. These include yellow siding in a shade darker than the barn, wood
trimmed windows painted white, a corrugated metal roof and exterior horizontal wood siding.
The existing retaining wall will be replaced and will have a stone veneer of a compatible historic
style. A color board will be available at the public hearing.
•
PROJECT DATA TABLE
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The `applicants are, proposing to construct a new commercial building on a vacant parcel located to the
south of the historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse (barn). The building will consist of
_. - - -. -- - - - -- approximately- 3,798_square' feet of commercial retail and office space on three levels with a basement. _ - The structure has been designed to be .compatible with
the recently renovated historic barn as well as
the colors and materials of the barn. The uses of the tenant spaces within the proposed building have
not been established, however professional office and personal service businesses are permitted on the
lower floors and could be approved with a Conditional Use Permit on the street level. Retail could be
located on any level and restaurants would need a Use Permit to- locate on any level.
r
C
L]
Proposal
Code Requirements
Building Site
New structure:
Proposed: 50%
Maximum Allowable: 80% _
Coverage
1,266 sq. ft.
2,228.00 sq. ft. max.
Building, patios /decks:
Proposed:
No Maximum: In commercial
Impervious
TOTAL:
1,787 sq. ft. (70 %)
zones the site coverage includes
structures only and places no
limitation on impervious
coverage.
Street Floor:
1,266 sq. ft.
No Maximum: The floor area is
Floor Area
Ground Floor:
1,266 sq. ft.
limited only by the building
Sub- Ground Floor:
1,266 sq. ft.
coverage limitation of 80% of
Basement:
(1,142) sq. ft.
lot size and by the building
height limit of 35 feet.
TOTAL:
3,798 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Minimum Proposed
Minimum Requirement
For all structures
Front:
0 ft.
No Minimum: There are no
Rear:.
0 —. 5 ft. (varies)
setback requirements in the
North Side: "
0 ft.
CH -1 Zoning District.
South Side:
0 - 5 ft. (varies)
.Height in feet
I. Lowest elevation pt.
I. 476.0
II. Highest elevation pt.
II. 505.9
III. Average
III. 496.9
IV. Topmost pt. of structure
IV. 515.7
Maximum Allowable:
V. Maximum height
V. 30.0
35 ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The `applicants are, proposing to construct a new commercial building on a vacant parcel located to the
south of the historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse (barn). The building will consist of
_. - - -. -- - - - -- approximately- 3,798_square' feet of commercial retail and office space on three levels with a basement. _ - The structure has been designed to be .compatible with
the recently renovated historic barn as well as
the colors and materials of the barn. The uses of the tenant spaces within the proposed building have
not been established, however professional office and personal service businesses are permitted on the
lower floors and could be approved with a Conditional Use Permit on the street level. Retail could be
located on any level and restaurants would need a Use Permit to- locate on any level.
r
C
L]
History
0 The applicant initially filed the applications On January 25, 2007. The proposal was reviewed by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at their meeting of March 13, 2007. At that meeting the HPC
determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
additions to historic structures and voted to recommend approval of the project. Since that meeting, the
project has been reduced in scope and size by approximately 1,800 square feet. The new stricture is
now a separate building, no longer an addition to the barn. However, both of these changes are
consistent with what the HPC reviewed and staff has not required further HPC approval.
The Planning Commission has reviewed various plans at their Study Session meetings of May 22,
2007, July 11, 2007, and August 22, 2007. At each of the last two meetings the applicant presented
revised plans and received feedback and further direction from the Commission. The Commission had
initial concerns that the structure was too large and lacked adequate architectural articulation. The
architect has made several changes to the plans including; reducing the overall square footage,
recessing portions of the structure and creating both recessed balconies and overhanging balconies,
enlarging the windows, and adding an entry door into the basement level adjacent to the parking lot on
Fourth Street.
Correspondence and Neighbor Review
Staff has sent notices to all property owners within 500 feet of the site for each of the three Study
Sessions. Staff has received one letter of concern from the owner of the Inn at Saratoga. The letter is
AOL ttached to this report for reference. The primary concerns are of building mass and visual impacts to
this area of the Village, and lack of available parking. The applicant did obtain many letters from
neighboring and surrounding property owners and businesses on Big Basin Way in support of the
project. These have been attached for reference.
Parking and Circulation
The site is located in the Village Parking District # 3, although Parking District # 1 surrounds it on
three sides. The City of Saratoga has recently adopted a zoning text amendment, which relaxes all
parking requirements in the Village. This ordinance was adopted on January 18, 2006, and became
effective February 18, 2006. The new ordinance specifies that no off - street parking shall be required
for applications that are deemed complete between March 1, 2006, and February 28, 2009. This
amendment identifies a parking surplus that would accommodate either construction of 41,850 square
feet of new floor area or intensification of uses in the equivalent amount. So far five businesses and
new buildings have taken advantage of the relaxed parking requirements, which have utilized a total of
8,594 square feet of floor area, thus leaving 33,256 square feet remaining. With approval of this
project the remaining available square footage would be 27,824 square feet.
If this project were required to provide parking it is estimated that approximately 20 spaces would
need to be provided (purchased within the parking district) based on a mix of retail, office and storage —
uses. If restaurant uses were proposed the required parking spaces would be more.
The applicants have proposed making some improvements to the parking area located to the south of
the barn adjacent to Third Street. This would include re- striping the three parking spaces at an
approximately 45- degree angle and providing a small landscape buffer adjacent to the barn and new
I
't
s:
building. Since the renovation of the barn is near completion, Staff has included a condition within the
attached Resolution that the proposed landscaping and re- striping be completed prior to issuance of
building permits for the new structure.
Trash' Enclosures
Two existing trash containers are located at the ground level adjacent to the site on City owned
property.. These are enclosed within two concrete block structures with wood slatted gates. The
applicants are proposing to change the gates to a solid wood appearance.
Geotechnical/Grading
The project has obtained a geotechnical clearance with conditions that have been added in the
Resolution for this project. The project proposes a total cut of 338.5 cubic yards, which includes
excavation of the: basement. An additional 117 cubic yards of cut has already been removed from. the
site to accommodate a retaining wall that was required to shore up the area around the existing trash
enclosures.
Arborist Review
The City Arborist has not reviewed this application. There is one tree located in the far southwesterly
corner of the site that will be retained.
Landscaping
Proposed landscaping consists of trailing flowers located behind the proposed retaining wall, potted
annuals on the patio and small shrubs and flowering plants near the front entrance facing Parking
District # 3 off.of Third Street.
Green Building Techniques
The applicant. proposing green building materials such as; insulated concrete with byproduct fly ash
(less waste), engineered, wood and/or Forestry Certified wood (sustainibly managed and harvested),
zero- VOC.paint,- low -VOC adhesive, energy efficient windows and insulation. The project will be cut
into the hillside so that the lower floors can take advantage of passive insulation and the building is
somewhat oriented in the east -west direction to take advantage of solar exposure. The applicant will
have a Green Building Techniques list available at the Public Hearing.
VILLAGE PLAN AND VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES CONFORNUTY
The City adopted the Saratoga Village (Specific) Plan in 1988 to encourage fiuture development in the
Village while protecting its historical significance. The following are objectives stated in that plan that
are pertinent to this project:
• Encourage new buildings and renovations that are harmonious with adjacent buildings
and with. the existing Village design context as a whole, and as examples of design
excellence.
r�
• Adhere to the Village character of visual simplicity, depend on materials and the
placement and articulation of basic architectural elements (e.g. windows and doors, open
spaces, rooflines, etc.) for their visual interest rather than on surface ornamentation or the
arbitrary imposition of stylistic elements.
• One material, color and texture should be used for the whole fagade and for any side
walls that will permanently or for any extended period be seen from public rights -of -way
or from neighboring properties, excepting that different materials, colors and textures
may be used for architectural details.
• Where possible, the materials and colors of the new buildings should be compatible with
adjacent existing buildings.
Where possible, the forms of the new building (e.g., roof lines, elevation and rhythm or
windows, etc.) should be compatible with adjacent existing buildings.
In response to the objectives of Village (Specific) Plan, the City adopted the Village Design
Guidelines in 1991 to assist the City in carrying out many of the policies and goals of the Village
(Specific) Plan. The following objectives of the Village Design Guidelines are pertinent to this
proj ect.
• To encourage new construction and renovation of existing buildings that is compatible
with adjacent buildings with the Village design context as a whole, and as examples of
design excellence.
• Acceptable materials and textures include: horizontal wood siding, smooth finish brick,
stucco with a light finish and painted surface, transparent glass, natural river rock or
stone, anodized metal, treated with an attractive finish, tile with a matte finish, concrete
textured or painted to reduce the massive appearance, architectural details in wood or
caste plaster, wood window frames and moldings, painted steel sash or anodized metal.
Staff finds that this proposal is consistent with the objectives stated above in that: the proposed design
is harmonious with adjacent buildings and the Village as a whole, the bulk and massing of the building
is consistent with that of neighboring buildings and some of the larger buildings found in the Village.
The proposed materials and colors, as well as window and door spacing are consistent with the
objectives of harmony, compatibility, visual simplicity and architectural interest without being overly
stylistic. The wide shiplap siding, wood trim and double hung windows are compatible with materials
found on other historic structures in the vicinity and on buildings throughout the Village. The building
takes advantage of windows and recessed balconies to provide visual breaks rather than exterior
embellishments.
GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS
Approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan Goals and
Policies as discussed below:
• Land Use Policy LU 7.1: The City shall_ consider the economic impacts of all land use
decisions on the City.
0 The project proposes to locate a commercial building on the site with approximately 1,266 square feet
f retail on the street level and approximately 2,532 square feet of other areas that could be used for
office, personal services or retail. The mix of retail and office use will help the Village by bringing in
more people to work, shop and dine. The project will further offer an economic benefit by creating
commercial space on a vacant parcel.
