Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1986 City Council Agenda packet1 ENDA BILL NO. 1 DATE: 10/23/86 (11/5/86) DEPT.: Planning Reconmended Action: Staff recommendation 5-0. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Council Action 11/5: Continued to 11/19 at request of appellant /applicant. DR -86 -019 Pool, Appeal of the Site Review Committee decision to deny the SUBJECT: design review application to allow the construction of a two -story addition located at 20334 Thelma Avenue Summary: 1. On September 10, 1986, the Site Review Committee considered the applicant's request for design review approval of plans to allow the construction of a two -story addition to an existing single story dwelling located at 20334 Thelma Ave. 2. TheSite Review Committee took public testimony at the hearing and discussed the proposal. The Committee was unable to make the required design review findings regarding compatibility and noted that the applicant's rear yard was abnormally large and could accomodate a similar sized single story addition.:. 3. On September 20, 1986, the applicant appealed the Site Review Committee's decision to deny the design review application for the reasons stated on 11is appeal application. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. Staff report to Site Review Committee dated 9/10/86 3. Appeal letter 4. Site Review Committee minutes dated 9/10/86 5. Plans Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Site Review Committee. &moo o REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BACKGROUND CMMT ©ff 1 The appellant, Brian Pool, wishes to construct a two -story addition to the existing dwelling at 20334 Thelma Ave. The proposal includes a 650 sq. ft. second floor over a 612 sq. ft. first floor addition. On September 10, 1986, the Site Review Committee held a public hearing and considered the appellant's request. The Site Review Committee denied the appellant's application because they were unable to make the required design review findings as set forth in City Code Sec. 15- 45.040. Specifically, the Committee felt that the proposed two -story addition would be incompatible with the predominantly single story neighborhood and noted that the subject lot is very deep and could accomodate a large single story addition. ANALYSIS OF APPEAL In his appeal application, Mr. Pool has indicated that the staff report to the Site Review Committee (SRC) was incorrect regarding the existence of two -story homes in the neighborhood (I). As reflected in the minutes of the SRC (9/10/86, pg. 3), staff reported that the subject neighborhood is "almost exclusively made up of single story homes..." and described the locations of the two, 2 -story homes, one at the corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. and Thelma Avenue and the other on Franklin Ave. (see site map). The Committee made its decision with the correct information and agreed that the proposed 2 -story addition was incompatible with the neighborhood. Points II VII require no response from staff. The Land Use Committee (including members of SRC) had walked the site, completed a windshield survey of the area and taken public testimony at the meeting. Appellant's statements II VII do not DATE: 10/23/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/5/86 DR -86 -019, Pool Appeal of the Site Revievz Committee decision SUBJECT: to deny the design review application to allow the construction of a two -story addition located at 20334 Thelma Avenue Report to Mayor and City Council DR -86 -019, Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave. Page 2 affect the findings made by the SRC. Point #VIII indicates that the owner would have to remove significant trees to accomodate a single story addition. Whether or not trees would have to be removed ultimately depends upon the proposed size and placement of the addition. The Committee agreed with the staff that a single story addition could be added in the large rear yard. Properly designed, an addition can be added to the rear without adversely affecting the existing vegetation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal per Exhibit A and affirm the decision of the Site Review Committee. Y uek Hsia 1 J nning Director YH /rc /dsc 2 DR -86 -019 Request for Design Review Approval second story addition, 9/10/86 Location: 20334 Thelma Ave. REPORT TO SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE X''-denote too k (ati ItiimFS SARATOGA NISN SCHOOL to construct a AROONAUT 9 CHOOL RI ■I ell ■Nr En= arm MOE MIN ■11 TIC 1 arammuniiii.1 Im// I v l ‘lteraw rorM AIVA.* E ENO n n smlinvirw wit Al 11 Ila 111 1ISIC RM." 161 Rs rims NKr Tim 1 0 0 wor IMP V 0 r -ai Plirdror. ri /,,r& t rie;fivp pintos* iliwaspo 1 Eli l• IMO Ulm L W1 L( 1 1111111 111111 PIMP Vnll NI IBM MOS orwallel FROM: Robert Calkins DATE: 9/10/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR -86 -019, 20334 Thelma Avenue APPLICANT: Mahlon and Bill Pool APN: 393 -40 -9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION• The applicant is requesting design review approval of plans to construct a two story 1,262 sq. ft. addition to the existing residence at 20334 Thelma Avenue in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. ISSUES: 1. The existing neighborhood is made -up exclusively of single story homes. In staff's opinion, a two -story addition would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The second story addition would unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the adjacent property owner to the east. 3. Approximately 1156 sq. ft. floor area was added to the existing dwelling without proper approvals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request per the staff report REPORT TO SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE ATTACHMENTS: 1. Technical Information and Staff Analysis 2. Exhibit A, plans and petition of support TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND STAFF ANALY COMMISSION MEETING: 9/10/86 APN: 393 -40 -9 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR -86 -019, 20334 Thelma Avenue ACTION REQUESTED: Design review approval for a 1,262 sq. ft. two -story addition to an existing residence. APPLICANT: Brian Pool PROPERTY OWNER: Mahlon Pool OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically exempt under CEQA (15301(e)) ZONING: R 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: 15,531 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: typical landscaping in the front and rear yards including large pine trees. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 25 Ft, Rear: 86 Ft, Left Side: 15.5 Ft. Right Side: 9 Ft. (existir. non- conforminc HEIGHT: 22ft. 6 in.(as calculated by staff) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 29% Existing Proposed SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (including garage): 2757 3369 sq. ft. Second Floor: 65 0 SQ. ft. TOTAL: 2757 4019 sq. ft. See Staff Analysis ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The proposed addition does meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance regarding setbacks and height. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: The applicant proposes to match the existing house in style, materials, and color. Exterior: stucco Roof: asphalt shingle. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to add on 1,262 sq. ft. of living area to the existing 2,757 sq. ft. dwelling. Residential (medium density) DR -86 -019 BACKGROUND The applicant's plans indicate that the existing dwelling contains 2,757 sq. ft. However, a site investigation and review of building inspection records verified that approximately 1,156 sq. ft. of the existing floor area was constructed without the benefit of building permits. While staff is unable to determine when the nonpermitted.portions of the dwelling were constructed, it appears to have occurred after the incorporation of the City. The applicant's proposal to add an additional 1,262 sq. ft. for a total of 4,019 sq. ft. would result in the dwelling exceeding the maximum floor area standard for the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district by 519 sq. ft. PROPOSAL The proposed two -story structure includes a 650 sq. ft. second floor addition over a 612 sq. ft. first floor addition. Staff's primary concern with the proposal is that the applicants neighborhood is predominantly made up of single story homes. Therefore, the proposal to add a two -story addition would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, while mature landscaping currently protects the privacy of the property owners to the east, it would not (because of its current height) sufficiently protect the adjacent property owners privacy if a second story addition was built. Finally, while staff is recommending denial of the application, it recognizes the applicant's desire to upgrade the subject property. However, denial of the application would not prohibit the applicant from adding additional living area. In fact, the applicant has an unusually large rear yard area 7,900 sq. ft.) that could accomodate a large single story addition. CONCLUSION Staff is unable to make the required findings regarding compatibility and privacy and recommends denial of DR -86 -019. Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave. Exhibit A DR -86 -019 FINDINGS 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the height of the the addition is only 22 ft. 6 in. Existing views are constrained by the area's topography (flat). The project does unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that existing vegetation along the eastern property line will not adequately protect the adjacent property owners privacy. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no grading or tree removal 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 two -story addition will only cover 1/4 of the existing residence and is setback 50 ft. from the street. 4. Compatible bulk and height The project is not compatible in terms of bulk and height: with those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that the existing neighborhood is predominantly single -story homes. The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are maintained. 5. Grading and erosion control standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. *Denotes findings that were unable to be made Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: it ins APPEAL APPLICATION g g2 33 4/ -Ire t //9& 1„A. 76 0 1 9 Decision Being Appealed: .1,k1 a" Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): AZ 42 az., Ap cllant's Signature Date Received Hearing Date: Fee 52 CITY USE OT a r gct_L f -61 *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. TIHIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DECISIO, .1.% 4 -r irIe- Pk( /Z.Z.71 eg .....4-•-•t7-P Site Review Committee Minutes 9/10/86 Page 3 --0 2. DR 86 -019 -Mahlon lon Pool request for design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 20334 Thelma Rve., in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Staff explained the project noting the following issues: 1. The existing neighborhood is made up almost exclusively of single story homes and Staff feels this two -story addition would be incompatible with the surrounding residences. They noted that there were two other 2 -story homes in the area one on Franklin and on the corner of Thelma and Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 2. Staff also feels that the second story addition would interfere with the privacy of the adjacent property to the east. Staff also noted that approximately 1,156 sq. ft. of floor was added previously without prior approval or permits. Staff recommends denial per the staff report. Committee member Harris asked what would be done about the area that was added on without permits? Staff stated that it was the intent to point this out because it came up in calculating the .total square footage of the residence. It was explained that the applicant would be required to get permits if this area is to remain. The Public Hearing was opened at 4 :28 p.m. Brian Pool, son of the applicant, was present and he stated that his parents wanted to add on because the home is very small with only one bathroom. He stated that the area that was added without permits was done prior to their ownership. ,f He stated that in his opinion the structure has always been substandard and they hope to ,bring it up to Code at.the time they build the addition. He stated that they had explored the possibility of adding on by putting in a basement, but found out that many people in the area who had basements were having trouble with water seeping into them. He stated that he polled most of his neighbors and with the exception of one they did not have any objection to the addition. He also added that there were at least two and maybe as many as four second stories within a 500 ft. range from their home. Lenny Bee, 20355 Franklin. was present. He stated that he was directly south of the property and the addition would look directly into his backyard. He added that this would be an invasion of his privacy and is very much opposed to the second story addition. He noted that none of the residents on Franklin were polled regarding the addition. Site Review Committee Minutes 9 -10 -86 Page 4 Committee member Harris noted letters from Mrs. Ann Hall, 20275 Franklin and Joan Martin, 20344 Franklin Rue., both in opposition of the second story addition. Mrs. Butera, a neighbor in back of the Pool property, stated that she is opposed to the addition and that this would be an invasion of privacy. She noted that the lots on Thelma were much larger than lots on Franklin and that a one story addition could be added very easily. Mrs. Cameron. 20315 Franklin Ave., also spoke in opposition of the second story addition. Uicki Stern, 20375 Franklin Rue., stated that she was opposed to the second story addition for the same reasons stated by the other neighbors. HSIR,HRRRIS MOOED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 2 -0. Committee member Harris wanted to clarify this this application is a design review and not a variance and explained the difference. Committee member Hsia stated that he would have to support staff's recommendation for denial since the neighborhood is pre- dominantly single story and allowing a two -story would drastically change the the neighborhood. Committee member Harris stated that she went out the site and noted it was an 86 ft. rear yard and that a one -story addition could be added. HSIR /HARRIS MOUED THE DENY DR -86 -019 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 2 -0. The appeal period was noted. 3.--- DR 86- 005-- -Roliz -,-r- Inc -request'-for-- design "review- approya for a new 5,731 sq. ft two -story singleamily dwelling at 15070 Sperry Ln., in the�R -=1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Staff explaine the application noting that-'their concerns were that the proposed\home would disrupt -'the view of surrounding residences mainly because of the prominence of the site and not the design of the home. ''However. given the slope of the site (22X), the location of the as proposed and the two story design is the most practical They noted a condition that landscaping is to=` screen the home ,from view. Staff is also concerned about erosion since the site is very steep and are requiring landscaping, grading and drainage, -plans to insure that the site is developed safely. Staff recoMmends approval by adopting Resolution DR -86 -005 and the findings. t ..„6-• [1. rC b do 64/ _7`• 'cf ze G: 75 G oan e. dl4a'ctin 20344 9'can /Lin c4venue csazato eaLi f o¢nia 95070 Saratoga City Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: ern September 10, 1986 oan Martin This letter concerns the proposed second story addition to the Pool residence which is located at 20334 Thelma Avenue. I strongly Object to the proposed addition for the following reasons. First, although the lots in this area are zoned R -1 10,000, the Pool's lot is a mimimum of R -1 15,000. With such a large lot, there is no reason the addition cannot be added behind the existing structure instead of on top. Secondly, the single story homes in this area of Saratoga have low roof lines and now the neighborhood has an'old- fashioned look that appeals to those of us who live here. When two story homes are added next to the one story homes, they are usually over- powering, and make the whole neighborhood less attractive. One of the reasons that Saratoga is such a desirable area to live in is that the Planning Commission has been sensitive to such considerations. Finally, a second story addition would destroy the privacy of the neighbors on Franklin Avenue whose yards back up to the Pool' property. It would also ruin the view of those of us whose homes face that direction. For these reasons, I hope that the Pool's request for a second story addition will be denied. Sincerely yours, 13 3q K.Ctiv4 Ca S7 a g 2_ 3/i7 10 372 66. alk_47 86 -7- o 6 (3f9y egt. 9�7a CY) j _0•19 d aOa(a c 5 c�T (1/4v6 $b 55V% rgy r o� .1 77 e4 -g z -,cam a y bl� Q,L 8�' 3$ 9i 0 '5% A- 2O2Arf lam- tvx` Ct g7t r� cEAs 2 035 t ihevima, G4r, 1ro <<ce',n elc g67c1/S E4, 0 5,0?b Ldif 4i y 0 7 44.6. v.- to -g�8'/ fly 50 1 Q° x0311 Oil/ a S 0 71004,14 .yRO C `o t 0 d 3f 7 2 9 rc 9-0 c.0.316 T/J#- Q a ra •oyo i GF1' S9 9 0 czo34,-7J,C ,PGZ 47 2 2-- ieteg 4 3 ,76 si DJ/eL Ma :NR•sai ib„ )27 ft (V° �s� `f68 1 -(r -46 r g6 -1 ?6 0�O37o er,z 2? !3171 k C AeAti.� 44 6 Swids4 �4� r�4� 3i Z22 v oodY)YF VP V)e LI ft, w .71 9 6 C; 6 '2 ?L t/ ai er _s 171 24---,P (8z_c- 3P%) 91S C' t"hr 7 9 t 1 7 ig9b -Laz otasb Nir0 1 1,-t r%71 (kr CV,7*Y3 112C big bL f k 10 5 t) e rAtivn r ArAr9 37 -sr- 3 -)7-11 L fe 110 4#ng 7.X o I, 4:17 "'Ad ~ry e ;$c Vcrera vgad 214,6— Gi 1' 71 1 oh 74 --11V oip or 7 772 2 z.7' dvisvd ,Lte It•L Cv alararr 1,9cc L9% SO 0.1.cEb 15 3, k1., `')ecTe Jp-eo 151 )__LIJZO 19 4-2) 7z7 \49 c)62 7-2( -r-k4„faiw 7e —7 oy i)W 61.to (1fP Ip t- "-j7 739 -0) rip?' 5-5E 4 67z /--2g AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: Summary: Fiscal Impacts: None November 5, 1986 Exhibits /Attachments: CITY OF SARATOGA 6 AGENDA ITEM 71 2 DEPT.: Community Services CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Cable Television Public Access Board Appointments On September 17, 1986, the City Council approved an Agreement between the City and West Valley College outlining a joint arrangement to share video equipment and produce local programming for the Saratoga community on Cable Channel 8. An important part of the agreement included the establishment of a Public Access Board to determine the appropriateness of programs proposed for airing on the public access channel. The Board would include one elected official and one staff member from West'Valley College and the City. The four appointees, in turn, would appoint three citizens at large, thereby completing the seven member Board. On October 2, 1986, West Valley College appointed Phyllis Williams from the College Board and Vincent Waskell from the staff to represent the college. It is now up to the City to make its appointments to the Board. Agreement approved by the City on September 17, 1986, and .approved. by the College on October 2, 1986. Recommended Action: Appoint the Community Services Director from the staff and a member from the Council to the Public Access Board. Council Action 11/5 Appointed Argaw and MDyles.. Modified agreement slightly. 