Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-1986 City Council Agenda packetAGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 4/9/86 DEPT.: Planning CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Bas Homes, 13936 Albar Court, Idennity Agreement Sua ary: AGENDA ITEM 1. The Planning Commission granted design review approval on May 22, 1985 to construct a residence at 13936 Albar Court. 2. The driveway is located within a fault setback easement. 3. A condition of the design review approval is that the property caner enter into an idemnity agreement with the City releasing the City of any liability created by the driveway being located within the fault easement. 4. The property owner has signed the agreement. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Idemnity Agreement. 2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting 5/22/85. 3. Staff report dated 5/17/85. Recommended Action: Approve and sign agreement. Council Action Approved. Recording requested by: CITY OF SARATOGA After recordation return to: City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 INDEMNITY AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, Made this day of 1986, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "City and BAS HOMES, INC., a California corporation "Owner is made with reference to the following facts: Witnesseth: A. Owner is the owner of certain real property located at 13936 Albar Court in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as more particularly described in. Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as "the Property B. Owner has applied to City for design review approval to construct a single family residence upon the Property, as described in the Report to the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga dated May 17, 1985, relating to application number A -1091 (the "City Staff Report C. The Property is subject to a fault setback restriction as shown on the recorded subdivision map for Tract 6701. Under the development plan submitted by Owner, the driveway access to the residence on the Property would be constructed almost entirely within the setback area. City is therefore unwilling to grant the requested approval unless City is first indemnified against any and all liability for loss or damage sustained by Owner or by any other person as a consequence of said driveway being constructed within the fault setback. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Upon the execution of this Agreement and compliance by Owner with all the conditions and requirements as set forth in the City Staff Report, City will issue building and grading permits to Owner for construction of the proposed improvements upon the Property in accordance with the plans and specification as approved by City and pursuant to the design review approval as granted by the City Planning Commission. 2. Owner expressly acknowledges and agrees that the granting of said approval and the review and approval by City of the plans and specifications for the improvements and issuance of building and grading permits for construction thereof, does not constitute an assumption by City of any liability whatsoever with respect to the improvements, including liability for any loss or damage sustained by Owner or any other person as a result of any landslide or other earth movement that may occur upon the Property. 3. In consideration for issuance of the requested design review approval and permit by City, Owner does hereby agree to indemnify and hold City, its officers, officials, agents, employees, boards, commissions and consultants free and harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, liabilities, costs or expenses (including the expense of attorney's fees for defending any action brought against City or any of its officers, officials, agents, employees, boards, commissions or consultants), arising out of or in any manner relating to loss, injury or damage suffered by Owner or by any other person by reason of actual or potential geologic hazard, including, without limitation, land slippage, landslide, earthquake, slope instability, soil or sub -soil instability, or lack of lateral or subjacent support of any kind or nature, including any failure, collapse or damage to the driveway constructed within the fault setback area, and Owner does hereby expressly and voluntarily assume the risk thereof. 4. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of Owner, including any vendee or transferee of legal title to the Property or any interest therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. ATTEST: GRACE E. CORY Deputy City Clerk Government Code 40814 CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By BAS HOMES a Californi ofation STATE OF CALIFORNIA' COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA On this 1 Q{( day of V i�yk 1986, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared (fit) ersonally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, as or on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires Mar. 10, 1987 g 09G?:?G? 6)Q G?.9G? 0:9a?G? GMGW a.2 a.9 G•Q OFFICIAL SEAL' 8 LENA FREEMAN NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA 9 SANTA CLARA COUNTY C3 ss. .1Le� Notary Public for California L LNA Fitt t mAN The land referred to is situated in the State of California, County of Santa Clara, City_of Saratoga, and is described as follows: All of Lot 13 as shown upon that certain map entitled "Tract No.6701 Eden Ranch" which map was filed for record June 11, 1985 in the office of the recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California in book 544 of maps, pages 33 through 38. APN: X503 -31 -002 EXHIBIT "A" Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes Meeting 5/22/85 Break 9:30 9:45 p.m. 12. A -1091 Bas Homes (dba Eden Ranch), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a new two- story, single family residence on a hillside lot on Lot 13, Tract 6701, Albar