• Area Plan J - The Village - Guideline # 7: Encourage development of types of
establishments with structures designed to maintain a `country' atmosphere. All new
structures in the Village should be designed to promote an historic area of the City.
The architectural style of the proposed building is in keeping with the historic nature of the Village
and is designed to be compatible with the Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse as well as the more
contemporary Inn at Saratoga. The metal roof, wood siding and wood trim windows lend to this
historic feel.
DESIGN REVIEW
The proposed structure is designed to be architecturally similar in style to the existing barn, which was
built as a warehouse for the Cloud -Smith General Store building, now occupied by Harmony Day spa and
Bella Saratoga restaurant. The proposed structure is designed with wide shiplap siding; enclosed
balconies with wood railings, a corrugated metal roof, wood trim double hung windows, glass doors and
stone veneer on the proposed retaining wall.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS FOR MULTI - FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL
STRUCTURES
The proposed project supports the findings for Design Review approval subject to City Code 15-
46.040:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural
features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, Such features include height,
elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. This proposal is only for one
commercial building, however the development is designed to minimize interference with
views and privacy to adjacent properties. The building is stepped down the hillside from
the adjacent barn and is also at a lower elevation than the Inn and other buildings in the
vicinity. The structure will not be visible from Big Basin Way because it is located
behind the Bella. Saratoga and Harmony Spa building. It will also have limited visibility
from Fourth Street, but will be- partially visible from the Third Street parking area in
District #3 and also from the. lower. Inn parking lot adjacent to Saratoga Creek and the
District #1 parking lot. The project proposes maintaining some existing vegetation in the
far south corner, of the lot as well as adding new landscaping in small areas around the
structure. The.structure is designed in a similar style and with similar materials as other
historic structures in the Village, especially resembling the Sam Cloud Hay and Feed
Warehouse, with horizontal shiplap siding, similar colors and metal roof. Therefore, this
finding can be made in the affirmative.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have
a common. or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in
appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Future signage will be required
to.. meet the City sign code requirements and Village Design Guidelines. Therefore, this
.finding can be in the affirmative.
_'
t
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be
preserved, it shall make use of water - conserving plants, materials and irrigation
systems to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent feasible it shall be
clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly
spaced. There is very little existing landscaping on the property. The applicants intend to
retain the one tree located at the southerly corner of the site. New landscaping will be
planted in areas at the front, adjacent to the parking lot, at the back adjacent to the
retaining wall and the side around the proposed patio. Therefore, this finding can be made
in the affirmative.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be
non - reflective. The proposed colors and materials will blend with the natural landscape
and be non - reflective. Further, the use of colors, materials and detailing add interest and
articulation to the buildings. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials such as
composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall
be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The proposed structures will
use a metal roof similar to the roof on the existing historic barn next door. No
mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof. Therefore, this finding can be made in the
affirmative.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with
other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project will be compatible with
other developments in the Village. The area is mostly comprised of two and three -story
structures of approximately the same height and bulk. While the architectural styles vary
this proposal will be compatible. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative.
VARIANCE
Pursuant to City Code 15- 19.020 (d), the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30- percent
slope and no structure shall be built upon a slope that exceeds forty- percent natural slope at any
location under the structure between two five -foot contour lines. The average site slope of the property
is 48- percent, therefore, the Variance application is necessary to allow any structure to be built on this
parcel.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The proposed project is supported by the findings for Variance approval subject to City Code 15-
70.060:
-(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Due to the steep topography of the site,
construction of any structure would not be possible without the granting of a Variance
and the property is a legal lot of record. Staff has determined that the structure is
consistent with all of the Design Review findings and that denying, the development due
to slope would be an .undue hardship and deprive the applicant privileges enjoyed by
other property owners and businesses in the vicinity. Therefore, this finding can be made
in the affirmative.
(b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district. Granting of this Variance request would not be a grant of special
privilege in that many of the buildings in this part of the Village would have been
developed on properties with a similar slope at a time that predates City Zoning Code
regulations. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative.
(e) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting
of this Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The building will be
required to meet the current California Building Code Standards and has received a
Geotechnical Clearance conditions that will be met. Therefore, this finding can be made
in the affirmative.
CONCLUSION .
Staff finds that all of the Design Review and Variance findings can be made in the affirmative and the
proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that this Application is not subject to CEQA review
and approve -the request for Design Review and Variance approval by adopting the attached
Resolutions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval - Design Review & Variance
2. Statement of Variance findings submitted by the Applicant dated August 29t', 2007
3. Minutes from Heritage Preservation Commission meeting of March 13, 2007
4. Correspondence from Mr. Kwan Lee, Proprietor of the Inn at Saratoga dated May 22, 2007
5. Neighbor Notification forms
6. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels
T Plans, Exhibit "A"
•
A ttachment 1
•
RESOLUTION NO. .
Application No. 07 -233
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Sam Cloud Barn L.P.; 20640 Third Street
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review approval to construct a commercial building located at
20640 Third Street, which is located in the CH -1 (Commercial- Historic) zoning district;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Variance approval to construct a commercial building located at 20640
Third Street, on a slope greater than 30 %; and -
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence; and
WHEREAS, the project, which includes construction of a 3,798 sq. ft. three -story
commercial building (with a 1,142 sq. ft. basement) located in an urbanized area, is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 (c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the Guidelines
for the Implementation of CEQA. This exemption allows for new structures up to 10,000
square feet in urban areas; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to meet the
following criteria for Commercial Structure Design Review specified in Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15- 46.040:
(a) Where more than one, building or structure will be constructed, the
architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, Such
features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances.
This proposal is only for one commercial building, however the development is
designed to minimize interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties.
The building is stepped down the hillside from the adjacent barn and is also at a
lower elevation than the Inn,and other buildings in the vicinity. The stricture will
not be visible from Big Basin Way because it is located behind the Bella Saratoga
and Harmony Spa building. It will also have limited visibility from Fourth Street,
but will be partially visible from the Third Street parking area in District #3 and
cT
also from the lower Inn parking lot adjacent to Saratoga Creek and the District #1
parking lot. The project proposes maintaining some existing vegetation in the far
south corner of the lot as well as adding new landscaping in small areas around
the - structure. The structure""is de §igned in a similar - style.- -aind with- similar --
materials as other historic structures in the Village, especially resembling the Sam
Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse, with horizontal shiplap siding, similar colors
and metal roof Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative.
(b) -Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs
shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be
i harmonious in appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Future
signage will be required to meet the City sign code requirements and Village
Design Guidelines. Therefore, this finding can be in the affirmative.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to
be preserved; it shall make use of water - conserving plants, materials and
irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent
feasible it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being
placed in rows or regularly spaced. There is very little existing landscaping on
the property. The applicants intend to retain the one tree located at the southerly
corner of the site. New landscaping will be planted in areas at the front, adjacent
to the parking lot, at the back adjacent to the retaining wall and the side around
the proposed patio. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and
be non - reflective. The proposed colors and materials will blend with the natural
landscape and be non - reflective. Further, the use of colors, materials and detailing
add interest and articulation to the buildings. Therefore, staff is able to make this
finding in the affirmative
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials
such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical
equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The
proposed colors and materials will blend with the natural landscape and be non -
reflective. Further, the use of colors, materials and detailing add interest and
articulation to the buildings. Therefore, this finding can be made in the
affirmative.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and
design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project will be
compatible with other developments in the Village. The area is mostly comprised
of two and three -story structures of approximately the same height and bulk.
While the architectural styles vary this proposal will be compatible. Therefore,
this finding can be made in the affirmative.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the
Area J- Village Goals:
Area Plan J - The Pillage - Guideline # 7. Encourage development of types of
establishments with structures designated to maintain a `country' atmosphere. All
new structures in the Village should be designed to promote an historic area of the
City. The architectural style of the proposed building is in keeping with the historic
nature of the Village and is designed to be compatible with the Sam Cloud Hay and
Feed Warehouse as well as the more modern Inn at Saratoga. The metal roof, wood
siding and wood trim windows lend to this historic feel.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the
Land Use Policy of the General Plan:
Land Use Policy LU 7.1 - The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land
use decisions on the City. The project proposes to locate a new retail and office
building on the site with approximately 1,266 square feet of retail on the street level
and approximately 2,532 square feet of other areas that could be used for office or
retail/services. The mix of retail and office use will help the City by bringing more
people into the Village to work and shop. The project will further offer an economic
benefit by creating a retail space on a vacant parcel.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Variance approval, in accordance with the following findings of Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15- 70.060:
(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Due to
the steep topography of the site, construction of any structure would not be
possible without the granting of a Variance and the property is a legal lot of
record. Staff has determined that the structure is consistent with all of the Design
Review findings and that denying the development due to slope would be an
undue hardship and deprive the applicant privileges enjoyed by other property
owners and businesses'in the vicinity. Therefore, this finding can be made in the
affirmative.
(b) That -the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district. Granting of this Variance request would not be a grant of
special privilege in that many of the buildings in this part of the Village would
have been developed on properties with a similar slope at a time that predates City
Zoning Code regulations. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative.
(c) That -the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. The granting of this Variance would not be detrimental to the public
health, -safely or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity. The building will be required to meet the current California Building
Code Standards and has received a Geotechnical Clearance conditions that will be
met. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings,
plans and other. exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07-
233 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT_
1. 'The development shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit A"
(incorporated by reference, date stamped September 5th, 2007) and in compliance
with the conditions state in this Resolution. Any proposed changes - including but
not limited to fagade design and materials — to the approved plans shall be
submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes.
