HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-1986 City Council Agenda packet��1 69 tr
A
PM
AG6IDA BILL NO. ice,
DATE: June 18, 1986
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA ITEM 74
DEPT.: Community Services CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: 21st Annual Fall Parade
Suoimary
The Chamber of Commerce would like to hold their 21st Annual Fall
Parade on September 28, 1986, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The
parade would require the partial closure of Fruitvale Avenue. The
closure of Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale and Highway 9, and
the closure of Highway 9 between Saratoga Avenue and Sixth Street.
Although not stated in the letter, the Chamber requested by phone
that the City Council waive all parade permit fees in support of
the activity.
Fiscal Impacts:
Parade Permit Fees: $250 refundable cleanup deposit
25 non refundable filing fee
Exhibits /Attachments:
Correspondence to City from Chamber dated May 9, 1986.
Recommended Action:
Approve in concept holding the parade on September 28, subject to
the approval of appropriate public safety agencies and also subject
to the obtainment of an Encroachment Permit by the City from Caltrans
for the closure of the State Highway. Consider request to waive
fees.
Council Action
Granted permit; denied fee waiver.
Mr. Todd W. Argow
Community Services. Director
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Todd:
May 9, 1986
1080
SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P.O. BOX 161 20460 SARATOGA -LAS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95071 (408) 867 -0753
The Saratoga Chamber of Commerce will be having their
21ST ANNUAL FALL PARADE, scheduled for September 28, 1986.
As usual, the City will have to apply for an Encroachment
Permit from the State, on our behalf, for that portion of the
parade which is on the State Highway.
The staging of the parade takes place at Redwood School and
we usually have about 100 entries. The entries begin to arrive
around 12:30 P.M. and the parade starts at 2:00 P.M. at
Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues. Fruitvale Avenue is not com-
pletely closed, but we do use the one side of the road for line
up between Allendale and Saratoga Avenue. The parade goes down
Saratoga Avenue....on to Big Basin Way....to 6th Street.
We hire reserve officers from the. Santa Clara County Sheriff's
Department....7 to be exact, who are stationed at all the following
strategic points:
2 Highway 9 /Saratoga Avenue
1 Oak /Highway 9
1 Sixth /Big Basin
1 Saratoga /Herriman
1 Fruitvale /Saratoga
1 Fruitvale /Allendale
We supply a portable toilet, which is located in the Bank of
America Parking Lot. The loud speakers are on Big Basin Way, near
the reviewing stand, which is located across the street from
Kraules Jewelry Shop. The speakers are later transferred down to
Wildwood Park for the awards.
A Certificate of Insurance will be supplied to you by Dan Abbey,
Saratoga Insurance Service, 253 -7720.
•c
Page 2
With regard to the closing of the streets, Saratoga Avenue would
need to be closed between 2:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. between Fruitvale
Avenue and the intersection of Highway 9; and it would be necessary
to close that portion of Big Basin Way extending beyond the inter-
section with Saratoga Avenue to Sixth Street.
We hope this covers all you need to know about the parade. We know
it will be a super parade as always.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
DOROTHY DAY
dd Executive Director
AGENDA BILL NO. F2---
DATE:
DEPT.:
SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval, •SDR -1599, 21166 Haymeadgw Dr.,
John Shanafelt
Summary:
1. SDR -1599 is ready for final approval.
2. All requirements for city and other agencies have been met.
3. All fees have been paid.
4. All improvements were installed under tract 3946.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1599 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission.
3. Location Map
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 1599 -02 attached, approving the building
site of SDR -1599.
Council Action
Approved.
6 -9 -86 (6- 18 -86)
Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA ITEM 1
SECTION 1:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:.
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO.
1599 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF ,TON SHANAFF.T,T
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
the 0.920 Acre lot as shown Lot 41 of Tract 3946 recorded
in Book 197, Pages 30 and 31, and submitted to the City
Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual
buidling site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the day of 19
by the following vote:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Sosatpga
APPROVED ii i
C?A
I I
oaum Oh
Revised: 11/13/85
*Revised: 10/31/85
DATE: 6/5/85
hPN: 503 55 -63
APPLICANT: John J. Shanafelt PROPERTY OWNER: John J. Shanafelt
APPLICATION NO. -6 LOCATION: SDR 1599, A 1094, 21166 Haymeadow Drive
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building and Grading Permits required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration completed 5/22/85
ZONING: R 1 40,000
GENERAL FLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density Single Family
EXISTING LhND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 0.92 acres
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The parcel has moderate to steep slopes
with shrubs and trees including oaks and pines.