1,0„0,0 1- 1- 4. -t._-( 7 1_, 4 r r aje.,1 /1 AGREEMENT West Valley College and City of Saratoga Local Origination and Public Access PURPOSE: This Agreement is between West Valley College, hereinafter referred to as COLLEGE, and the City of Saratoga, hereinafter referred to as CITY. The purpose of the Agreement is to identify the conditions underwhich COLLEGE will use CITY'S video equipment; identify conditions under which CITY will use video and studio equipment owned by COLLEGE; clarify maintenance responsibilities for equipment owned by CITY; and establish a governing board through which the nature, content, and circumstances for the airing of local programs would be determined. ARTICLE I Identification of Equipment Video equipment owned by CITY is identified in Exhibit A to the Agreement. All other equipment to be used for the production of local origination and public access programming for the purposes of this Agreement is presumed to be the property of COLLEGE. ARTICLE II Use of Equipment CITY agrees to allow COLLEGE the use of CITY -owned equipment. COLLEGE agrees to allow CITY the use of COLLEGE -owned equipment. In the event of a scheduling conflict with regards to equipment owned by CITY and COLLEGE, COLLEGE will prevail with regards to the use of COLLEGE -owned equipment, and CITY shall 1 prevail with regards to the use of CITY -owned equipment. COLLEGE may establish reasonable training requirements for persons wishing to use equipment owned by COLLEGE or CITY. COLLEGE agrees to provide training to volunteers recruited by CITY. If CITY allows any person to use CITY -owned equipment who have not been certified by COLLEGE for such use, COLLEGE will be relieved of any maintenance responsibility for such equipment so used and owned by CITY as outlined in Article III to this Agreement. COLLEGE agrees to provide an acknowledgement to CITY for any production involving the use of CITY -owned equipment, and CITY agrees to provide acknowledgement to COLLEGE for the use of COLLEGE -owned facilities. ARTICLE III Maintenance of Equipment COLLEGE agrees to maintain all CITY equipment at no charge to CITY as a community service, except under the circumstances as provided under Article II. ARTICLE IV Creation of Public Access Board Recognizing the need for there to be a governing Board to make decisions with regard to the suitability and appropriateness of programs for airing in Saratoga over the cable television network. A Public Access Board will be created with the responsibility of determining what programs will be aired. COLLEGE and CITY agree to form such a Board in the following manner: COLLEGE will appoint a member from its Board of 2 Directors and a member of its staff to serve on the Public Access Board. CITY shall appoint a member of its Council and a member of its staff to serve on the Public Access Board. The four individuals appointed as described above shall, in turn, appoint three more citizen -at -large members to the Public Access Board. The citizen -at -large members would be required to be residents of Saratoga and cable television subscribers. The vote of each Board member shall be equal, and the Board shall appoint a Chairman and Vice Chairman from amongst its own members. The Board will determine how often to meet, and decisions of the Board for public access shall be final. ARTICLE V Agreement Term and Termination Clause This Agreement between COLLEGE and CITY shall have a term of one year from the latest date of execution by either party. Agreement will renew automatically in the absence of any action by either party to the contrary. Additionally, this Agreement can be terminated with 30 days written notice to the other party. WEST VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE CITY OF SARATOGA Signature Signature by b Title Title Date Date TWA: 9/86 3 Summary: r CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. AGENDA ITEM 58 DATE: 10/21/86'(11/5/86) DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -86 -005, Gregory Appeal of Planning Commission denial to reconstruct garage 3 ft. from side property line rather than 6 ft. as required. 1. On September 10, 1986, the Planning Commission denied a variance request to construct a new garage 3 ft. rather than 6 ft. from the side property line. The Commission could not make all the required findings to approve the variance. 2. On- October 15, 1986, the Council could not reach a decision on the appeal. The vote was 2 -2 (Moyles absent). 3. The variance request was continued to 11/5/86 when the full Council would be present to consider the variance. 4. The Council has agreed to revise the condition relative to roofing material so that a wood shingle roof may be installed. See condition #7. Fiscal Impacts: Exhibits /Attachments: N/A 1 Staff report to the City Council 5. Plans 2. Staff report to Planning Commission 6. Required findings dated 9/10/86 3. Appeal letter 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 9/10/86 Recommended Action: The Planning Commission could not make the required findings. Deny the variance and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Council Action 11/5: Denied appeal on variance. TO: City Council FROM: Planning Director DATE: ,No ember 5 1986 SUBJECT: V -86 -005 Gregory, Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the variance request to reduce the side yard setback for a detached garage from 6 ft. to 3 ft. BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM The appellant, James Gregory, wishes to construct a new detached garage at 14684 Oak St., located within 3 ft. of the left side property line where a 6 ft. setback is required (City Code Section 15- 65.160). On September 10, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the appellant's request. The Commission denied the variance request because they could not make all the findings required by City Code Sec. 15-10-060: (1) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of setback requirement would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physi- cal hardship in that the garage can be located in conformity with the Code requirements (i.e., 6 ft. sideyard setback) and still be accessible. Since the existing garage will be demolished, enlarged, and relocated, this is the opportunity to construct within the requirements of the City Code by relocating it 6 ft. from the side property line. (2) The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that a 3 ft. setback would not adequately protect adjacent properties in case of a fire. Typically, garages store hazardous materials such as paint, gasoline and newspapers. The minimal 6 ft. set- back will provide additional open space buffer between the subject garage and the adjacent property. If the 3 ft. setback is allowed and the property to the north constructs 3 ft. from the property line, the 6 ft. "alley" would invite storage of wood, miscellaneous construction materials and household debris. A 1 ft. overhang on the roofs would essentially diminish this 6 ft. alley to 4 ft. Staff points out additional findings that cannot be made: (1) There are no exceptional circumstances of the subject property which differ from other properties in the district. All the other lots between Lomita and Komina Avenues are small, narrow lots similar to this (see page 1 of the Planning Commission staff report). 1 Memorandum to City Council V -86 -005 Gregory Appeal Page 2 (2) Since there are no exceptional circumstances of the subject lot, granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege unless the Council would grant the same variance to all the lots between Lomita and Komina Avenues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Yu uek Hsia P1 ning Director YH /kc /dsc B:wsGregory 2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION D13-86-015, V-86-005 Request for Design Review and Variance Approvals, 9/10/86 Location: 14684 Oak St. 44,1ti-Tyg-A% FRAM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: 9/10/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR -86 -015, V -86 -005, 14684 Oak St. APPLICANT: James Gregory APN: 517 -08 -044 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval of plans to allow the conversion of a single story dwelling to two -story and variance approval to allow the reconstruction and enlargement of a garage to within 3 ft. of the side lot line where 6 ft. is required. ISSUES: 1. The proposed second story addition will be 29 ft. 3 in. high and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in that five other two story homes are located within 200 ft. of the subject property. One story homes immediately adjacent to the subject lot have steep high pitched roofs (approximately 23 -25 ft. high) that make them appear two story. 