F
Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
0 2. Prior to Zone Clearance, the Plans, "Exhibit A" shall be modified to show the
retaining wall located on City Property (within Parking District #1 adjacent to the
westerly side of the subject property) relocated onto the subject property line.
3. Any proposed changes- including but not limited to fagade design and materials —
to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans
highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the
approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are
not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters,
driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the
Planning Commission
4. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials
Board.
5. Prior to Final Building Permit the retaining wall shall be rebuilt in accordance
with City Standards as specified by the Public Works Department.
6. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division.
7. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of
the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use
pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality
issues.
8. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to
foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans."
9. A stormwater 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.
10. Post construction water quality mitigation shall be implemented in accordance
with measures found in the "Start at the Source — Design Guidance Manual for
Stormwater Quality Protection" prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association.
11. Site drainage shall be dispersed across landscape or vegetated area and not
allowed to discharge as concentrated flow to Saratoga Creek.
12. The design of the dissipater and storm water detention pipe as shown on sheet C -1
shall follow the guidelines found in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program's C.3 Stormwater Handbook.
13. Prior to issuance of Final Building Permit the applicant/owner shall submit
language for the proposed access easement with the Sam Cloud Hay and Feed
I
Warehouse for approval by the City Attorney and Community Development
Director. Once the language is accepted this easement shall be recorded and
documentation of evidence of this recording shall be submitted to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
14. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the new structure the applicant /owner
shall re -stripe and install landscaping along the three parking spaces adjacent to
the Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse in Parking District # 3, as shown on
sheet L -1 of the plans, Exhibit "A ".
15. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the
owner /applicant/tenant shall submit to and obtain approval from the Community
Development Department for a business license.
16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred by the -City or held to be the liability of City in
connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any
State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the
applicant's project.
PUBLIC WORKS
17. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required
for all improvements in any portion of the public right -of -way or of a public
easement.
18. The owner /applicant is responsible for all damages to curb /gutter, parking lot,
and the public street as a result of project construction. The Public Works
Engineer will determine if any repair is -required prior to final occupancy
approval.
19. Any existing sanitary sewer lateral proposed to be reused must be televised by
West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the City before reuse.
20. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the final construction plans for the barn expansion/supplemental
addition (i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for building foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that
plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants'
recommendations. The results of the- plan review(s) shall be summarized by
the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits.
21. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve
all geotechnical aspects of project construction. The inspections shall include,
- ` - but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation- and grading, site surface- and- - - - -
subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill placement, and
foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The
consultant shall specifically inspect construction of temporary shoring wails to
confirm adequate geotechnical stability of temporary slope support measures.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall
Y
•
be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City Engineer for review prior to final (as- built) Project Approval.
22. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City
Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
23. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga
harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope
instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
24. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire
Department.
CITY ATTORNEY
25. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its
employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively "City ")
from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees
incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the
City's action with respect to the applicant's project or contesting any action or
inaction in the City's processing and/or approval of the subject application.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date on
which this Use Permit became effective or approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the
Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the
date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, this 26th day of September 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Joyce Hlava, Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
John F. Livingstone, A1CP, Secretary, Planning Commission
This permit is hereby.,accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall
have no force or effect 'unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and
Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the
approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms
and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning
Commission.
Applicant Date
Property Owner Date
•
Attachment, 2
•
1
August 29, 2007
Mr. John Livingstone
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga CA. 95070 -5199-
Re: 20640 3rd Street Saratoga, APN #503 -24 -073
Dear John:
The following will serve to substantiate the variance filed for the property referenced
above and the required findings associated with the granting of a slope variance for the
-referenced property:
15 -70.60
(a) "That because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or. surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district."
property The subject ro erty located at 20640 3rd Street, Saratoga, also known as APN # 503 -24-
. subject
.073 is known to be the last parcel of land in the CH -1 zoning district of the Saratoga
Village. It is a- land parcel contiguous to the historical building known as the Sam Cloud
Barn (APN- #506 -24 -071). This barn was built circa 1880 and currently, as the owners of
the Sam Cloud -Barn, we are in the process of remodeling and restoring the original
structure.
The City of Saratoga has reviewed the geology of the subject property and has permitted
an extensive excavation upon the site. Other improvements on the subject property
consist of a concrete sidewalk and wood staircase on the northwest side of the property, a
concrete block wall and a sewer cleanout system, which borders on the lower parking lot,
also known as downtown parking district #1.
The subject property was created through a circa 1988 subdivision which formed
downtown parking district #3. Lot 503 -24 -073 was created as a buildable lot and has
been issued a current certificate of compliance and conformity by the Santa Clara
County..
- =Additionally; altproperties in the -CH =1 district with similar site slopes have been -
approved for development and expansion including the "Blue Rock Shoot" property in
2006 and the Inn at Saratoga in 2003(addition). Both of these properties are similar in
slope, or exceed the existing slope of the property. Additionally, all buildings on the
0 •
North side of Big Basin Way between 3rd and 4`h street are built on the same slope as the
subject property. The key point here is that since all other parcel owners in the CH -1
district have been given the right to build on their respective properties, then the subject
property should also be entitled to be built on as a matter of equity and fairness. The
ordinance clearly states that special circumstances, which would allow for a variance can
relate to topography, among other things, and that very fact is at issue with this
application.
(b) "That the granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district."
Once again, the subject property was created through a circa 1988 subdivision which
formed downtown parking district #3. Lot 503 -24 -073 was created as a buildable lot and
has been issued a certificate of compliance and conformity by the Santa Clara County.
Since this is the last lot in this area of the village, a slope variance will not affect other
properties in the vicinity, as they are all improved with existing structures.
Additionally, properties in the CH -1 district with similar site slopes have been approved
for development and expansion including the "Blue Rock Shoot" property on Big Basin
Way (2. doors away from the subject property) and the Inn at Saratoga (next door). Both
of these properties are similar in slope, or exceed the existing slope of ther�propert y.
Additionally, all buildings on the North. side of Big Basin Way between 3 and 4 street
are built on essentially the same slope as the subject property. The subject property
should therefore also be entitled to be developed with a structure.
Section 14- 35.020 also allows for an exception to be made for "special circumstances
or conditions affecting the property, or the exception is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant ... "Since
this lot is certified for compliance, it follows that the substantial property rights of the
applicant would precipitate the entitlement to build a structure upon it.
(c) "That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health
safely or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity."
The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare
because the proposed development will eliminate a blighted elbow of the village where
drug usage, garbage dumping and malicious mischief have been going on for many years
in the hidden, overgrown weeds, trees and foliage located on the subject site.
Additionally; the existing - shoring wall which is now stabilizing a public parking lot- and 2
public trash enclosures can be extended around the subject property and will serve to
structurally support a public parking lot and at least 2 large garbage dumpster enclosure.
a
•
C7
Attachment 3
0 •
City of Saratoga
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:30 a.m.
Place: I Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Type: Regular Meeting Please meet in the parking lot in front of the
Warner Hutton House at 8:30 a.m. and Staff will provide
transportation. to the site visit under New Business and return to
Warner Hutton House by 9:00 a.m.
1. Routine Organization
A. Roll Call
PRESENT. Commissioners Gomersall, Louden, Marra, McCarty Chair
Koepernik and Vice Chair Wyman.
ABSENT. Commissioner Kellond.
GUESTS: Ms. Kathleen Casey - Coakley, Mr. Chris Kline, Mr. Warren Heid,
Mr. Bob Hausmann, Mr. Lon Saavedra, Councilmember Waltonsmith.
STAFF PRESENT: Planners Heather Bradley, Chris Riordan, and Shweta
Bhatt..
B. Approval of minutes from February 13, 2007 meeting — Approved 6 -0.
C.. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the
agenda was posted on March 08, 2007 — Staff announced this item.
D. Oral & Written Communication -Any member of the public may address the
Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to
three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may
choose to place the topic on a .future agenda.
• Ms. Kathleen Casey- Coakley encouraged the HPC to file an appeal to
-City. Council in response to the Planning Commission's decision for
14451 Oak Place.
• A Commissioner commented that Historic Incentives should be put on
the agenda for the next meeting.
E. Oral Communications — Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff —
Instruction to- staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. —
None.
2. Old Business
A. Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques — Item discussed.
Commissioner Koepernik- commented that the City Council accepted the
$2,000 donation from the Saratoga Lions Club for the plaques at its February
07, 2007 meeting and added that the Council would like to formally grant the
� ]l
•
plaques for the City owned properties. Commissioner Louden passed around
bids for the plaques. The Commission passed a motion to accept bids as
proposed by a 6 -0 vote.
B. Discuss Trees /Landscaping Plan at Historic Park — Item discussed.
Commissioner Koepernik commented that the Council decided to approve
removal of redwood trees instead of oak trees at their February 07, 2007
meeting.
C. Heritage Orchard Signage — This item will be continued to next meeting.
3. New Business
A. 8:30 am Site Visit — 20230 La Paloma Avenue - Decide if property is of
historic significance — Site visit completed (property owner present during site
visit and during deliberation). The property owner (Mr. Chris Kline) made a
short presentation. The Commissioners commented that the addition
appeared worthwhile and compatible to the existing home and that the
property should be added to the Historic Resources Inventory.. The motion to:
(1) add the property to the inventory based on the information provided by the
owner and with criteria "c" and "e" and .(2) approve the proposal (as it pertains
to historic significance) was passed by a 6 -0 vote.
B. 8:45 am Site Visit — 20640 Third Street — Review and discuss proposed
addition to Sam Cloud Barn and provide either feedback or a decision on the
project — Site visit completed with Mr. Warren Heid, Mr. Bob Hausmann, and
Mr. Craig Aubrey present. Planner Bradley commented that staff has not
provided design review comments to the applicant yet. Typically a project is
not scheduled for HPC until it is complete before but the applicant has
requested to proceed. Mr. Warren Heid made a short presentation and
passed around an alternative to the proposed project that he prepared before
the meeting. The alternative design proposed a break in the rooflines. He
stated that in his opinion, both options met the Secretary of Interior standards.