AVFRAGE SITE SLOPE: 32.6! SLOPE AT BUJILDING SITE: 20'/.
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: •61 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 2 Feet
Fill: 46 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 7 Feet
SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING: F7127 11/13/85
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site and Design Review Approval for
a new, two story, single family residence on a hillside lot.
Report to SRC
SDR -1599, A -1094, Shanafelt, Haymeadow Dr.
EXISTING SETBACKS:
Front: 30 Ft. Rear: 88 Ft.*
*Left Side: q9 88 Ft. Right Side: 20 Ft.
HEIGHT: 28 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 44 12%
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
6/5/85
Pane 2
Per Applicant Per Staff
First Floor
(Including Garage): *.+7&i. 3018 sq. ft. *38+3+ 3054 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 45+0 1626 sq. ft. *3 +5z} 2236 sq. ft.
TOTAL: *5?Ei- 4644 sq. ft. *Se 5290 sq. ft.
(Includes 574 sq. ft. of open
area on 2nd Floor)
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does meet all the requirements and
standards of the zoning ordinance.
MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior Materials Light tan stucco stone
and brick veneer. Roof Materials S late grey per +ste shakes- Shake
Roofing
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Building Site Approval
for a single lot. This property is part of an old subdivision which dates
back to 1965. In the rear of the property, there is a private access
easement for the property to the east.
PROJECT STATUS: Sai „d project complies with all objectives of the General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the
City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against• the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1599
(Exhibit "B” filed 4/19/85) subject to the following conditions:
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of
Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and
recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of
final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and, compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance
for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance
Aho
Report to the Planning Commission 615165
SDR -1599, A -1094, Shanafelt, Haymeadow Drive Page 3
Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance
of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the
following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth
in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
C. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnicai investigation and report by licensed professional.
1) Geology
2) Soils
3) Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1) Grading (limits of cuts, fills: slopes, cross sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
2) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
3) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
4) Erosion control measures.
5) Standard information include titieblock., plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
C. All water carried off site by proposed drain system shall be
discharged so as to have minimum impact on all adjoining
properties.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve of 42 feet.
B. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
Report to SRC
SDR -1599, A -1094, Shanafelt, Haymeadow Dr.
6/5/85
Page 4
C. Early Warning Fire Reporting System required (Ordinance 38- 126).
D. Class B roof required.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. A sanitary sewer service is available to this project.
B. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to County Sanitation District
No. 4 in accordance with letter dated May 7, 1985 prior to -issu-
ance of permits.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to
the SCVWD for review, certification, and registr ation.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
A. All conditions of the May 6, 1985 City Geologist report shall be
net
B. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the
potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide,
to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
DESIGN REVIEW A -1094
ANALYSIS CONCERNS:
Report to SRC 6/5/85
SDR -1599, A -1094, Shanafelt, Haymeadow Dr. Page 5
The applicant's two -story proposal is in keeping with many of the existing
residences in the area. The home is also located on the least steep
portion of the lot and is oriented so as to take advantage of the views in
the easterly direction. Existing trees and shrubs on site offer screening
for privacy on all sides of the property except in the direction of the
adjacent home to the east. The home is presently very visible, however,
only one window of the neighboring residence faces the applicant's
property. Landscaping would diminish impacts to this neighbor.