2. The applicant proposes to exceed allowable floor area "adjusted" for the 7,500 sq. ft. lot by 22.5 sq. ft. 3. Staff is unable to make the required variance findings regarding practical difficulty or physical hardship, 'exceptional circumstances and public welfare. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant be required to maintain a 6 ft. side yard setback for the detach garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration, Resolution; DR -86 -015 and Findings and deny V -86 -005. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration 2. Resolution DR -86- 015 -1, Exhibit A, Findings 3. Technical Information 4. Exhibit C, Variance Findings supplied by applicant 5. Exhibit B, plans EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and.Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no'significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves adding 1,243.5 sq. ft. of floor area (53 to an existing single family dwelling including a second story addition at 10684 Oak Street and reconstruction and enlargement of a detached garage. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT James Gregory 276 Old Adobe Road L.4S G A-7m CR okoS 0 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION An initial study was completed which indicates the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 10th day of September 19 86 Yuckuek I1sia Planning Director DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER File No: DR -86 -015 V -86 -005 Design Review File No.DR -86 -015 WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition and detached garage located at 10684 Oak St. 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 JAMES GREGORY for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10 day of September 19 86 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: 1. See Exhibit A Secretary, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. DR -86 -015 -1 CITY OF SARAT06A PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chairman, Planning Commission 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to these conditions as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or such resolution shall be void. 2. The height of main dwelling shall not exceed 29 ft. 3 in. as measured in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 6.34 of the City Code. 3. The height of the detached garage shall not exceed 17 ft. 3 in. as measu in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 6.34 of the City Code. 4. The applicant shall maintain a 6 ft. side yard setback for the proposed detached garage. 5. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed 2647.5 ft. 6. Landscaping plan for screening along the south property line adjacent to t detached garage shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits and installed prior to final occupancy. 7. The proposal exterior colors and roofing material shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of buiding permits. 8. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. half street on Oak Street. 9. The applicant shall enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" with the City prior to the issuance of building permits to provide the following street improvements: a. Designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. b. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). c. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities 10. Submit Improvement Plans for the required street improvements as listed in Condition 8. above. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date EXHIBIT "A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR -86 -015 4. Compatible bulk and height DR -86 -015 FINDINGS 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site do not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that it is on a level lot, not on a visible hillside and and the applicant will be required to plant a 6 ft. landscape strip along the south of the detached garage to help soften the exposed wall. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the number and size of second story windows on the north and south elevations have been minimized. To. the west, existing vegetation and distance (100 ft.) between buildings' mitigates privacy concerns. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no grading is proposed and no ordinance size trees will need to be removed. 3. Perception of excessive bulk The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that other two story dwellings are located on similar sized lots and adequate front and rear yard setbacks are being maintained. 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 five homes within 200 ft. of the subject lot are two story and adjacent one story homes have steep high pitched roofs which give the appearance of being two story. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks will be maintained pursuant to the City Code. 5. Grading and erosion control standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. COMMISSION MEETING: 9/10/86 APN: 517 -08 -044 TEChiICAL INFORMATION AND STAFF ANAL1.,1S APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR -86 -015, V -86 -005 ACTION REQUESTED: Design review approval of plans to expand an existing dwelling by over 50% including a second story addition variance approval is requested to allow the constuction of a detached garage to within 3 ft. of the side property line where 6 ft. is required. .APPLICANT: James Gregory PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared August 29, 1986. ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (medium density) EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: 7,500 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Typical front and rear yard landscaping including a large tree in the front yard. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 57.5 ft. Left Side: 12 ft. (dwelling) 3 ft. (garage) Right Side: 6 ft. HEIGHT: 29 ft. 3 in. (dwelling) 17 ft. 3 in. (garage) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 40% (60% is the maximum) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (including garage): Second Floor: TOTAL: (1) Staff's calculations DRDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the detached garage is only 3 Existing Proposed 1404 sq. ft. 1693.5 sq. ft. -0- sq. ft. 954 s 1404 sq. ft. 2647.5 DR -86 -015, V -86 -005 ft. from the side yard where 6 ft. is required. MATERIALS 8 COLORS PROPOSED: Cream colored siding, cedar shingles and wood shutter window treatment and see Staff Analysis. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests design review approval of plans to allow the addition of 1162.5 sq. ft. (excluding garage) of living area to the existing dwelling at 14684 Oak Street in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The proposal also includes removing the existing garage (18'x 21') and constructing a larger (21' x 21') garage. Specifically, the applicant proposes to expand the existing first floor living area by 208.5 sq. ft. and add a 954 sq. ft. second story addition. The existing garage will be removed and replaced with a 441 sq. ft. detached garage. 1. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Since the applicant proposes to expand the existing floor area by more than 50%, the development plans were forwarded to the City Engineer for comments. Based on his remarks, the applicant is required to enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" with the City to guarantee the installation of street improvements as listed in Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, #8, #9, and #10. 2. FLOOR AREA Calculated pursuant to City Code Section 15- 06.020 the applicant proposes a 2,647.5 sq. ft. two -story dwelling on the subject lot. The proposed total floor is below the zoning districts standard of 3,500 sq. ft. However, the applicant's property is substandard in terms of "minimum net site area" in that the lot is only 7,500 sq. ft. in area or 75% of the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum. A more accurate comparison of the applicant's proposal to the "Allowable Floor Area" standard is obtained by multiplying the zoning district's standard by .75 or; 3,500 sq. ft. x .75 2.625 sq. ft. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 22.5 sq. ft. increase in floor area standard as "adjusted" for the subject lot. 3. HEIGHT The applicant is requesting a 29 ft. 3 in. high second story addition. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a mixture of one and two story single family homes. Within 200 ft. of the subject property, there are five two -story homes. One story homes are located on each side of the applicant's property; however, both have steep, high pitched roofs (23 -25 ft. high) that make them appear two story. The proposed height of the two -story addition will not interfere with the solar accessibility of the adjacent dwellings. 4. SIDEYARD SETBACK (DETACHED GARAGE) The applicant proposes to remove the existing garage and replace it with a larger (21' x 21') garage. The new 17 ft. 3 in. high garage is proposed to be located to within 3 ft. of the left side property line. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 65 -I60 setback requirements for substandard lots will be adjusted according to the following formula: "Where the width of a site_does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards shall not be less than ten percent (10 of the width of the site or six feet; whichever is greater" In this case, a 6 ft. side yard must be maintained. Since the applicant proposes to reconstruct and enlarge the existing garage and sufficient yard area exists to locate the larger garage within the required setback areas, Staff feels that it is not a hardship to require that the new garage be located 6 ft. from the south property line as required by City Code. MATERIALS AND COLORS The applicant proposes cedar shingles for the roof. However, Staff recommends asphalt shingles as the most of the existing dwellings in the neighborhood have asphalt shingles (see Condition #7). extg-tsvi Reasons to Approve Side Variance 1 3 feet or less is the normal side variance for the area when lot is 50 feet wide (see pictures). 2. A 6 foot side variance plus a 21 foot wide garage would be a total of 27 feet, which would be more than half the width of the backyard (50 feet wide). This would not be Yisuo11 pleasing and would detract from the improved look of the new house and yard. A 6 foot side variance would also require that an additional 3 feet of asphalt would have to be added to the width of the driveway in the back of the new house. This addition would be very visible and would detract from the beauty of the yard. The area between the garage and the side frence would also be visible from the street, and the view of 3 feet more of the garage, which is designed to add to the attractiveness of the house would be much more esthetically pleasing than 3 feet of fence. 5. With 27 feet of 50 feet taken up with the garage and variance, it would not be practical to add a swimming pool in the backyard. With a 6 foot variance on the other side of the Bard it would only leave 17 feet which is not only insufficient room, but would make the yard very unbalanced. 6. The distance from the deepest point of the new house to the back property line will be 56 feet 6 inches. With this much depth, the yard needs all the width possible. An additional 3 feet w i l l make a significant difference in the looks of the backyard. Name of Appellant: �cihr\Q.s s\,,," Address: 3 Telephone: q. <.clt I Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: .r, J c. nvO vR Qc c� ■nr 1 S Jr f�� a cvr o� b a d a n w:, c� n S eto S 'or c c o,n ct (\d s. vck'� o� o. vyc1 'WA r c. �n�w`�C Q�n L oa Decision Being Appealed: Son a o 9� r Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Co'n �\e, Spc\--/■ *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. TIIIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. APPEAL APPLICATION r' \4( ,,C ewe L Ap llant' s .Signat Date Received:1g Hearing Date: Fee CITY USE 01 General Gig s for Appeal. DR-86-015, V -86 -005 All of the indications I had prior to the Planning Commission meeting from people other than staff, vas that my case for the cedar shake roof and the 3'ariance eras valid and I had no need to be concerned. Therefore, when the application vas brought on the floor, I presented my case, but I did not attempt to convey a strong argument There ire no objections received by the Planning Commission from the public notice, and the staff nor any of the Commissioners asked me any questions or made any objections to the reasons I gave for approval of the cedar shale roof and the 3' variance. This led me to believe that my case eras indeed on solid ground. During the initial discussions, I received very complimentary remarks about the project from Commissioners Guch and Pines. I also thought That the rest of the Commissioners shared the noughts communicated by Guch and Pines. Howler, further in the discussion several matters were raised that I think should have been raised during the public hearing so I could address them. DR -85 -1315 Condition IP (1) A picture taken of a house to shay the colors vas presented by staff indicating that The roof in the picture vas aspahlt This picture happened to be taken in Georgia and the type of roof had rio bearing on the colors and the fact that the roof eras aspahlt should not have been presented as a reason to require our house to have one. (2) The house across the stet is a victorian. and has a i aspauhlt roof_ A cont vas made that our house might be considered a. 'period' house aid this might be a reason for requiring an aspahlt roof_ Even though our house could be considered a period house, it doesn't follow that the roof should be asphhlt. Our house is definitely not a victorian and a home right around the corner on Lomita is the exact same style and it has a cedar shake roof. I had a picture showing this with me at the meeting. (3) The basic argument by the staff for requiring an sspahlt roof Va3 that most of the exisling dvellings in the neighborhood have aspahit shingles_ I presented at the meeting that there were other homes in the neighborhood that have cedar shake roofs. If you just count the houses on the same side of the street as our house between Lomita and Komina, four of the five are asphhlt and one is cedar shake. Ho' never, across the street on the block where the victorian is, two of the four houses have cedar shake and two have asphalt Across the street between St. Charles and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, there are at least two sets of apartments and two condo projects, all with cedar shake roofs. There are some asphalt shingle roofs boo but a majority have cedar shake. Around on Lomita, out of 15 houses, only two have asphalt, the rest have cedar shake. Cedar shake is a standard, if not "the" standard, roofing material in Saratoga and there is nothing unusual about our roof; therefore, one should be allowed to use cedar shake unless the staff has a substantial reazon why a cedar shake roof on our house vould Violate any building requirements or integrity of the area. It is my belief that the whole style and snicture of the project 'will be an asset to both the immediate area and Saratoga in general. V -86 -005 3'.Si1e Yard Variance It is my understanding that the basic reason for requiring 10% or minimum 6' setbacks is for safety and fire protection. Normally garages are not detached and the ip'ariaances pretain to the main structure of the home itself. This is not true in this case. The variance application is for a detached garage that is being rebuilt and currently has a 3' variance. The property next to its on the side where the garage is locate also has a detached garage adjacent to ours and the driveways are adjoining. I do not think the 6' variance requirement is applicable in our case. The 3' foot rTariance mould not be a fire hazard nor would it present a safety hazard. I am also very concerned about the amount of usable yard 'we would have if a 6' variance is required. We are increasing the vidth of the garage by 3' to 21', in order to have a full two car garage. With the lot only being 50' vide, we will only have 17' of gable width (50- 21 -6 -6 =17). The additional 3' that the 3' variance will give us, voukl give us 20' of usable width, which is still small, but a big improvement over 17'. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris proposed review of the application in study session if the applicant felt that the size of the house could be reduced; Chairwoman Burger concurred. Mr. Powell stated that of the 2894 sq. ft., 1766 sq. ft. is carport; within the building portion, including the garages, is 2718 sq. ft. In response to Commissioner Pines' question, Planner Caldwell stated that a carport is required parking and is therefore counted in the square footage. Chairwoman Burger summed up the consensus reached by the Commission, namely, that a study session was desirable to come to an agreement on a reduction of the square footage of the house and moving the house back 5 feet on the lot. This Item will be continued to the Study Session of October 14, 1986 and will be heard at the Public Hearing of October 22, 1986. 7. DR -86 -015 James Gregory, request for design review approval of plans to allow the V -86 -005 construction of a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 14684 Oak Street in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance approval to allow a 3 ft. side yard setback for a detached garage where 6 ft. is required at the above address per Chapters 15 and 16 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia read "Report to Planning Commission" dated September 10, 1986, and stated that Staff was unable to make the required Variance Findings. Commissioner Harris reported on the Site Visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M. Mr. James Gregory, Applicant, stated that this application is a request for a major remodeling of the house to compliment the environment. The applicants have tried to achieve a single story appearance for the house; this explains the high pitch roof. He questioned the following Conditions of Approval: On Exhibit A. Con' itions of Approval. DR -86 -015, 4. The existing garage, with a 3 ft. setback from the property line, is being torn down due to termite damage. The rebuilding of the garage will make it a two car garage and place the structure further in and back on the lot. The current 3 ft. setback was not intended to be changed. Pictures were presented to demonstrate a neighbor's garage that has the 3 ft. setback. The Applicant asked that the Variance be approved allowing the 3 ft. side yard setback. Mr. Gregory questioned comments made in the Staff Report and stated that from the point of view of attractiveness, the