Commissioner Marra asked if the applicant had considered color for the
original structure and the addition. Mr. Hausmann responded that the
proposed colors for both parts of the building are the same: a yellowish color.
Councilmember Wa/tonsmith commented that she wants to ensure the older
part of the building is not prevented from being on a national or state list. Mr.
Warren Heid said there is a six inch separation between the two foundations
and a glass separation between the original and proposed structures.
Commissioner Koepernik commented that the applicant should not sandblast
original wood material. Commissioner Gomersall asked why two separate
buildings cannot be constructed. Mr. Warren Heid responded that the
Building -Code requires two exits, one- at-the rear-of the structure._ The motion
to approve the "alternative design" (with a modification such that the entry
door between the old structure and proposed building would be flush with the
two facades) and determine that the proposal meets the Secretary of Interior
standards was passed by a 5 -1 vote ( Gomersall).
031307 HPC Minutes
C. Discuss -Peck Saratoga History Project — Item discussed. Councilmember
Wa/tonsmith made a short presentation and stated that the members of the
committee for the project were seeking volunteers to help with the project and
space to store archival materials. A list of non - profits and groups in Saratoga
would also be helpful.
D. Discuss Hakone Gardens — Item dicussed. Mr. Lon Saavedra made a
presentation regarding items that Hakone would like to accomplish (such as
apply to be one of the "Dozen Distinct Destinations," apply for landmark
status, and complete the Hakone Gardens Master Plan).
4. Pending Items
A. Historic Resources Inventory
B. McWilliams House Renovation
C. National Register Applications
D.- Adopt a Tree Program for the Heritage Orchard
E. Update Heritage Ordinance
F. Review Oak Street as a Heritage Lane
G. Review additional content for Heritage Resources webpage
H. Historic Preservation Data Base
I. Review list of properties with structures 50 years and over in age
5. , Adjournment
Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, April 10, 2007, Warner Hutton House, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue.
031307 HPC Minutes
•
•
r
•
IF,
L-1
Attachment 4
R U I N AT SA TOGA
D C CF�d�
May 22, 2007 JUN 0 5 2007
D
CITY OF SARATOGA
Ms. Heather Bradley, Contract Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Building Permit' Application #07 -233
20640 3rd Street
Saratoga, CA 95070
APN 503-24-071/073
Dear Ms. Bradley:
We would like to ask you to review this letter and also forward a copy of this letter to the
chairperson and the members of the Saratoga Planning Commission and the Director of the
Community Development Department.
We understand that the new proposed building site is very steeply sloped, has a triangular
shape, and is 'bordered with a parking lot and a new historic building (Sam Cloud Hay and
Feed Warehouse). To accommodate this new building, a sloped hill has to be removed
and a" retaining wall has to be built.
We oppose building a new office building not only because of the awkward location and
odd- shaped site, but also because it has an importantly negative impact on its neighbors
'and on the public in general as described below.
1. The new proposed building will block the view of the new historic building and defeats
the purpose of the preservation of the historic features of the Sam Cloud Hay and Feed
Warehouse currently under reconstruction."
2. The face of the new historic building is aligned with that of The Inn at Saratoga. When we
look at the two buildings (The Inn and the historic building) from the front parking lot, we see
r d F O! F c T R F C-
T O G 7 r l? R K " "t'-A.- c= C 7 i'
uniformity and a nice symmetry between the two buildings. If the new building is built, it will
destroy these pleasing features and arouse a feeling of congestion like we feel when we
visit a crowded big city.
3. The new proposed building will worsen the existing shortage of public parking spaces in
the downtown. The combined size of the two buildings (5000 sq. ft. for the historic building
and 5200 sq. ft. for the new proposed building) is approximately 10,200 sq. ft. This office
complex would have the largest office space in the downtown. Each office worker needs 75
to 150 sq. ft. of office space. At most they may need 150 sq. ft. of space. If we assume
each person takes 100 sq. ft. of space on average, then there will be 102 people in these
two buildings at any one time. Assuming further that it may not have such a large number of
people most of the time, and considering 75% occupancy (102 x 0.75 = 76 people), then
we need 76 additional parking spaces for these two buiidings. This figure does not even
make allowance for client and customer parking for visitors to such offices.
At present there are only 33 public parking spaces within 100 yards of these buildings
except for the public parking spaces on 3rd Street, which are always fully occupied by
apartment tenants, restaurant employees, and merchants, and are not available to office
workers in the new buildings. People going to Wildwood Park make use of the 33 public
parking spaces. A parking lot with 17 parking spaces out of the 33 parking spaces is
located adjacent to the two new buildings. People using these parking spaces must go
through The Inn's parking lot to get out. They tend to park their cars in The Inn's parking lot if
the 17 parking spaces are full. It is very difficult to prevent their parking in The Inn's parking
lot. The Inn must have parking spaces available for its guests at all times.
If a new proposed building is allowed to be built, the impact of such a large increased
demand for parking spaces will be devastating. The public will be deprived of spaces
intended for the use of visitors to the park and patrons of other businesses. Every morning
people coming to work and visitors to the new proposed building will roam around looking
for parking spaces because they want to park near their place of business and try to avoid
parking a few hundred yards away. This will cause a traffic jam and a lot of harmful
commotion. During the years 2000 and 2001 we experienced an extreme shortage of
parking spaces because of booming business and the intrusion of non -hotel guests into our
dedicated parking spaces. We had to use our employees or hire people to patrol our
parking lot. We do not want to repeat such an experience again.
We really dread to think about the consequences of such a parking nightmare. Not allowing
the new building to be built will help eliminate the recurrence of needless parking
0 congestion.
4. The Saratoga downtown does not need additional office space. We saw many signs for
offices for rent and one office building of 8000 sq. ft. empty for more than one year.
We would like to ask the Planning Commission to take into account our concerns and
consider the overall public good when they review the application for the new office
building.
Sincerely,
Kwan M. -Lee
Proprietor
oc: Chairperson, Saratoga Planning Commission
Members, Saratoga Planning Commission
Director, Saratoga Community Development Department
•
y
Z
Attachment 5
0
a]
0
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
PROJECT ADDRESS:
Data• Neighbor,
•
I am pr. poSiltg a project at the abuvE stated address and would like 1v prc�vitle you with
an opportunity to. review the proposal and pruvule cornntents. All of the adjacent
naighhors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this
notice as a courtesy in uclvcrrrc'e 4?f the standard Girti Notice which vrill be sent out prior to
a (leci.sion being inade un the pruiec t.
I ask that you faindiarize yoursclj'with 11ce pre_liari?iary plr7rs f?r 117e project. These plans
are yR13.1..tAVI.?VAR1' fl!NT F and »ray be charigecl cis the j)r( ipr't niovr;s forivard. You nia),
sonars', he City cf.Sarotoga'.s Planning Ddvlsiun �11 any time to review, any changes that
nsav occur.
The City ui' Saratoga asks that this fonin and a reduced set of plans be signed by each
neighbor-to indlgake that they have. had, an oppt»YUnity to review the proposal. Please he
advised that. thr:sc plans acs proliniinary fwd may change. If you have further interest in
the project, you may contact the Citv of Saratoga at 408 -868 -1222 and speak with the
assigned project planner. J
My signature below certifies that T am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed
the; prclinunary proiect plans.
Neighbc
' Date: . i
Signature:
Neighbor Address:
(,� ''r� Neighbor Phone 4: �. Q
If I have any initial concerns with the project i may list thein below. My concerns are. the
following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):
Applicant Name'
Date;-.
Application Number:_ _
C'iry:n1'Smatoga Ptctrtnlrrg L�ep�rt�as?rtr
Revikved 10124106
s
•
•
,y
•
C7
0 •
City ui' Sa ra inga
Neighbor Notification Form
PROJECT ADDRESS:
Dear A"eighbor,
I arrt prgpo.sing a pt•gjeci ai the auu.ve stated address and ivouhl like iv pruvide you with
an opportunity iu rev .,ie w the proposal and provide con - nrents. All of the adjacent
?Wighhors and the neighbors across the street from the properly are being provided this
notice as a courtesy in advance t if the stundard City Notice which will be sent out prior to
(7 r!eei.sion being made un 1he prgjec't.
I ask that ynu fantiliariae yvitrse f'►rilh the preliruinary plans for the project. These plants
erne yXU:.I..T.rW.?1'ARY ONTYand tray be changed «s the project moves fi rivard. You ,nay
contrtet the City cf .301- 0togrz's Planning Division at any time to reviel any changes that
»tav 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 lie
advised that these plans art preliminary and lnay change. Tf you have ibrthcr interest in
the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga. at 409- 868 -1222 and speak with the
assigned project planner.
My sigiiattire below certifies that T am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed
thu preliminary project plans.
Neighbor
Signanire:
OT Aoaress:
ihell
/
�j i
N'eighbor Phonc. 4:
Date;
IF I have any initial concerns with the project T may list them below. TMy concerns are the
following (ploasc attach additional sheets if necessary):
/ J/,i_! % F!�,� cs 'J/ L11,06 7 Yf
Applicant Name, W _ Date;_.
Application Number_.._
ch): of saratoga
Re. k ed 10124106
P. lFornes cYe Pro�erTuresln�igitbor. �roi�irratir.,n:rin�:
Plamrlrtg Deparr menu
j
uraniu \iuc Jr) I IT'i•nM.1J r_T•On lrl1=_OT_1"A
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
PROJECT ADDRESS:
L7cgar Neighbor,
I am proposing a project al the above Stated address and would like to pruvide you with
an opportunity io review the proposal and provide con-Intents. All of the adjacent
r:righhor•.s and the- neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this
notice as a courtesy in advance. of the standard City Nralice which will be. sent out prior to
a decision being niude an the project.