Staff he concerns about the preservation of the trees on site.- On the
eppticentla pi-ens; oak c +osiers ere 1-ocated in c+oee proximity to the
house- 8ne is centered between the home end decking on the norther +y
corner of the residence.- Staff feels +het el-imineting the decking end steps
here woo +d reduce the impacts to the tree end reduce anneceeeery fimb
removal: It is a standard Staff policy that no structure may be located
within a minimum of 8 ft. from the trunk of a tree. In addition, any
portion of the foundation under the dripline of a tree must be of the type
that will preserve the tree. Staff also would like to limit the number of
limbs removed for construction of the home. Staff has concerns about the
pines to the south of the driveway. The driveway will require fill and a
retaining wall which may impact these trees. The pines provide screening
for privacy and therefore steps should be taken to maintain them or, if
necessary replace them. *The applicant has revised his plans so a minimum
10 ft. distance is being maintained between the home and the two oak trees.
The decking around the tree in the rear has been removed.
The appearance of bulk of the home is also an issue that needs to be
addressed. Looking initially at the west elevation, the height and bulk of
the residence is not too impactive. el the mansard styte roof does
tend to heve a messive eppearance- On the east elevation, there are large
amounts of exposed building face below the floor level of the first story.
This adds to the bulk and height of the home which could be mitigated by
stepping down the eastern portion of the residence. This also will reduce
the post heights of the decking to the east. Staff will be adding a
condition that will require'i this stepping down if the project is approved.
This item was first before the SRC on 6/12/85. It was suggested that this
item be continued to allow the applicant to change the location of the home
in an effort to reduce the bulk of the area below the first floor as shown
on the rear elevation. It was the applicant's contention that he did not
wish to step the easterly portion of the home as had been recommended in
the original staff report.
The revised plans submitted by the applicant show that although the height
has remained the same, the depth of the home has been reduced. By
narrowing the home, the finished floor level on the first floor dropped by
a foot and, to the rear, the height of the area below the first floor level
has been reduced from 1/2 ft. to 3 ft. in various section of the home.
Staff had previously recommended that the easterly portion of the home be
stepped down 3 ft. and. that the height of the structure be reduced to 26
ft. If the Committee determines that the changes proposed by the applicant
addresses the issue of bulk, Conditions #1 and #9 should be changed or
eliminated. Additionally, Finding #3 on excessive bulk should be
modified.
Report: t.o Planning Commission
SDR -1599, A -1094, Shanafelt, Haymeadow Dr.
The size of the home has been reduced by 670 sq. ft. Also, the deck
previously around the oak tree to the rear has been eliminated. The
mansard roof of the original proposal has been changed to a hip roof. All
of these changes serve to reduce the perception of bulk of the home.
FINDINGS
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy
The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not
unreasonably interfere with views of the of the surrounding residences
in that the elevations of surrounding homes are such that the proposed
location of the home will have a minimal impact.
The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the
surrounding residences in that existing vegetation screens the
properties in the westerly and southerly directions. Landscaping" in
the easterly direction will be conditioned on approval.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal,
soil removal and grade changes in that the trees on site are to be
preserved, particularly those adjacent to the new residence and those
trees providing screening for privacy. Minimal grading is proposed.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation
to the immediate neighborhood in that the project has ben modified
substantially and appropriate landscaping will be required. Also, the
gross floor area of the residence is below the 6 so. ft. standard.
Compatible Bulk. and Height.
The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes
within 500 ft. and in the same zoning district in that there are
existing hories within the area that are of comparable size and height.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards
6/5/85
Paoe 6
The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control
standards in that minor amounts of grading are proposed and all City
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1599, A -1094, Shanafelt, Haymeadow Dr.
standards shall be met.
6/5/85
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends approval per the*revised Staff Report
dated*October 31, 1985 and Exhibits "B -1 C -1 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Height of structure, measured in accordance with Ordinance NS -3,
Section 14.8 shall not exceed 28 ft.
2. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and
Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for
roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early
warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the
residence (Ordinance 38.121) and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept.
central monitoring station (Ordinance 1984). Location of the
detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief.
3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree
Removal Permit.
4. Landscaping for screening along the easterly property line to reduce
impacts to the existing residence to the east shall be installed prior
to final occupancy.
5. Landscaping to screen the posts for the decking and the exposed face of
the building below the first level on the east, north and south
facing elevations shall be installed prior to final occupancy.
6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall submit the
following for Planning Division review and approval.
A. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or
elevations.
B. Landscape plans for planting along the easterly property, line and
for screening those portions of the structure as stated above.
C. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site grading,
drainage and foundation plans and provide a written statement to
the City certifying he /she has done such a review and that the
plans are consistent with the recommendations of his /her report.
Building permits will not be issued until this statement is
received.
7. No structure shall be closer than 8 ft. to the trunk of any tree. Any
portion of the foundation under the dripline of the tree shall be of
the type to minimize impacts to the tree. Limb removal is to be kept
to a minimum for construction of the home.
8. Those trees which provide screening to the property to the south shall
be preserved, or replaced if necessary, in accordance with City
policies.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1599, A -1094, Shanafelt, Haymeadow Dr. Page 8
9. T. e.- eara-t r -ppata o-4=- -4i.e. *c sa_s: G1..di.lag_t he- gar_age_ahaLL_he_atep.p.e.d
nml ac at the bartdr7g tretam -thTe- first Ferrel-.
t'9'. The decking end stairway connecting the decks off the living and dining
rooms; shall be removed-
110. All conditions of the Building Site Approval shall he met.
APPROVED:
P.C. Agenda: 11/13/85
DL /dsc
Diana Lewis
Planner
6/5/85
PICT
ICT
4107,14:rt:S.11.1J-4"-,7' 4L-'•■••:Alw
oimater„,,,op■ Air
y LIMIT
CI
AGENDA BILL NO. CRD
DATE: 6/9/86 (6/18/86)
DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROV
SECT: A -1189 Saude; Appeal of condition #2, Planning Commission
Resolution 1189 -1, limiting size of single family home to 6200 sq. ft.
Fiscal Impacts:
in NHR zone
CITY OF SARATOGA
Summary:
On May 14, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously" approved A -1189 for a new,
two -story single family residence on Lot 9, Deer Springs Ct., in the McBain Gibbs
subdivision. The Planning Commission conditioned the project that the home not
exceed 6200 sq. ft: in area rather than the 7799 sq. ft. as proposed in order to
reduce the perception of bulk. Applicant is appealing that decision on the grounds
that "approved homes in (the) neighborhood (are) larger than this home." The Planning
Commission recognized that a 7800 sq. ft. home was under construction within sight
of the subject property, but was on a +3.0 acre parcel rather than the one (1) acre
of appellant's property..
None
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Planning Commission minutes dated 5/14/86
2. Resolution No. A- 1189 -1
3. Staff report to Planning Commission dated 5/8/86
4. Exhibit B plans
5. Appeal application
Recommended Action: Affirm the Planning Commission decision per
Resolution No. A- 1189 -1 and the findings of Exhibit A -1.
Council Action
Granted appeal w /conditions.
AGENDA ITEM FA"
DATE:
PLACE:
TYPE:
Absent:
Minutes
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. SUP -17
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, May 14, 1986 7:30 P.M.
Civic Theatre, 13777 Frui ;vale Avenue
Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Burger, Guch, Peterson, and Harris.
Commissioners Pines and Siegfried
Commissioners Peterson /Harris moved to approve as amended.
Passed 4 -0. Commissioner Peterson abstained because he was not
present.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
Margaret Sherrill, 14290 Hall Avenue, was concerned about
frontage fencing, especially concerning vision when backing out
of driveways. Mrs. Sherrill was instructed to leave her name and
address so that she can be notified of upcoming meetings on this
matter.
1. SDR -1585 Lorincz, approval of resolution recommending
A -1040 revocation of final building site approval for
SDR -1585 and suspension of design review
approval, A -1040, for parcel behind 19605 Glen
Una Drive
Commissioners Harris /Peterson moved to approve SDR -15B5 and
A -1040. Passed 4 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR
2. A -1191 Kozlowski, request for design review approval
for 800 sq. ft. second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling which would
result in total gross floor area of the home
exceeding the 6,200 sq. ft. standard at 15493
Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga, CA. in the
R -1- 40,000 zoning district
Kozlowski, request for use permit approval for
800 sq. ft. second unit addition to an existing
single family dwelling located at 15493 Monte
Vista Drive in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Planning Commission Minutes 5/14/86 Page 2
4 A -1193 Joseph Politi, request- for design review
approval for a new two- story, single family
residence with attached garage at the end of
Brookwood Lane in the R -1- 15,000 zoning
district:
5. SDR -1458 John Rankin, request for final one year
extension for a four (4) lot tentative
subdivision map at Glen Una Drive in the
R 1 40,000 zoning district
6. SDR 1549 Frank Horvath, request for a one -year extension
of time to complete conditions of tentative
building site approval to create two (2) lots at
22122 Mt. Eden Road in the NHR zoning district
Commissioners Harris /Peterson moved for approval
of items 2 -6 on the Public Hearings Consent
Calendar.