garage is better placed closer to the fence, rather then 6 feet removed. Neighbors on adjacent properties have no objection to the 3 ft. side setback. On 9, the Applicant questioned whether this condition is required on all new houses; he restated the fact that this application is for a remodeling of an existing house. While he has no objection to this Condition, he does not wish to be the exception to the rule. On Technical Information and Staff Analysis. Materials and Colors Proposed, the Applicant requested that cedar shake roofing be allowed on the house and the garage. Most of the homes which have not been remodeled, have asphalt shingles. Examples of homes with cedar roofing in adjacent areas were cited. Cedar roofing is more attractive and will enhance the house; according to a real estate agent an asphalt roof detracts from the aesthetic and financial value of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to the above, The Chairwoman clarified for the Applicant that Condition 9 was due to the fact that the remodeling involved over 50% of the house. This was confirmed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Harris stated that on the land use visit, it was noted that the garage is being increased in size to the side and to the back. There is space available to allow for the additional 3 ft. bringing the side yard setback up to the 6 ft. requirement. Commissioner Guch noted that a 6 ft. side yard setback may make the turning radius in the driveway difficult to negotiate; the applicant concurred. The mature plantings on this property were noted. PINES /CALLANS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M. Passed 6 -0 Planner Caldwell stated that in regard to the turn into the garage, the City Engineering Department was consulted; the additional 3 ft. will not made a significant difference. The garage can be located in conformity with Code Requirements and still be accessible. In regard to roofing materials, a photograph was presented to show asphalt shingles; the neighborhood, with the exception of recent condominiums, have asphalt shingles. In order to be compatible with the neighborhood, Staff feels that asphalt shingles be used as a design feature; the use of cedar shingles is out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Pines complimented the Applicant on a beautifully designed remodeling of a house; he will accept the 3 ft. side yard setback of the garage and the use of cedar shingles on the roof. Commissioner Guch will also accept the 3 ft. side yard setback and questioned the purpose of the 6 ft. setback requirement. However, the Commissioner agrees with Staff recommendation on the materials to be used on the roof and stated that asphalt siding is in character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Harris noted that the Commission had the opportunity to require the setback standard in the zoning district; the buffer zone created by the setback is for fire protection and emergency access. Commissioner Callans concurred and urged the Commission to require the 6 ft. setback. Chairwoman Burger stated that she will accept the proposed square footage; she favors the roofing material as recommended by Staff. The Chairwoman will accept the consensus of the Commission in regard to the side yard setback; she noted that the use of the 6 ft. setback of the garage will off set the aesthetic view of the house. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. PINES /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR -86 -015, EXHIBIT A, CONDITIONS 1 -3; CONDITION 3 TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN A 3 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE; CONDITIONS 4-11. Failed 3 -3, Commissioners Harris, Callans, Tucker opposed. HARRIS /CALLANS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -86 -015, EXHIBIT A AS WRITTEN; Passed 4 -2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. HARRISITUCKER MOVED TO DENY V- 86-005 AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 4 -2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. 8. SDR -1629 Protiva, request for site and design review approvals and a lot line DR -86 -004 adjustment to allow the construction of a two story single family home at LL -86 -001 14458 Oak Pl., in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district as per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 1986, at the request of the Applicant. AGENDA BILL NO. I I (2 DATE: 10/27/86 (11/5/86) DEPT.: Planning CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Cox Avenue City -owned property AGENDA ITEM Summary: 1. August 27, 1986, Civil Consultant Group contracted with the City to prepare some design options for the City -owned property at the intersection of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. 2. Attached is a report and schematic site plans for four options for the Council to consider. Fiscal Impacts: Varied, depending upon the alternative chosen. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff Memo to City Council 2. Report dated October, 1986 from C2G Recommended Action: 1. Accept the consultant's report 2. Take public input re: proposed options 3. Select one of the proposed options for future development of the site 5306 Council Action 11/5: CST zoning to remain the same; use to be all townhouses or mixed use, with no commercial in the back. RECOMMENDATION: YH /kc /dsc 011U7 ©ff Elorsa REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Cox Avenue City -owned property DATE: 10/27/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/5/86 BACKGROUND: The City owns a 2,7 acre parcel of vacant land located at the southeast corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue in the C -N (neighborhood commercial) zone district. On August 27, Civil Consultants Group was hired to prepare some design options for the Council to consider for development of the site. Attached is the consultant's report presenting several designs for four land use designations: multi family, commercial, mixed commercial /multi- family, and single family. The report points out that the commercial or mixed commercial/residential would be most economically beneficial to the City and favors a "layered" mixed commercial /multi family development from an architectural viewpoint. After the Council hears the presentation from the consultants and takes public testimony, it should determine which of the four land uses presented will be utilized for the property. I 1 Yu'cliuek Hsia Plan ning Director M MCA Civil Consultants Group Engineers /Planners 10 Suzanne Lane %Xii MX/N a/000351t1§22134 Scotts Valley, CA 95066 408 438 -4420 October 13, 1986 Mr. Harry R. Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Schematic Site Development Plans for City-Owned Property at Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue Dear Mr. Peacock: SrE 5 cla We are pleased to submit the enclosed report summarizing the schematic design studies on the City's property at Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. The project report and schematic designs were prepared in accordance with the authorization contained in our agreement for consulting services dated August 27, 1986, and were developed in association with HED Architects, Inc. Wayne Holland of HED and I will be in attendance at the City Council meeting on November 5th to present the report to the Council. If you have comments or iguestions regarding the study, please call. V�F truly ors, I C> G /CIYILI NSULTA TS GROUP 1 _.__J ene B. Sco horn ,rincipal G S :cs SA -86- 058 -01 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Report on SCIATIC DESIGN STUDIES for CITY OWNED SITE at SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD AND COX AVENUE City of Saratoga, California October 1986 This report summarizes schematic design studies conducted on a 2.7 -acre parcel of land owned by the City of Saratoga. The parcel is-located at the southeasterly corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue and is currently in a "Neighborhood Commercial" (C -N) zoning district. The planning study is intended to assist the City Council in its consideration of an appropriate land use designation for the site and to establish a more specific basis for evaluation of the property's potential market value. The schematic designs are considered typical of development proposals likely to be advanced under the several land use designations currently being considered for the site. SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is generally rectangular in shape with nearly 300 -feet of frontage on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and slightly more than 375 -feet of frontage along Cox Avenue. A small creek roughly paralleling Saratoga Sunnyvale Road bisects the property. The site has generally mild terrain with an average grade of about 2%. The creek is lined with a significant stand of Coast Live Oak, with a number of trunks being 24- inches in diameter or greater. The site topography is illustrated in Figure 1. SECTION 3 LAND USE OPTIONS In accordance with direction given by City staff, site development schematics were developed for four land use categories. These were: (1) Multi family residential use (2) Commercial use (3) Mixed commercial and multi family use (4) Single family residential use SECTION 4 SCHEMATIC SITE STUDIES SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDIES City of