I ask Mai y'��L! farrraliar-tse yoaarself' }i,ilh -they prclinainary plaans for the project. Theseplans
are MX 'T.:T.11IIr'1'ARY OJ'VLY and inct); be changed cis the pr'ojeet moves fdrivard. You rna),
contact the Ci.tu r-,f .Sareatoga's Planning Division at any tinge to reviei -v 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 inlicate shat they have. had a:} ol�l)ortunity to review the proposal. Please be
advised that thr sc plans are prcliminary and may change. Tf you have furthcr interest in
the project, you may contact the Git;i of Saratogt� flt 40R -868 -1222 and speak with the
assigned.prcjecl planner.
My signawre belour ce»ifies that T am aware of the P. TOPOsed project and have reviewed
tht; preliminary project plans.
Neighbor Name: C� L l_ Date:
signature:
Neighbor Address: .
?y
J�G° Phone 4:
T(' 1 have any initial concerns with the project T may list them below. My concerns are the
following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):
Applicant Name: - Date:_ ......
Application Number :_ ....e
C ity nJ'Sarato p" Planning Department
]nI24106
•
• •
Y City of Saratoga
Neighbor Nof- ification Form
PROJECT ADDRESS: 7i � � t o � ,
Dear 1lteighbor.
I am proposing a project at the ubuve stated address and would like to pr-cMde. you with
an opportunity to reti-iew the proposal and pruvide cortrrnents. All of the adjacent
rieighhors and the neighburs across the street from the property are being provided this
notice as a coul'tesy it" advarwe cif the. stunclard City Notice which will be. sent out prior to
l9 IY(j °ision hero`w prude, on, the prOjec t.
I ask that yoti fatuiliarize ),oiirse f }rith tire prelhninary plans for the project. These plans
ure FJ?,F,.T..JII ;'V RY OAT. Yand mqy be changed as the prgjert moves.fbrivard. You rutty,
eonract the City c f Sarotaga'.s Planning Division at any time to reVic^W ,Itry changes that
n16 y occur.
'The City of Saratoga asks that tills fornn '111d a reduced set of plans be signed by each
neighbor to indicate th4 they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be
advised that thusc plans arc prcli.minary and may change. Tf you have further interest in
the project, you may contact the. City cif Saratoga at 408- 868 -1222 and speak with the
assigned project planner.
My signature below certifies that T am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed
the; preliminary }.project plans.
Neighbor Dame: Date:
tiignari�re: ._
Neighbor Address:
Inl V A Y
fi,v� I�Ad A 0", 'Neighbor Phonc #: g!?14
Uy I f44
if 1 have any initial concerns with the project T may list them below. Nay concerns are the
following (pie- ase,attach additional sheets if necessary):
Applicant Name: llate:_
Application Number ;_
city of saratoga Ftcrrtnin, L�ep7r•irnPr :z
Revised 11124106
P.1Fonns 4. proceduresineighbor nottji {:adem.duc
T .T • ram cigar =ra+� _ o i 4zgQ ) gAAR+a Hqn I H iHS Ali AiI9:wOJA ST :20 LO02- 9T- -�LI--4 ,
City of S ratoga
Neighbor Nod ication Foi
PROJECT ADDRESS, (4,4c> 3..
Dear NeigAboi
I am propn.silig a project at . the ctLrcrve ,.stated address and would like tcu provide you with
all oppor•turrily lu re ,iew the proposal and pruvide con- lmerrtu. All of the adjacent
r:righhnr.s uncl the ir_ighl�urs across the street from the p? gpc�rty crre being; provided this
notice as a courtesy h, advance v %the stundard City Notice which will be serrt. out prier to
Task tlr <<t y'ntt fa»tilial•i�e yvzcrselj'With the?prelimirzcxry pinr1s fnr• Me project. These plans
ure: p'R1:'.1 T/IfINARY ONLY and me y be. changed cis the prf* , ntn>>es for�t:ard. You later }�
Colima the City of Saratoga's Planning Di► -isiun tit ally time to review 14ny changes that
may occur.
The City of Saratoga asks that this forlrt ar+d a reduced set of plans be signed by each
neighbor to indicate that they have had an oppol-tunity to review the proposal. Please be
advised that these plans arc- 1:ircli.minary and may change. if you have furtltvr interest in
the project, you may contact the. City of Saratoga at 408- 868-1222 and speak with "the
assigned Eirnject plunmr.
lvly Signature betntiv certifies that T am aware o; the prc�pciscd I�j'oject and have reviewed
th+ prclitluuary project plans.
141cighbm lame: _ � �� t_�j i�� - Date; _ .._ 10-7
-CO, AAAmpA
Neighhor Address:
;ve 7 �r /5
have aliv initial concerns with the project i may list them belo�r: My concerns are the
following (please attach additiomd sheets if necessary):
Caa�flrsz�ti N ge
,It
•
Applicant Name'
Application Number;_
City q fSaratoga Plcrnnlr�� L)epnrtnxpnz _
Revised 10124106
•
City of 'sarat.nga
(Neighbor Notification Form
rCT ADDRESS: Z Po tree + Se, r aA o a
�I,a� 3 �
l)NUr 1tEi};fltbc�r,
I Jarrt pro o.ring ct prgjert at tlzN uvc ?vs? stated address and would like tv provide you with
an opportunity to review tyre proposal and provide Cor)'113i�' IM All Of the adjacent.
neighbors and 1he n_ighbors across the street from the property are being provided this
notice as a cour•wy in advance of the standard Cify Notice which will he sent. out prior to
0 (Yerision he ng Inane' Un the proiec t.
I ask that you fainiliar•ize yourse f'ynith the preliminary plans for the project. These.plans
tire. yR/:,IJ III?1'.I RF ONLY and mJay be c•lrclnued as.the project moles forli.ard. You may
contact the Cite (f ,Sara10912'.s Planning DiJ:isivn ell any time to review any rhanges that
rrtav occur.
The City of Saratoga asks that this fornl and a reduced scat of plans be signed by each
neighbor to indicate thcit they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be
advised that thusc plans are preliminary and may change. Tf you have further interest in
the project, you may contact the. City of Saratoga. at 409- 868 -1222 and speak with the
assigned project planner.
My signature below certifies that T am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed
the preliminary project plans. _
\ 0
Ncighbor Dame: vA X\I C� �ISQ,`�3 Z) Date: �_ ._
sirnnnJre: _
Ne.Thbar Address:
4�o �.�.
Neigbbor Phone tr:
Hl have any initial concerns with the project T may list them below. :vly concerns are the
following (please attach additi +vital sheets if necessary):
Applicant Name:
Application Nun;bcr;_
City nj'saratoga
Reviver( 10124106
F. IFornis & ,proceduresineighbor notJirxttfr,J ?J.tlac
Date:
Planning Depall"Ienl
Ht:)rl I H`4Hq it 1 ), I Tn : IVO.J i nt : RF Z002-9T -AU W
City of'Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
P WECT �/1DDRESS:
A0 Z,
Dear L ear Neighbor,
I arrt 17ropo.sing a prujec•t -cu the uuuve stated address and would like to provide you With
on opportunity to reti4ew the proposal and provide cor�rtrierrts. All of the adjacent
720ighhors and the• neighbors across the street from the properly are b inn provided this
notice as a courtesy iir advance. of the stiindard City Notice which will be sent out prior to
Q decision being rnucle un the pr giect.
I ask thc.r. y'ou fa »�iliarz�e;1o�crsc if I-itli lfzc rrclirrrir�c ».y plans f;r the project. These plans
l'XJ, -'.[ t'Vf1.N' 1RFf�r' ZFand nuoi be changed as th. prgje(r t inones jonmard. }'c� :a rrTU��
colitac-i the City (-!f .Saratoga'.s Alarming Div:isiun ut any rune to review, any changes that
may occur.
The City vl' Sarato €a asks that this form and a reduced sct of plans be signed by each
neighbor to indicate that they have.. had an opportunity to review the proposal, Please l)e
advised that .these plans arc preliminary Find 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 T am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed
thu prelmunary project plans.
Neighbor Name* ` Date: S �/
Signanire:
Neighbor Address:
—5t
iti'eighbor Phonc o Z / cf
If-'I have any initial concerns with the project T may list thcin below. ��y concerns'are the
following (pieasc attach additiotaal Sheets if necessary):
Applicant Name: _ Date:_ .
Application Number:_ ..._
C:ityJ gfsaratoga Ptc7nntrtg U��por tmer:z
Revised 10 124106
1
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Not.iiicatioll Form
PR4drCT ADDRESS: ` 1 4�1 4
A-kP A/ 5o3 Z4- - c73
Dew- Neikhbor"
I rarer pr(.yo.sing a project at the ubc)ve stetted address and would like tp pruvide you with
an opportunity to review the prol)osral and provide cortttrtents. .911 of the adjacent
neighbors and the neighbur across the street from the property (we being provided this
notice as a courtesy in advance vjthe stundard City Notice which will be. seat out prior to
o d,3cision heing oracle un the proeec t.
I ask than you familiarize yourse J' with the prelinnin.ary plats for the project. These plans
tire ytt},.1J,/bIIAY,4RY OAZ F and may be changed us tile: pro, jest moves Jbrward. You n7a),
contact the City cf Sanatoga'.s Planning Dii isiun tit any time to review- any changes that
rnav occur.
The City ui' Saratoga asks that this fOn" ar,d 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 tbusc phuis arc prcli.miilary slid 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 sipature belovv cenifies that T am aware of the prOposed project and have reviewed
the: preliminary project plans.