7. Negative Declaration C -233 City of Saratoga
C -233 Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance in
regards to design review for single family
residences per Chapter 15 of the City code;
(Staff requests that this item be tabled until
more information has been prepared. The project
will be readvertised when it is ready for public
hearing)
8. A 1177 Heber Teerlink, request for design review
approval to construct a two -story residence on a
hillside lot and to grade in excess of 1,000 cu.
yds. combined cut and fill on Heber Way, Lot 13,
Tr. 67B1; (to be continued to 6/25/86)
9. Negative Declaration G 86 -001 Saratoga Country Club
G -86 -001 Saratoga Country Club, request approval of a
SM -30 grading permit to move more than 1,000 cu. yds.
of material and to grade on a slope greater
:.than•107. for the relocation of a hole on the
golf course at 21990 Prospect Road in the NHR
zoning district.
ITEM NO. 9 WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 4 0.
Frank Marie Saude, request for design review
approval for construction of a new, two story,
single family residence which will exceed 26 ft.
in height and 6,200 sq. ft. in area on Lot 9,
Tract 6628, Deer Springs Court in the NHR zoning
district.
The applicant, Frank Saude, explained his
request for a house larger than is normally
allowed. He also explained about painting his
house and that only 3 neighbors could see his
house.
Commissioner Harris felt that the house was much
Planning Commission
Minutes 5/14/86 Page 3
too large for the one acre site. Commissioner
Peterson also felt that the 7800 sq. ft. house
was just too large for a one acre site.
Commissioner Guch also stated that she thought
the 7800 sq. ft. is too extensive for this sized
lot. Commissioner Harris stated she would
eliminate the condition of the color.
Commissioners Peterson /Harris moved to approve
A -1189 supporting the staff report's condition
No. 2 that total gross floor area for all
structures on site shall not exceed 6,200 sq.
ft. and changing the exterior colors on pages 63
and 65 from white brick to golden tan.
Passed 7..g Mr. Saude has the right of appeal
within0 day
11. A -1188 A. C. Morici, request for design review approval
for construction of a 414 sq. ft. addition on
the first level of an existing home which would
result in the total gross floor area of the home
exceding the 4,800 sq. ft. standard at 14090
Shadow Oaks Way in the R -1- 20,000 zoning
district.
ITEM NO. 11 ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT
CALENDAR WAS APPROVED 4 -0.
12. A -1101 Sudin Vittal, request for design review approval
for construction of a new, two- story, single
family residence with a proposed height of 28.5
ft. and size which exceeds 6,200 sq. ft. and
approval to allow grading in excess of 1,000 cu.
yds at 15265 Montalvo Heights Ct. in the
R 40,000 zoning district.
Michael Layne represented Dr. and Mrs. Vittal.
Discussion was held about contour of the land
and how the house is situated, removal of trees,
and grading of the the land. Commissioners
Harris /Guch moved for approval of Resolution
A -1101, Exhibit A, per staff report dated May
14, 1986 changing the following conditions:
2. Total gross floor are for all structures on
site shall not exceed 6,700 sq. ft.
12. Total grading shall not exceed the
recommendation of the City Engineer and with the
approval of staff, taking into consideration
that the retaining wall at the back of the
should be kept to 5 ft. maximum.
18. This condition shall be subject to staff
review and City Engineer's recommendations.
19. Orientation of the house shall be
considered at the same time.