Saratoga Page 2 Preliminary schematic site studies were developed for each of the identified land use alternatives. In each case, a number of plans were developed, evaluated and refined. These were review with City staff and the more viable plans were selected for further refinement and elaboration. This process resulted in a total of seven plans, three for the single family residential alternative, one each for multi-family residential and commercial uses, and two involving a mix of residential and commercial uses. These plans are depicted in the attached drawing sheets 1 through 7 and are described as follows: MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL [Sheet No.1] The design of the multi family scheme is dictated by the existing site conditions. The creek divides the site into two areas of nearly equal size. Twenty four housing units are clustered around the creek (twelve on either side) to maximize privacy. Parking areas and landscaping have been placed to provide buffers between the units and adjacent single family residential lots and from traffic noise on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Two foot bridges traversing the creek combine with internal walkways to provide pedestrian circulation within the project. COMMERCIAL [Sheet No. 2] The intent in this scheme is to maximize exposure for a multi- tenant, neighborhood retail center while utilizing site features to provide a variety of outdoor spaces. The site is split along the creek into two 12,000 square -foot, one story buildings. Each building has 60 parking spaces and is divided into five 2,400 square -foot rectangles. Entrances are located away from the main intersection of Cox and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The design utilizes the creek and oak trees to enhance the public outdoor space. Here again, pedestrian bridges cross this area linking the two buildings. MIXED COMMERCIAL AND MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL [Sheet Nos. 3, 4 and 5] Two concepts providing for a mix of commercial and residential uses have been advanced. The two plans present quite different approaches to the utilization of the site for these uses. The designations "Mix Use Split" and "Mix Use Layered" have been used to identify the two schemes. Mix Use Split This scheme uses the existing creek as a separating element and transition point between the residential and commercial portions of the site. Two commercial buildings with a total of 15,000 square feet of floor area are situated along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. This placement takes advantage of the visual exposure of the site from the heavily traveled highway. The residential area contains ten townhouse units with enclosed garages. The townhouse units have been located toward the rear of the site to maximizes separation from the commercial area and to better integrate the project with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Mix Use. Layered This concept maximizes the use of the site by placing eight housing units above 21,000 square -feet of commercial space. This complex is positioned along both sides of the creek with a pedestrian mall linking all buildings together. The design maintains the existing oak trees within the complex, utilizing their canopies to provide shade to the mall area. The eight housing units are spaced apart to provide maximum ventilation and privacy. These units provide image and scale to the project. Each unit is two stories, with the second floor of each unit within the roof structure. Dormer windows provide increased space and light to the upper floors areas. The residential units are linked by pedestrian bridges and each has an outdoor patio and on -grade covered parking for two cars. Vehicular access is provide at the southerly and easterly boundaries of the site, well away from the street intersection. Parking areas wrap the site, connected by bridges over the creek. Implementation of this alternative would require relaxation of the height limitation provided in the current zoning code. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL [Sheet Nos. 6, 7 and 8] SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDIES City of Saratoga Page 3 Three approaches to single family residential development of the site are presented. Identified as studies "A "B" and "C these plans yield four, five and six lots, respectively. All three layouts conform to City standards for the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Study "A" This plan consists of four lots, two on each side of the creek, with primary access from Cox Avenue at the easterly boundary of the site. Secondary access is accomplished via a connecting street through the proposed commercial /residential project to the immediate south. A bridge crossing the creek at the southerly edge of the property provides access to the lots backing on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Study "B" A total of five lots, three to the east of the two to the west, are possible under this plan. Street achieved at the southwesterly and northeasterly corners of thereby avoiding the necessity of a bridge over the creek. of the traffic constraints along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, access to the street serving Lots 1 and 2 is not feasible. creek and access is the site, Because left turn Study "C" This proposal consists of six lots accessed by a single cul -de -sac street connecting to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Three lots are located to the west of the creek with the remaining three lots situated around the cul -de -sac at the rear of the site. A vehicular bridge spans the creek. Here again, traffic considerations prohibit left turning movements into or out of the site. SECTION 5 COMPARATIVE LAND VALUATION SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDIES City of Saratoga Page 4 A preliminary cost analysis was conducted for the purpose of estimating the potential value of the property under each of the development scenarios. The analysis is "comparative in that it references the estimated land values to an appraisal conducted on behalf of the City in June of 1985. Since that appraisal based the property value on its current "Neighborhood Commercial" land use, the estimated land values for other uses have been "indexed" to the assumed value of the commercial plan shown on Sheet No. 2. Consequently, the commercial plan has been assigned a value of 1.00. Other uses are compared by factors which represent the ratio of each scheme's residual land value to that of the commercial plan. The following table presents the comparative land values for each of the scenarios: Land Use SECTION 6 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES Land Value Factor Multi- Family Residential 0.62 Commercial 1.00 Mixed Commercial /Residential Mix Use Split 0.76 Mix Use Layered 1.42 Single-Family Residential Study "A" (4 Lots) 0.11 Study "B" (5 Lots) 0.20 Study "C" (6 Lots) 0.26 It is evident from the preceding section that a commercial or mixed use project would be the most advantageous from an economic standpoint. The value of multi family development is considerably less, and the present market for townhomes is not good. Single family residential use is clearly the least desirable alternative on a land value basis. While economic disadvantages are often offset by planning or environmental considerations, no such trade -offs are apparent in the case of residential use of the entire site. The development of single family residential properties adjacent to a major arterial highway such as Saratoga Sunnyvale Road would be particularly difficult to justify from a planning standpoint. Moreover, with the possible exception of traffic generation, no significant difference in the environmental impact of the various alternatives is evident. The most interesting project, both from a planning and a financial viewpoint, is the "layered" mixed commercial /residential development. This type of project offers both exciting architectural opportunities and the greatest potential dollar value. It should be noted, however, that its implementation would require a variance or other relief from existing building height limitations. It should be noted that there are also feasible variations to the several development schemes presented in this report. For example, the commercial use shown on Sheet No. 3 could be combined with the single family residential layout shown for the back portion of the site on Sheet No. 7. While neither economics or strict application of planning principles favor such a combination, other considerations may warrant consideration of this type of "hybrid" project. SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The analyses conducted in this study commercial /multi family residential use use designation for the subject site. larger value in the sale of the property SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDIES City of Saratoga Page 5 suggest that a commercial or mixed would be the most appropriate land Either of these would likely yield than would an "all- residential" use. It is recommended that the City Council either retain the present C -N zoning district or adopt a designation that would permit a mix of commercial and multi- family uses. If a mixed use designation is adopted, we suggest that the Council consider increasing the allowable height limit in the zone to permit innovative designs such as the layered mixed use plan depicted on Sheet Nos. 4 and 5. N 1 =50' 3 4s 344— 343 342 COX 34 340 339 P .n. l l 3A 0 AVENUE" Figure 1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP City of Saratoga Site 34$ r :2\ MULTI FAMILY proposed commercial exisiting single family residential 15 35 FEET l'IMIIMMII11111111111M11111111111111 55 LOCATION MAP_ PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA 0 PARKING REQUIRED PROVIDED 2.75 ACRES NO. OF RESIDEN. UNITS 24 AREA PER FLOOR 1250 NO.,_OF__STORIES 2 PARKING REQUIRED 60 PROVIDED 60 BLDG. COVERAGE 25z MAX. HEJGHT. 