Court, in the NHR zoning district Staff noted that they had just handed out the sketch received from the applicant, who wishes to modify the proposal on this lot. They recommended that the matter be continued to allow Staff to review this new submission. The public hearing was opened at 9:46 p.m. Michael Layne, representing the applicant, stated that they would like the matter considered this evening. He stated that they would like to give a presentation on the siting of the house and the location of the driveway across the fault line easement. He indicated that the new drawing is a clarification or an alternative plan that Staff had requested. Staff described the proposal, noting that they have concern relative to the encroachment of the driveway through the fault zone. They indicated that they were unable to make the findings and recommended denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. Staff noted that the new sketch shows the driveway more in line with where it was shown on the tentative map approval. Mr. Layne addressed the square footage, indicating that they were unaware that volumes were calculated into the square footage. He described these and clarified that the total square footage is 5513 sq. ft. He described the siting of the house, stating that it reduces the necessity of tall retaining walls and reduced grading. He clarified that there are no towers, but chimneys that are 26 ft. Steve Stern, President of Bas Homes, addressed the proposed plan for the driveway relative to the fault easement. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that logic tells him that if you are going to build a house a few feet from a fault, there is nothing wrong with putting some asphalt over the fault. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the street crosses the fault line and fault lines have been crossed in other areas. He stated that he thinks it is more a question of what is most reasonable from a safety and aesthetic standpoint in terms of crossing the fault line. Discussion followed on the location of the driveway. Commissioner Burger stated that it appears that changing the driveway to the other side would require more grading. Commissioner J. Harris expressed concern about a house of this height upon such a visible site. She requested that some screening be provided on the eastern frontage of the house. The City Attorney commented that if the Commission wishes to approve the application he would like a condition added that the applicant execute an indemnity agreement, to be recorded, releasing the City from any liability for allowing any improvements on the fault line. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A -1091, making Finding #2 The siting of the house as proposed by the applicant, will reduce the grading. required, as opposed to coming in from the other side in an attempt to avoid the fault setback, and adding Condition No. 9 to state that an indemnity agreement be executed, and Condition No. 10 to require landscaping along the eastern side of the building site, towards Mt. Eden Road, for Staff approval. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. OEVE gff 0 '2s' o C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Scnat APPROVED BY: `1 *Revised: 5/22/85 DATE: 5 DATE: 5/17/85 INMALS: OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Grading and Building Permits a'MISSION MEETING: 5/22/85 APN: 503 -31 -01 and -02 APPLICANT: GAS Homes OWNER: BAS Homes (DBA Eden Ranch) APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: A -1091; Tract 6701, Lot 13, Albar Court ACTION REQUESTED: Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence on a hillside lot. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt (EIR for subdivision certified 12- 13 -78) ZONING: NHR (Except for HC -RD GENERAL PLAN Residential Hillside setbacks density) DESIGNATION: Conservation Single Family EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Presently undeveloped parcels approved for single family residential use. A residence was recently approved on Lot 14 to the northeast of the subject site. PARCEL SIZE: 1.162 acres (50,616.72 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The site is covered with grasses and scrub. The site slopes moderately steeply to the east. A fault runs through the property,and an 80 ft. wide fault setback has been designated. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 11% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 19% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 100 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 3 Ft. Fill: 100 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 2 Ft. Report to Planning Commission A -1091; BAS Homes, Albar Court 5/17/85 Page 2 PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 38 Ft. Rear: 45 Ft. Left Side: N/A Right Side: N/A HEIGHT: 26 ft. (Not including towers) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 10.7% (5,416 sq. ft.) Per Applicant: Per Staff: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (Including Garage): 2,235 sq. ft. 3,075.75 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1,935 sq. ft. 2,437.25 sq. ft. TOTAL: 4,170 sq. ft. 5,513.0 sq. ft. (Difference due mainly to open areas on second floor) MATERIALS COLORS: The residence will be finished with off -white stucco and a weathered red /brown tile roof. ANALYSIS CONCERNS: The lot is an unusual shape and interpretation of the lot is difficult. If the site frontage along Albar Court is considered front, then the site would have only a front and rear yard. It is unusual to have a front yard meet with a rear yard. Interpretation of the lot as a corner lot creates the problem of determining where the exterior side yard would begin. Further, the definition of corner lot is a site bounded by two or more adjacent street lines which have an angle of intersection of not more than 135 degrees. The site is not bounded by two streets and no intersection of streets occurs near the site. Therefore, Staff has made the interpretation that the site frontage along Albar Court is the front. This interpretation is more restrictive in that the rear yard setback. is 45 ft. for a two story structure rather than the 30 ft. rear yard required for a -two story structure on a corner lot. If the Commission wishes to make a different interpretation, that should be indicated for future reference in development of the site, i.e., request for accessory structures, swimming pool. The residence as proposed complies with all applicable Ordinance standards and requirements. The rear yard setback as shown on the site plan scales to 45 ft. and not the 50 ft. dimension indicated. Using the applicant's or Staff figures, the residence is below the 6200 sq. ft. floor area standard. The site plan as submitted is inaccurate since it shows a 100 ft.