Design Review File No. A -1189
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for design review approval of a new, two -story single family
residence which exceeds 26 ft. in height and 6200 sq. ft. in size; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the
site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Frank Saude
for design review approval be and the same 15 hereby granted /denied subject
to the following conditions:
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 14th day of May 19 86 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Burger, Guch, Harris, Peterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pines, Siegfried
ATTEST:
fr
Sec
tary, Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. A- 1189 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
See Exhibit A
a...
Chair, Planning Commirion
A -1189 EXHIBIT "A"
1. Height of structure shall not exceed 29.5 feet.
2. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed
6,200 sq. ft.
3. The project shall including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying
for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early
warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the
residence and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring
station. Location and the detectors to be approved by the Saratoga
Fire Chief.
4. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft.
5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
6. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree
Removal Permit.
7. Exterior colors shall be a golden tan or darker tone subject to staff
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit the
following for Planning Department review and approval:
A. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or
elevations.
B. The applicant shall provide a letter from the geotechnical con-
sultant stating that the location of the home is consistent with
the recommendations of the original study.
9. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site grading,
drainage and foundation plans and provide a written statement to the
City certifying he /she has done such a review and that the plans are
consistent with the recommendations of his /her report. Building
permits will not be issued until this statement is received.
10. No structure or paved areas shall be within 10 ft. of any oak.
11. No structure or paved areas shall be within 8 ft. of any tree.
12. Mechanical equipment on roof shall be screened from view in all
directions.
13. Provide landscape screening to southwest of the home to screen home
from Tollgate, Pierce, Congress Springs Road areas.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Diana Lewis
DATE: 5/8/86
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION:
APPLICANT: Frank Marie Saude
APN: 503 -28 -119
oarow 2'
•PRO.TECT DESCRIPTION: Design review request to construct a new, two -story
single family residence over 26 ft. in height and over 6200 sq. ft. in size
on Lot 9, Deer Springs Court in the McBain and Gibbs subdivision.
ISSUES:
--The gross floor area exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. standard by 1599 sq. ft.
The size of the lot is larger than the minimum one acre; however, the
buildable area of the lot is not large due to the slope at the rear of
the parcel and the "pie shape" configuration of the lot.
—There is a 6000 sq. ft. home, and a 7800 sq. ft. home under
construction within sight of the subject property. The 7800 sq. ft.
home is on a +3.0 acre site.
The exterior treatment proposed is a white brick according to the
sample provided by the applicant. Staff would recommend that a medium
earthtone color be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request per the attached resolution and
findings of Exhibit "A -1 Conditions include reducing the size of the
structure.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution with conditions
Exhibit A -1, Findings
3 Technical Information
c:2)
Diana Lewis, Planner
DL /dsd
AGENDA ITEM 10
A -1189; Lot 9, Tract 6628, Deer Springs Ct.
EXHIBIT "A -1"
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill
proiect
-The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site
does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding
residences due to the topography and the existence of some trees at the
rear of the property which will provide screening.
-The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences in that oaks provide screening to the rear
and the properties on either side are presently undeveloped.
2. Preservation of the natural landscape
-The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree
removal, 5611 removal, and grade changes in that no trees are to be
removed and minimal grading is proposed. Also, an open space easement
runs along the rear portion of the lot where no development may occur.
3. Perception of excessive bulk
With a reduction in size to 6200 sq. ft., the perception of bulk will
be reduced. Staff feels that, as proposed, the structure will appear
excessively bulky because of the home's design and its placement on
the narrow portion of this pie- shaped lot.
4. Compatible bulk and height
-The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with
those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district
in that there is a 7800 sq. ft. home under construction which is visible
from the subject property. However, this home is on a +3.0 acre lot.
Staff will be recommending that the size of the home be reduced as a
condition of approval.
-The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar
access of adjacent properties in that the required setbacks are being
maintained and the adjacent properties are presently undeveloped.
S. Grading and erosion control standards
-The plan will incorporate current Saratoga grading and
erosion control standards as required through the grading permit
process. Additionally, minimal grading is proposed.
HEIGHT: 29.5 ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 14%
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
DATE: 5/5/86
COMMISSION MEETING: 5 /14/86
APN: 503 -28 -119
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: A -1189; Lot 9, Tract 6628, Deer Springs Ct.