Neighbor Name:�a U alo Date:
Sie-nature: _
;\'eighhor Address:
N ✓.l - l �S �"�
Phonc #.
t ; rns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the
T(� l have ally tmt�11 Co 1�e p �
following (please attach additioiral sheets if necessary):
Applicant Name. Date:- „ ..
Application Number:_
Ctt} of Saratoga Planning A ?Party} 011
Rekyed 10124106
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
PROJECT ADDRESS:
Dear Neighbor,
I am prn�nsing a praject at the ubuve StatFd crddre.ss and wouhl like to provide. you with
an opportunity io review the proposal and pruvid' con -1121 its. All of the adjacE�nl
rusighhors and' the neighbors across the street from theproperly are being provided this
rsnticg as a courses y in advance vjthe standard City Notice which will be. sent out prior to
<7 decision being made on the project.
I ask that you falndiarize yourscy'trith the preliminary pl <7ns for the Project. These plans
core pflp,JJ,, IIi1IARY ONLY and may be c•{ccinge'd «s the prnjr:ct moves furtti-ard. You lna),
contact the ('itv Of .SaraFr)�:1'.s Planning Division (it ally rime tO rei 'ir:1i, any changes that
rnav occur.
The City W'S . aratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each
neighbor to indicate that thc;y have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be
advised, that the;sc plans are preliminary pray change. Tf you have furthor interest in
the project, you Tnay- contact the Cil'y of Saratoga at 4087868 -1222 and speak with the
assigned Ilroject plannrr.
My s4niature below cenifi that T am aware of the pr��pascd project and have reviewed
the preliminary project plans.
Ncighboz name: _Daft /:` _
J�;i2��anjre:
Ne.jghl?nr Address:
T�
Phonc. !l:
If I have ally initial concerns with the project T may list them below, lti�y concerns are the
following- (please attach additional sheets if necessary):
Applicant Name'
Appliegtion Number :_ „
Ciiy gfsar•atoga
R,,vL,. e , 10124106
Date :_
Planning DePnrtmant
�i
•
•
-7
v
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 5f day of September , 2007, that I
deposited 203 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: 20640 3rd Street
APN: 503 -24 -071, 073
-that on said day there was regular, communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
m
•
•
Denise Kaspar
Advanced Listing Services
SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
500' OWNERSHIP LISTING
PREPARED FOR:
503 -24- 071,073
SAM CLOUD BARN
20640 3RD STREET
SARATOGA CA 95070
503 -23 -025
EVELYN JOHNSTON
PO BOX 53
SARATOGA CA 95071 -0053
503 -23 -053
DAVID S JOHNSTON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20616 BROOKWOOD IN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831
503 -23 -049
NANCY E KESSLER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20626 BROOKWOOD IN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831
503 -24 -008
RLJ LLC .
19510 GLEN UNA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018
503 -24 -016, 018, 026;035, 036, 047,"074, 076 503 -25 503 -24 -020
031 503 -26 -044 517 -09 -078, 083 RUTH LONG
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PO BOX 2095
SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095
503 -24 -027
MITCH & TRACY CUTLER
14480 'OAK PL
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929
503 -24 -046
INN AT SARATOGA INC
OR CURRENT OWNER
20645 4TH ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5867
503 -24 -054
TONY A & JULIET JARRAMI
30 OAK GROVE AVE
LOS GATOS CA 95030 -7021
503 -24 -063
CNY PROPERTIES INC
12504 SARATOGA AVE
" - _SARATOGA CA 95070. 414-5 --
503 -24 -067, 080, 081
JAMES I & ARLENE ROSENFELD
14219 OKANOGAN DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5549
503 -24 -029
GLEN A & BRADFORD YOUNG
1027 LUCOT WAY
CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6408
503 -24 -049, 050
GEORGE PAYNE
15940 ROCHIN TR
LOS GATOS CA 95032
503 -24- 060,61
BLOXHAM FAMILY LP
4010 MOORPARK AVE 111
SAN JOSE CA 95117 -1804
J.
503 -23 -052
- PATRICK BROCKETT
OR CURRENT OWNER
20620 BROOKWOOD LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831
503 -24 -009
ROBERT & SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI
14860 CODY IN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018
503 -24 -023
CHARLES J & ELSBETH STAUSS
PO BOX 1848
LOS GATOS CA 95031 -1848
503 -24 -030
MAHNAZ KHAZEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14519 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6052
503 -24 -051
YVES G & ANNETTE CASABONNE
PO BOX 247
EL VERANO CA 95433 -0247
503 -24 -062
BERNARD A WALLACE
PO BOX 1060
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 -7060
503 -24 -066
503 -24 -064 JOSEPH C &MICHELLE MASEK
SOO G LEE OR CURRENT OWNER
1138 NORVAL WAY 144_67 BIG BASIN WAY
-" SAN -JOSE CA 95- 125 -3434 - - - --
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6093
503 -24- 070,072
.JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA
235 LINDEN ST
SANTA.CRUZ CA 95062 -1019
5031-24-071
SAM CLOUD BARN
85 SARATOGA AVE 100
SANTA CLARA CA 95051 -7300
4
1v
503 -24%73 503 -25 -003 503 -25 -007
JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA SAN JOSE WATER WORKS BIG BASIN LLC
475 W SAN CARLOS ST 10101 ACCOUNTING OR CURRENT OWNER
S - SE CA 95110 -2633 374 W SANTA CLARA ST 14573 BIG BASIN WAY
SAN JOSE CA 95113 -1502 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6801
503 -25- 008,028 503 -25 -021 503 -25 -022
DONALD & C HUNT S C V W D THOMAS E PARKER
14583 BIG BASIN WAY 5750 ALMADEN EXP PO BOX 756
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6804 SAN JOSE CA 95118 CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007 -0756
503 -25 -025 503 -25 -026 503 -25 -032
M J & C PETERSEN SHARON STOKES PLUMED HORSE PROPERTY LLC
45 MONTGOMERY ST 676 CAMELLIA WAY OR CURRENT OWNER
LOS GATOS CA 95030 -5314 LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -3116 14555 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6013
503 -25 -034
503 -25 -035
503 -25 -036
DETLEF ALBRECHT
RONALD VERDOORN
ROGET & JULIA UYS
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20650 4TH ST 1
20650 4TH ST 2
20650 4TH ST 3
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
SARATOGA CA 95070
503 -25 -037
503 -25 -038
503 -26 -018
KLAUS W & YVONNE PACHE
ALLEN W & SAUNDRA HILL
ANN D BARBER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
14471 SPRINGER AVE
20650 4TH ST 4
20650 4TH ST 5
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
503 -63 -001
50306 -043
503 -63 -002
MICHAEL OHEARN
GATEHOUSE CONDOMINUM
ANTHONY YUNG
115 NEW ST
HOMEOWNERS
13731 BEAUMONT AVE
SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 -4324
550 DIVISION ST 1
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4917
CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6906
503 -63 -003
503 -63 -004
503 -63 -005
ANN MCGRATH
SANDRA KAMIAK
DAVID W MANTELLI
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20810 4TH ST 3
20810 4TH ST 4
20812 4TH ST 1
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5844
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5844
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5845
503 -63- 006,112 503 -63 -007 503 -63 -008
KATHRYN B WARREN CATNRINE STEINBORN . MARCELLINE E HOUDE
501 CLIFFSIDE CT 20812 4TH ST 3 OR CURRENT OWNER
RICHMOND CA 94801 -3766 SARATOGA CA 95070 20812 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5845
503 -63 -009 503 -63 -010 503 -63 -011
ELSIE M COCHRANE STANLEY A & MIRIAM DEMARTINIS JAMES J & ANTOINETTE SHUMA
13615 VAQUERO CT 21315 SARATOGA HILLS RD OR CURRENT OWNER
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4804 - SARATOGA CA 95070 -5376 -- 208.12 4TH ST 7 _ __ _ _
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5846
5 012 503 -63 -013 503 -63 -014
IAWAM & DIANA ROGERS ROBERT M JAKOB BRIAN R & ANITALYNN TIGHE
OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 6214 - - 6374 CANDLEWOOD CT
20812 4TH ST 8 SAN JOSE CA 95150 -6214 CUPERTINO CA 95014 -4610
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5846
503 -63 -015
JENG & ZEUU CHYI
15214 BELLECOURT
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6407
503 -63 -018
OLGA N LVOV
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 14
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -016
BRIAN B TIGHE
337 JUNIPERO PLZ
SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 -3603
503 -63 -019
COURTNEY CRASE
20061 CHATEAU DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4309
503 -63 -021
503 -63 -022
ZARECKY FAMILY 2004 TRUST
- GUANGHUI QIAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 19
20812 4TH ST 18 -
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -024
503 -63 =025.
LORRAINE A WHEELER
THOMAS M & PAULA BRENNOCK
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
-20812 .4TH ST 20
20812 4TH ST 23
SARATOGA CA 95070 - 5848,
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -023
MIKE J & LINDA BODEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 21
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -026
RICHARD W SZE
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 22
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
v
503 -63 -017
Fh
MEHRDAD AGHAEBRAHIM�
TIM & LISA ARNETT
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 15
OR CURRENT OWNER
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -020
20812 4TH ST 24
DORSA LIVING TRUST
OR CURRENT OWNER
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
208124TH ST 16
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -031
503 -63 -023
MIKE J & LINDA BODEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 21
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -026
RICHARD W SZE
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 22
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -028
503 -63 -029
503 -63 -027
TIM & LISA ARNETT
THOMAS E & SASCHA LALE
PATRICK & HYUN KUGLER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
18481 MONTPERE WAY
20812 4TH ST 24
20760 4TH ST 11
SARATOGA CA 95070 - 5200-
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
503 -63 -030
503 -63 -031
503 -63 -032
JANET M GRANITO
LAURA BRASH
TUNG Y & EVELYN LEE
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
2182 36TH AVE
20760 4TH ST 12
20760 4TH ST 9
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116 -1645
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
503 -63 -033
503 763 -034
503 -63 -035
VIKTOR SCHRANZ
RONALD A ANDERSON
ROGER B & ROSALEE EGGLESTON
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
12487 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
20760 4TH ST 7
20760 4TH ST 8 -
SARATOGA CA 95070 -3010
SARATOGA CA 95070 -585,1
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
503 -63 -037 -
503 -63 -038
-036.