- scenic easement rather than the 80 ft. fault setback. The tentative map indicates an 80 ft. wide fault setback crossing the western portion of the site. The eastern setback line is the same as the eastern line of the scenic easement indicated on the site plan. The residence itself is outside the fault setback but the driveway is located almost entirely within the setback. Staff recommends that the driveway not be located in the fault setback as long as options exist. Staff discussed the driveway location with the applicant. It is the applicant's request that the Commission review the residence as proposed. Report to Planning Commission A -1091; BAS Homes, Albar Court 5/17/85 Page 3 The residence as proposed is generally within the tentatively approved pad. However, the tentative map indicated access to the residence to be from the eastern portion of the site and not within the fault setback.. The improve 'ment plan also indicates a driveway cut on the eastern portion of the site. The topography of the site does not preclude the driveway from being located to the east of the fault setback as indicated on the tentative map and the improvement plan. The residence will not require much grading. The pad is stepped to take advantage of the natural slope of the lot. The majority of the grading is for the turnaround area of the driveway. The 26 ft. height is the height of the structure itself and not the towers. It is not clear from the plans what function the towers serve or if they are architectural features. Height limitations for towers is discussed in Section 14.9 and can exceed the 30 ft. height limit provided they do not cover more than 10% of the ground area covered by the structure. The architectural style of the residence has some flat, stark facades. This adds to and accentuates the perception of bulk of the structure. The subject parcel is surrounded by undeveloped lots. A one story residence was recently approved on Lot 14, to the northeast. It is difficult to assess future potential privacy impacts. Because of the site shape, setbacks, and orientation of the residence on the site there do not appear to be potential privacy impacts to the future surrounding residences. FINDINGS: 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy: The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site will not unreasonably interfere with views or privacy of the surrounding future residences. 2.* Preservation of Natural Landscape: The proposed location of the driveway appears to reduce the amount of grading in comparison to the alternate driveway on the easterly side of the home. This will preserve the natural landscape. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk: The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the size of the home is below the Design Review standard for the zoning district. Report to Planning Commission A -1091; BAS Homes, Albar Ct. 4. Compatible Bulk. and Height: 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards: 5/17/85 Page 4 The project will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with future =homes within 500 ft. and in the same zoning district in that the size and height of the proposed home is below Zoning Ordinance requirements. The project will incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that all City standards shall be met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the residence having been unable to make the necessary findings. If the Commission wishes to approve the project per the Staff Report dated 5/17/85 and Exhibits "B "C and "D Staff has recommended conditions: 1. The City Geologist shall review the project, since it does not comply with the tentative pad and access approval, prior to issuance of any permit. 2. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Clas A or 8 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 1- 1984). Location of the detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan which accurately reflects the easements on the site prior to the issuance of any permit. 4. Prior to issuance of permits a detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Inspection Services Divi- sion. 5. No exposed retaining wall shall exceed 5 ft. in height. G. No recreational courts are permitted on site. A swimming pool on site shall require Planning Commission approval. 7. Fences, walls and hedges are allowed proximate to the principal residence and in no event to enclose an area in excess of 4000 sq. ft. 8. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations shall require Planning Divisions review and approval. 9.* Applicant shall execute an Indemnity Agreement which shall be recorded. 10.* Landscaping shall be provided along the eastern side of the building site, towards Mt. Eden Rd., to reduce the visual impacts of the home. Report to Planning Commission A -1091; BAS Homes, Albar Ct. Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 5/17/85 Page 5 APPROVED: LH /dsc P.C. Agenda: 5/22/85 *Note: Finding #2 was made by the Planning Commission at their 5/22/85 Regular Meeting. Lucille Hise Planner NHR A i nocCaVnifF