ACTION REQUESTED: Design review approval for a new,, two story single
family residence which exceeds 26 ft. in height and 6200 sq. ft. in size.
APPLICANT: Frank. Saude PROPERTY OWNER: Frank Marie Saude
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building and grading permits required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt, EIR for subdivision certified 10/25/78.
ZONING: NHR (HCRD per negotiated settlement)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Hillside Conservation Single Family
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SLIRROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant residential properties on all sides except
for an exising home to the rear.
PARCEL SIZE: 54,609 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The building pad area is level with no
vegetation. To the rear, there is a steep downward slope.with oak trees.
SLOPE AT sUILDING SITE: 1% AVERAGE. SITE SLOPE: 17%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 100 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 2 Ft.
Fill: 100 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 1 Ft.
PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 32 ft. Rear: 108 ft.
Left Side.: 20 ft. Right Side: 20 ft.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
First floor (including garage):
Second Floor:
TOTAL:
4837 sq. ft.
2962 sq. ft.*
7799 sq. ft.
*Includes 144 sq. ft. for open area and 70 sq. ft. for stairways
A -1189, Technical Information, cont.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does meet all the requirements
and standards of the zoning ordinance except that the size of the home, per
staff's measurements, exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. standard.
MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: White brick with tile roof.
/IUM SITE AREA
EN
1A! DISTRI
11
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:.
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
APPEAL APPLICATION
0
2 7- '?7S
L
Decision Being Appealed: (.17A/01-06„-, T"
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
/S% /N
r/� //c)/Vr
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
Date Received:
Hearing Date: 6 I;
Appellant's'SIgnatu
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
RE: Lot 9, Tract 6628
Dear Council Members:
Frank and Marie Saude
20870 Tula Court
Cupertino, California.
June 13, 1986
My wife and I are presently the owners of Lot 9, Tract 6628, in the fair
city of Saratoga. We bought the lot with the intention of constructing
our family's dream home. We looked at a lot of lots and finally selected
this one; we love the rural setting, with the ability to be very close
to the village.
When we bought the lot, there were already approved some larger than the
so called "guide line" homes in our subdivision, Quail Ridge, and the
adjacent subdivision, Saratoga Heights. Since that time, there has been
approved on Lot 5 in our subdivision another home larger than the "guide
line This home was opposed by the neighbors but still was approved by
the council; it is about 6,900 square feet. We have the support of our
neighbors; see attached letters. Our lot is covered with trees, which
shield it from view of our neighbors and future neighbors. It is situated
at the end of the cul de sac, Deer Springs Court.
Prior to writing this letter, I commissioned our designer to reduce the
size of the house as previously submitted. Enclosed are copies of the
home plans, reduced about 1,000 square feet from the size originally
submitted. These plans reflect a substantial change in square footage.
We have removed the attic playroom over the garage and reduced the area
of the garage and family room. These changes shrunk our dream home down
to 6,796 square feet, of which 960 square feet is garage and 210 square
feet is double counted (planning square feet); this leaves 5,625 square
feet of living area. Our lot is substantially larger than the minimum
40,000 square feet of space which allows 6,200 square feet (guide line)
of building including garage. We have a lot that has 54,609 square feet,
which is 37% greater than the minimum lot size. We are asking your approval
of our revised plans which contain 6,796 square feet. This size is a 9%
increase over the guide line area. We feel that this is a justifiable
amount, considering that our lot is 37% above minimum size.
My wife and I have attended a few planning commission meetings where the
planning commission in other zones frequently approved homes in excess of
the guide lines by as much as 20%.
Saratoga City_ Council
RE: Lot 9, Tract 6628
June 13, 1986
Page 2
We feel that because of the location of our lot, the isolation of our
lot from neighboring homes, and the substantial tree cover, plus being
adjacent to much larger lots, a small increase is justifiable in our
situation.
My wife and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the democratic
and sincerely hope that you, the Saratoga City Council, will approve
the plans for our home.
Very truly yours,
yL,
Era R7Sande
City Council of Saratoga
We have been approached by "The Saude's" concerning their
appeal to the City Council as to the size of their new home.