503 -63 -036.
YOSHIHISA & TOKIKO OGINO
KENNETH J CZWORNIAK
ARDHE N S AJIT
DAN A
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
67 44
20760 4TH ST 3
20760 4TH ST 4
IRVINE CA 92603-0646-
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
503 -63 -039
503 -63 -040
503 -63 -041
J H & LILLIAN SILBERSTEIN
HOSSEIN & AZITA SOBHANI
TOM T CHEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
_. 20760 4TH.STA. ___ -___ _ . ,_- -_
. ___ -_. 20760 4TH_ST.2.. , - _ _ _
20740 4TH ST,11
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
503 -63 -042.
503 -63 -043
503 -63 -044
CYNTHIA A ROESSLER
LESLIE A BINDER
EN ANNE OBORICKEN
STEPHEN &
&.A NE B
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
11870 AVE
20740 4TH ST 9
20740 4TH ST 10
LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94022 -4443
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
v
503 -63 -058
503 -63 -059
Ct
503-6X045
503 -63 -046
503 -63 -047
ANDREY A KHARISOV
DAVID M FRADIN
JAY M STEARNS
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 7
20740 4TH ST 8
20740 4TH ST 5
S )qOGA CA 95070 -5853
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
503 -63 -048
503 -63 -049
503 -63 -050
ROSE S KOOT
SHELBY A LAWSON
VICTOR- & REGINA VELTON
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
4662 BLUE RIDGE DR
20740 4TH ST 6
20740 4TH ST 3
SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4301
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
503 -63 -051.
503 -63 -052
503 -63 -053
ERIC J & KARLA EARNST
AREVIG ANTABLIAN
HIROSHI & TAKAKO FUJIGAMI
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 1
20740 4TH ST 2
20720 4TH ST 17
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5895
503 -63 -054 503 -63 -055 503 -63 -056
JOHN P & CHRISTINA BLACK BAKTYGUL ZHUMABAYEVA KATHLEEN SODERSTROM
OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12908 PIERCE RD
20720 4TH ST 16 20720 4TH ST 15 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3714
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5895 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
503 -63 -057
503 -63 -058
503 -63 -059
JIN W & MIN PARK
SALVADOR BORJA
JANICE R GAUTHIER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 11
20720 4TH ST 12
20720 4TH ST 9
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
50 060
503 -63 -061
503 -63 -062
HSUEH H & HUNG TAI
SHELLIE WILLIAMS
GEORGE E & NANCY KIRK
21315 LUMBERTOWN LN
11951 BROOKRIDGE DR
20270 LA PALOMA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5712
SARATOGA CA 95070 -3463
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960
503 -63- 063,098 503 -63 -064 503 -63 -065
MEHRAN & AVIDEH SAMARDAR KELLY A WALSH DEBRA D JACKSON
6555 LITTLE FALLS DR OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER
SAN JOSE CA 95120 -4050 20720 4TH ST 6 20720 4TH ST 3
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854
503 -63 -066 503 -63 -067 503 -63 -068
RICHARD E & BARBARA STRAW HUNG BANG KATHERINE A FORTE
24179 SUMMIT WOODS DR 3421 SAVANNAH IN 2112 OR CURRENT OWNER
LOS GATOS CA 95033 -9229 WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95691 -5969 20720 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854
503 -63 -069 503 -63 -070 503 -63 -071
LINDA A BARCOMB LESLIE DAVIS NOVELLE KELLY
OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 11 - - - 20700 4TH ST 12 _ 20700 4TH ST 9,_ --- _ - -
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803
ro72 J WEISKAL 503 -63 -073 503 -63- 074,094,096
IE WAYNE C & SU -TI CHANG MICHAEL E & GAYLE ARCHER
0 RRENT OWNER PO BOX 3791 PO BOX 7367
20700 4TH ST 10 LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -0791 INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452 -7367
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803
503 -63 -075
DENNIS C & GRACE LEUNG
DR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 5
3ARATOGA CA 95670 -5843
503 -63 -078
JOAN C GOLDMAN
1624 LYLE DR
SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4810
503 -63 -081
JOHN K &. SUE TANAKA
OR CURRENT OWNER -
20800 4TH ST 11
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -084
ANITA A LEDBETTER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 10
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -087
KYLE & ERIKA SMITH
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 5
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -090
MIN HU
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5897
503 -63 -093
CARL _DIERKES
PO BOX 495
SARATOGA CA 95071 -0495
503 -63 -099
SAI TING
OR CURRENT OWNER
20790 4TH ST 1
SARATOGA CA 95070 -589.6
503 -63 -076
MARK C LIANIDES
OR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 6
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5843
503 -63 -079
GARY G CHIAVETTA
2326 FATJO PL
SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -4016
.503 -63 -082
MABEL KAO
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 12
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -085
DAN D DOUGLASS
OR CURRENT OWNER
208004TH ST 7
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -088
JOSEPH A & MILDRED PLICKA
9267 DOVE CT
GILROY CA 95020 -7771
503 -63 -091
FRED L & DORINE ALVORD
13782 CALLE TACUBA
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4921
503 -63 -095
DENNIS A & LINDA DUMONT
OR CURRENT OWNER
20790 4TH ST 5
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5859
503 -63 -100
DONALD S & KATHLEEN MANZAGOL
12078 SADDLE RD
MONTEREY CA 93940 -6655 .
503 -63 -083
LINDA & RONALD LAWSON
14090 ELVIRA ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5815
503 -63 -086
ROBERT A & YVONNE DUNCANSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 8
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -089
JOSEPH & SUSAN LONG
PO BOX 2095
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095
503 -63 -092
MATHEW T FLENNIKEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5897
503 -63 -097
JENNIFER L PAOLI
16280 LOS SERENOS ROBLES
MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3026
503 -63 -101
ELIE YOUNES
OR CURRENT OWNER
20780 4TH ST 11
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801
503 -63 -104
503 -63 -102 503 -63 -103 ALAN KORGAV
MICHELE S CASTILLO PAUL & EMILY MACWILLIAMSON OR CURRENT OWNER
1636. VILLARITA DR 8507 INDIANWOOD WAY 20780 4TH ST 10
CAMPBELL CA 95008-1520- - ROSEVILLE CA 95747 - - -- --
. SARATOGA CA-95070-5801 -
503 -63 -105 503 -63 -106 503 -63 -107
CHRISTINE M ZAK PETER H RHEE KATHLEEN GALE
OR CURRENT OWNER -1150 SCOTT BLVD D2 - - - - -- 3720 CAPITOLA RD
20780 4TH ST 7 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -4547 SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 -2048
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5849
C7
503 -63 -077
SYLVAN E LEPIANE
15890 SHANNON RD
LOS GATOS CA 95032 -5729
503 -63 -080
ROBERT CHENG
OR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5843
503 -63 -083
LINDA & RONALD LAWSON
14090 ELVIRA ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5815
503 -63 -086
ROBERT A & YVONNE DUNCANSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 8
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -089
JOSEPH & SUSAN LONG
PO BOX 2095
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095
503 -63 -092
MATHEW T FLENNIKEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5897
503 -63 -097
JENNIFER L PAOLI
16280 LOS SERENOS ROBLES
MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3026
503 -63 -101
ELIE YOUNES
OR CURRENT OWNER
20780 4TH ST 11
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801
503 -63 -104
503 -63 -102 503 -63 -103 ALAN KORGAV
MICHELE S CASTILLO PAUL & EMILY MACWILLIAMSON OR CURRENT OWNER
1636. VILLARITA DR 8507 INDIANWOOD WAY 20780 4TH ST 10
CAMPBELL CA 95008-1520- - ROSEVILLE CA 95747 - - -- --
. SARATOGA CA-95070-5801 -
503 -63 -105 503 -63 -106 503 -63 -107
CHRISTINE M ZAK PETER H RHEE KATHLEEN GALE
OR CURRENT OWNER -1150 SCOTT BLVD D2 - - - - -- 3720 CAPITOLA RD
20780 4TH ST 7 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -4547 SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 -2048
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5849
C7
503 -76 -003
503 -76 -004
503 -76 -005
503 -63008
503 -63 -109
503 -63 -110
JAMES R & GAIL CARATOZZOLO
RICHARD F & PATRICIA BADER
NATALIA JIMENEZ
20435 CHALET LN
21120 MICHAELS DR
OR CURRENT OWNER
SA TOGA CA 95070 -4926
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5319
20780 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5849
503 -63 -111
503 -76 -001
503 -76 -002
BERT & VIVIAN BURGER
FENG -YING LIN
EUGENE CHOW
13575 OLD TREE WAY
603 FOREST AVE
1125 HUMBOLDT RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5415
PALO ALTO CA 94301 -2623
BRISBANE CA 94005 -1728
503 -76 -003
503 -76 -004