We looked at their plans, both interior and exterior and we
support them in their appeal for this size of home.
They, as well as, their home would be a welcomed member of
our community. We, therefore, urge an affirative vote by
the City Council in this matter. We will also be present
at the Council Meeting if the Council would like to ask any
questions of us.
Mr Mrs. Robert Araldi
2143 Toll Gate Rd.
Sar og., CA 95071
44
City Council of Saratoga
Mr. Mrs. Saude are appealing the Planning Commission
report concerning the size of their proposed home and
we, who will be their next door neighbors, completely
support their appeal. We feel the house is well suited
for our neighborhood and ask the Council to approve
their request.
We will be at the meeting on June 18th in order to
express our feelings should it be necessary.
Mrs. Rober ibbs
32 Toll Gate d.
Saratoga, CA 95070
City Council of Saratoga
Mr. Mrs. Frank Saude asked for our support in their appeal
of the Planning Commissions recomendation concerning the size
of their home. We have reviewed both interior and exterior
plans and we have no objection to either location or size of
their home.
We urge the Council to approve their appeal.
Mr. Mrs. Clarence EJ zel
21281 Canyonview Dr
Saratoga, CA 95070
/7/-i e
e2
City Council of Saratoga
Mr. Mrs. Saude informed us as to the decision by the
Planning Commission concerning the size of their proposed
new home and we would like to go on record supporting the
Saude's in their appeal to the City Council.
We will be building our new home on Lot 5 at 21409 Toll Gate
Road, below their home and we don't have any objections as
to the size or where it sits on their lot. We would like to
ask the Council to approve their appeal.
1
41-
Mr. Mrs. Peter Kynell
1110 Silver, Oak Ct.
San Jose, CA 95120
RICHARD E. GENO, CLU
JOHN M. OLEJNIK, CLU
BRUCE G. OLSON
RAY H. FRANDSEN, CLU
RONALD L. ENGEL, CLU
AMELITA G. MOCK
RICHARD A. GUMBS
LOUIS R. PHILLIPS
ROBERT H. COLYAR
JOHN H. ONSTOT
RALPH JOHNSON
RUBEN GARCIA, JR.
RICHARD B. JACOBS
SCOTT E. PAINE
FRANCINE J. McKINNEY
ANTONIO V. RODRIGUEZ
BARBARA A. WILLIAMSON
LOREN C. DUE
_JOHN E. GRAHAM
JOHN B. YOUNGS
JESUS J. CHAO
June 11, 1986
Dear Frank,
REG:sw
RICHARD E. GENO AND ASSOCIATES
Chartered Financial Consultants
Chartered Life Underwriters
Certified Financial Planners
Mr. Frank Saude
20870 Tula Court
Cupertino, CA. 95014
Thank you very much for showing me your house plans for Congress Springs
Road in Saratoga. Your house will be a most attractive addition to the
neighborhood that I hope to live in within the not too distant future.
You have asked me to write you a letter to support your effort to have a
home that is approximately 700 sq. ft. over the 6,200 sq. ft. guideline
in the City of Saratoga. I am happy to support your effort.
Based on your location, there will not be very many homes who will be
able to see your home. As one of those who will, I want to let you and
anyone else who is interested know that it does not bother me whatsoever
that your house will be the size that it will be. As a matter of fact, I
found your plans very attractive, and I believe your home will be a
pleasant sight from our home.
G.•\ luck in your endeavors.
Sincer •1
Richard E. Geno, CLU, ChFC, CFP
THE GENO BUILDING 1042 West Hedding Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95126 408 249 1900
KIEM V. DANG
BEVERLY J. BUCKNER
WILLIAM M. WOELFFEL
GERALD W. MARKS
KENNETH W. WILSON
STEPHEN J. BENNETTE
W. DOYLE OPIE
CAROL McNULTY
ANTONIO E.ANGUS
LIONEL P. DaSILVA
TERRY L. FELTON
MICHAEL R. KIMBALL
QUENTIN E. ANDERSON
FRED N. THREATT
COLLEEN BAKER
Office Administrator
JUVY BARABAD
Unit Administrator
LISA DOLIN
Client Services