503 -76 -005
RICHARD J & LAUREL HESS
CATHERINE B HIRSCHMAN
MICHAEL RUBENSTEIN
CATHERINE Y KWEI
STANESTI
OR CURRENT OWNER
1125 HUMBOLDT RD
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
BRISBANE CA 94005 -1728
14591 BIG BASIN WAY
14593 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
503 -76 -006
503 -76 -007
503 -76 -008
OVIDIO & WENDY CALVO
MARK W HIRTH
VADIM D STEPANCHENKO
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
14595 BIG BASIN WAY
14597 BIG BASIN WAY
14599 BIG BASIN WAY H
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
503 -76 -009
517 -09 -011
517 -09 -012
JUNE F CHEN
RICHARD SERMONE
MARTS FORMICO
PO BOX 2963
14620 BIG BASIN WAY
14480 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0963
SARATOGA CA 95070 -2446
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6095
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015
SONOMA CA 95476
517 -09 -025
510-013
517 -09- 014,015
BK OF AMER N T & S A
FRANK BURRELL
JAVID J SALEHIEH
PO BOX 2818
4010 MOORPARK AVE 111
OR CURRENT OWNER
ALPHARETTA GA 30023 -2818
SAN JOSE CA 95117 -1804
14501 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025
517 -09 -026 517 -09 -027 517 -09 -031
RICKY & RUBINA RATRA THANH LUONG GIOVANNA R SCHENINI
1597 TURRIFF WAY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER
SAN JOSE CA 95132 -2351 14515 OAK ST 20576 3RD ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053
517 -09 -032
517 -09 -051
517 -09 -052
RICHARD J & LAUREL HESS
MIHAI T & MIHAE POPESCU-
LEXIE A SMITH
OR CURRENT OWNER
STANESTI
OR CURRENT OWNER
14563 OAK ST
OR CURRENT OWNER
14611 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6027
14613 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015
517 -09 -053
517 -09 -054
517 -09 -055
JACQUELYN GLASS
MAGDALENE LAVINE
JOSEPH A FITZPATRICK
14110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5418
14607 OAK ST
- -
14605..OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 - 601 -5 - -_
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015
51 -056
T & SHARON CHANG
517 -09 -058
517 -09 -059
0 RRENT OWNER
GREG L TYLER
P P & E KIRK
14603 OAK ST
459 TROY LN
PO BOX 2080
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015
SONOMA CA 95476
GILROY CA 95021 -2080
517 -09 -060
PATRICK KIRK
1546 MONTALBAN DR
SAN JOSE CA 95120 -4829
517 -09 -069
POLLACK PROPERTIES II LLC
14500 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6076
517 -09 -061
PETER LA BARBERA
PO BOX 26190
SAN JOSE CA 95159 -6190
517 -09 -071
EUGENE ZAMBETTI
PO BOX 34
SARATOGA CA 95071 -0034
517 -09 -073
517 -09 -074
RAY D REDMON
WALTER MILLER
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
14589 OAK ST
14591 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075
51.7 -09 -086
517 -09 -077
517 -09 -076
DAVID. SHEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
PATRICK MCGILL
JAMES P LALLY
OR CURRENT OWNER
68 -1050 MAUNA LANI POINT D D304
14597 OAK ST
KAMUELA HI 96743 -9781
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075
517 -09 -081
517 -09 -084
TIONG C & CANDICE ONG
WILLIAM & LORRAINE WRIGHT
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20582 3RD ST
20661 5TH ST 1
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803
51.7 -09 -086
517 =09 -087
CHARLES M & DIANE SKINNER
DAVID. SHEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20661 5TH ST 3
20661 5TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803
SARATOGA CA 95070-680'
517 -34 -001
SARATOGA UNION S D. TRUDY GRABLE-
20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE 1238 CORDELIA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4212
517 -34 -003
SAMUEL SCOTT
922 BICKNELL RD
LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2112
517 -34 -004
BRIDGET M ROMAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14545 OAK ST D
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
517 -34 -006
517 -34 -007
GARY D ALFORD
CHUCK B KASPAR
OR CURRENT OWNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
14543 OAK ST
14527 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
� ._, SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
CITY OF SARATOGA
Advanced Listing Services
ATTN: Heather Bradley
P.O. Box 2593
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
Dana Point CA 92624
SARATOGA CA 95070
517 -09 -068
CALI INVESTMENTS
14510 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6090
517 -09 -072
JAMES B SCHREMPP
OR CURRENT OWNER
14587 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075
517 -09 -075
GARY D ALFORD
OR CURRENT OWNER
14593 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075
517 -09 -080
RICHARD & ANGELA JOHNSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20578 3RD ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053
517 -09 -085
DERALD R KENOYER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20661 5TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803
517 -09 -088
MICHAEL J & ALINA MORETTI
530 IRVEN CT
PALO ALTO CA 94306 -3950
517 -34 -002
PRASENJIT BARDHAN
1648 MARIPOSA AVE
PALO ALTO CA 94306 -1026
517 -34 -005
JAMES A ELLS
OR CURRENT OWNER
14537 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
�d
•
517 -34 -008
DAVID J SPLAWN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14525 OAK ST H
SARATOGA -CA 95070 -6074
•. I --
Attachment 7
i
0
•
i
i
I
s
o
m
.:
s
m
-
s
PROPOSED COb41ERCIAL BUILDING
a
t'
206d0 THIRD STREET, 3ARATOGA, CA
WARREN B. HEID AIA AND ASSQCIATES
<
FOR AWBREY DEVELOPMENT CCMPAMY
WARREN B. HEID AIA -E ARCHITECT EMERITUS
w
85 SARATOGA AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
14630 BIG SABIN WAY PHONE 408 -867 -9365
FAX 408 =867
°z
N
Lt
L'
-3750
BARATOGA, CA 95070 -
m
K
I
a �
•
REVISIONS BY -
/ 7
0
i
1
•
is
r
Cg3
d
Y
g�g
4
F[,Y-
•},.
i9
�k
jZ
\•
f V
I i j� klj
If
i
1
r \�
i
85 SARATOGA AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, SARATOGA, CA 95070 FAX E08- 857 -3750
« S
.......... .._..I
-
-
«
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING
WARREN B. HEID AIA AND ASSOCIATES
20660 THIRD STREET, SARATOGA, CA
WARREN B. HEID AIA -E ARCHITECT EMERITUS
ti
p
FOR AWBREY DEVELOPMENT COMPAMY
CA 95051
10630 BIG BASIN WAY PHONE 608 -867 -9365.
w
i
85 SARATOGA AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, SARATOGA, CA 95070 FAX E08- 857 -3750
« S
.......... .._..I
� 0
0
REVISIONS
DJ �mm
W
�` is '�� fk�i� \ \ _ j�r _ a�aH�d
Ln
If
N-1 cam, w
X01.
D raw n
j.b
I
REVISIgNS9Y -i
I � i
j�,Ett t1 A► #ter
J
,;,
Kj:!
A?tb — ;
'
mm
.. C i
dw
aMa
Ill s+ t u € 0 i
ZZ
ggg
ki
y t x'a`3 - u„•a„r`"`.f°fs�.'?'s'� 3a �..rn,� _ ,'i C^:�� 4iir� li.:
.7
�}� rLµN U H
Jbtl - �4;
aE4
to Fc .
M o O ul
I.
fl _
. � .
___B.
,A 101 0
+ /f oe-
§)\
(2\\
.q. §K
;)ee
H §9 { »
tn
\ ) }2(
. mew
Date
V«y
_/ F5 e \
_ ZO,�a
®«' - -}
I
i�
- REY7 §IONS - BY -
1'
I
tt
• '�Il�li� {' ! I I i
i
llT i
.. . .................. ----- ---
M ;
I I I I u ami
dL� I I a v 9 0
1 ! I
_ a__ _____.__ _ _ _.__ - - -_ _...._ -_.__ -- -. __._
-------- - L a aso ii
1_..— H H Z q 1
111
xo
I
l _ -__ jl(
_ Jj 1
t,
5 Y_L OVA tit
! p
.. ! 7—,S� 1 PaO�Z W
j
c
- I
a Q
I 1E.
.7
O w H
W H
Date cl! 1'(Zr7
�r � .. _. _ Drawn '{-t•
Sheet
of;! Shaate, `
xa waaeoox urawon
IP
-3-
I R-IT
-3-
-Z
PROPOSED 00-2,1ERCIAL BUILDING
B '.�7JR'CORMTES�'
J�
20640 THIRD STREET, SARATOGA, CA
FOR AWBREY DEVELOPMENT COMPAMY
-El, _T;q!g..,ZdgRXTUS
7.Q630 BIG " PROW, 498- 067-9365
es SARATOGA AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, CA 95051.
I
'SAMTCGA; CA 915070: VAX 408- 867-3750
T�
A
at
f
----- --- - _--
-Z
PROPOSED 00-2,1ERCIAL BUILDING
B '.�7JR'CORMTES�'
J�
20640 THIRD STREET, SARATOGA, CA
FOR AWBREY DEVELOPMENT COMPAMY
-El, _T;q!g..,ZdgRXTUS
7.Q630 BIG " PROW, 498- 067-9365
es SARATOGA AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, CA 95051.
I
'SAMTCGA; CA 915070: VAX 408- 867-3750
T�
A
----- --- - _--
0
W
F
- Tr,
z
A,
AA'
RHIII
ai
GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES
i. sipse of 28 or greater -w-Y from the foundation shall i.cain
along the entire perimeter for a distance of 5 feet '-s
possible.
2. All roof drains to be discharged onto adequate splash blocks to
"ma"t —isti.g conditions.
3. Install sub -drain around perimter foundation. and retaining
walla accordance With Soils Engineer's recommendations and
under his dirctions
4. Furnish and install yard drain at patio with 3^ drain to daylight
as shown on plan .
5. provide approved drainage from building to grade at Court.
6., Slabs —at adjacent to foundations shall slope away frm
foundations.
7. Final surface drainage gradient shall be planned and built so as
to direct water from fr the building and foundations.
S. The existing average slope of 48 percent at the site has been
accepted and approved by the City of Saratoga when the Barn, now
under construction, was approved.