20 PARKING 'TOTAL 60 S IT E.___P L A N 64/4140441 LL. 0 1— QM C 0 lawre 10-3- 64 40S 5642 1 1111•1111111 mow 111•=7:1•11111 1111111111/4110 11 IIMENIUM 12.,000 Afl 41 primi $111rA; _I1 U ii a shiryimmouianimui TgrAinuAnn 11 11111111 mum; 111, •.:3'r' Gr1^■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■■ /na 1111 mo NNE ►/12•11•11 i■ 211•1:11111111 m■■■■ 12 ,000 i j mum I u UMW '.a irm a1■111■ s �■r /�'111■iuf ■C■■■[1■■Il 1/'ma.m► ■►1 4 121CII �NI &a■III■I 1 4I 1 IUrI 7■1111M•111■•■1111111111 MI11; 17 2 mumum wwuismori-■■■a•u■■flh■■i i PARKING ProllpplOVOr ob I COX AVENUE COMMERCIAL proposed commercial exisiting single family residential 13 33 FEET es LOCATION MAP_ PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA24,000 PARKING REQUIRED 1 PROVIDED 120 NO. OF RESIDEN. UNITS 0 AREA PER FLOOR NO._OF_STORIES PARKING REQUIRED PROVIDED BLDG. COVERAGE 21.5Z MAX. HEIGHT 20' PARKING TOTAL 120 2.75 ACRES SITE. PLAN tee.:. o 1- U 4 POMPOM CM. CWOO 10 6 .eau .10. MO 8642 O. 2 POOP. IL 4,3 %self. fZ 4t5 'O 5. 1 J vsY lILdA l■ I 1 1 4 bill 1 16 lek„ 4 :1 4 1 ‘1 #10 ff 4°11 MIL FETAL- ek•oo a.r. ssitaistoio 73 51, 11 igOk 1 Ict e,6so p. vccomeopsof V.VONAIININ VaLINS C OX A V proposed commercial exisiting single family residential MIX USE SPLIT 1S 0 0 CC FEET etk VP, :1 1 111 1 1111 11 11111]11. .111 11111111111111111111111111111 S5 A LOCATION MAP PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA 15050•1 PARKING REQUIRED _...1 35 PROVIDED 73 0.0F RESIDEN. UNITS 10 AREA PER FLOOR 1250, NO. OF STORIES 2 PARKING REQUIRED 25 PROVIDED 25 BLDG. COVERAGE 23x MAX.IIIEIGHT 20' PARKING TOTAL 100 2.75 ACRES SITE PLAN FIEVIE11080 11.14•14/1.1 10-3 6 U42 ONIOST 3 c proposed commercial 41 r- 14 2 STORY R 6OF•TOP ROUSING 1st LEVEL COMMEFICIAt i 11■1'L2i ■111111■ -1. ,50 ainun uiiiiIIIt�m 11 MIRY NNE 0 EgliillitalMENIew amps glifiltaimitihr anal 1500 irausplatraik I =ri- i Neil Iri nvu1 nl ■•/fon!wrmusuag. 10T500 r II Iiii P A NM _iiiiefitinilligiall. im■ DG Pi■niiii.w v Mori m- iii11 ■1; rim 1111111111EII ..lison _.re■r /noun vinialartiL■L7seigive 'T 1 ■ri' 1 ■MMl:�U'.. W __PARKING_ I RID IUD. AM AN L. Nil/o= //11111i /71■nnimralMININHIMM■ IA∎ al LOW "Min BM I I NEW ‘1411 1111 111111 Allah /1101.411LIIIIk NIKEIRSII 3 1i!J1IP11 i� gu 1 NAV COX AVENUE MIX-USE LAYERED exisiting sing le_family _residential a O cc O 1S 3S _FEET s es� LOCATION MAP_ PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA 21.000 PARKING REQUIRED 105 PROVIDED 105 NO.OF RESIDEN. UNITS 8 AREA PER FLOOR 12.000 NO__OF_STORIES 2 PARKING REQUIRED 20 PROVIDED 20 BLDG. COVERAGE MAX. HEIGHT PARKING TOTAL 2.75 ACRES SITE P L A N 227. 35' 25 4 co O 1— u- H U cn W U) 0..,... e 10 -3- 88 .c... •O. MO- 8642 OP 4 .P..,. wrv� S rr r vi 11111111111111L 1 J f- Of 47741 6.100 LA 9sorefr- uJE IR N. P*Waiti IMF 44P COX AVENUE A1PA 414 var fili Il 1 Wi 111 AI T1 *1 Mr pai ikr ra 4 ?Avg V9 11P SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STUDY 'A' ea 4 cc 4 0 0 cc 4 1 4 W J r z Z U3 15 38 FEET 85 CI) PROSPECT SITF LOCATION MAP PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA PARKING PROVIDED N OF RESIDEN. UNITS AREA PER FLOOR NO. OF STORIES PARKING REQUIRED PROVIDED BLDG. COVERAGE MAX. HEIGHT PARKING TOTAL SITE PLAN ...ww 10 -3 -86 Scale JO. MO. 6642 �Y..O as -5.5 w.. 0 U 4 Ak ■■••=4410.44, 4/4•4144 ■444. v v• N..-.•,•,. •1 P ci•ws oliz2 4 444.4 ar, roorCiqs• L•0 AI% COX AVENUE STUDY 13 15 35 4 1-- 4 cc 4 1 4 z z cn SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FUT Lift V9 wi■ n111l111111111111111111111111111111111111 55 o 4 o cc LOCATION MAP PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA PARKING REQUIRED PROVIDED NO.OF RESIDEN. UNITS AREA PER FLOOR NO. OF STORIES PARKING REQUIRED PROVIDED BLDG. COVERAGE MAX. HEIGHT PARKING TOTAL SITE PLAN Immouliagar .11•14. tlir44 on.wre. 1 5 10 —WA 1143.1.111 111111. 1 0. 2 7 Qminge=nia MOEN Wm** wit* go la COX AVENUE STUDY 'C' 15 33 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 111111111111111111;1h 1 0111111111111811 FEET 83 LOCATION MAP PROJECT DATA COMMERCIAL AREA____ PARKING REQUIRED_ PROVIDED 1i10.0F RESIDEN. UNITS AREA PER FLOOR NO. OF STORIES PARKING REQUIRED PROVIDED BLDG. COVERAGE MAX. HEIGHT PARKING TOTAL ITE PLAN irewonowe UV u. 1- 1J11 w 0 w 0414.11/OW 5 542 111.1•1111 8 '7 CITY OF SARA'I'OGA AGENDA BILL NO. I 16 DATE: 11/5/86 DEPT.: City Manager SUBJECT: Allocation of $34,575 in deferred FY86/87 HCDA Funds to the Senior Center Construction Project and Budget Appropriation of $41,000 for Additional Construction Costs. Summary: The City of Saratoga participates with the Urban Count? of :Santa ;.LClara in the administration of Community Development Block Grant funds. The. .City Council is requested at this time to take action on two HCDA related items: 1. Allocation of $34,575 in deferred FY86/87 funds Exhibits /Attachments: Staff Report from Adminstrative Assistant Staff Report from City Engineer Resolution for Budget Allocation Recommended Action: 1. Authorize allocation of deferred funds 2. Authorize transfer between programs 3. Authorize budget allocation AGENDA ITEM 2. Reprogramming of $2917.76 in previously allocated funds to cover final costs of Government Building Access Program Staff is recommending that the $34,575 be added to the previously designated $50,000 of HCDA funds for the construction of the Senior Center Addition. Current estimate of construction cost is $194,000. CITY MGR. APPROVAL Fiscal Impacts: Allocation of deferred funds is necessary at this time to maintain the City's entitlement to federal block grant funds. In.the two years since the first preliminary plans were made for the construction of the Senior Center Addition, the size of the proposed addition has been expanded and construction costs have increased, necessitating an additional budget allocation of $41,000, of which $34,575 will come from HCDA funds and the remainder from the General Fund. Council Action 11/5: All funds to cone from federal funding; continued to 11/19 for change in budget appropriation resolution. 2 cs OTVW off 0 'IV o C� REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 10/29/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/5/86 SUBJECT: Allocation of $34,575 in deferred HCDA FY 86/87 funds and Reprogramming of $2,917.76 in previously allocated funds to cover final costs of Government Building Access Program The City of Saratoga participates with the Urban County of Santa Clara through a Joint 'Powers Agreement for entitlement to federal Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) funds. Saratoga initially received an allocation of $111,750 for FY 1986/87, and an additional deferred allocation of $34,575 became available in September. The County will be presenting the proposals for use of the deferred funds to the Board of Supervisors in January, and the Council is requested to allocate Saratoga's additional funds at this time. Due to restrictions on the use of these funds, there are only two options for the designation of the $34,575 the Senior Center Addition or Housing Rehabilitation. Senior Center Addition: The City previously allocated $50,000 of 86/87 HCDA funds and expects to receive $100,000 in State Bond money for construction of the addition. Originally the addition was proposed to be 1917 square feet. This proved to be insufficient for the requirements of the expanded programs and services to meet the needs of the community and has been changed to 2690 square feet. Construction costs have also increased in the two years in which the project has been under development. The City Engineer estimates that the net construction cost is $194,000, exclusive of the $27,000 for furnishing the kitchen which is expected to be provided by the Senior Coordinating Council. This is based upon the October 23, 1986, architect's preliminary estimate. Staff is recommending that the deferred HCDA allocation be used for this project in order to offset costs that will be incurred by the City during the construction. This use is the only way in which the City of Saratoga will be able to obtain benefit from the funds this year. Housing Rehabilitation: The City currently has $211,283 in unobligated funds in this program. Funds designated for housing rehabilitation can be re- programmed in the future for other eligible activities. Placing additional funds in this program at this time would, in effect, be banking them against future use. REPROGRAMMING OF PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED HCDA FUNDS The second HCDA related action for which Council direction is requested is authorization of a transfer between programs. The final cost of the Government Buildings Access program is $2,917.76 in excess of the total amount allocated in 1984. Staff recommend that this amount be transferred from unspecified local option funds, as indicated in the attached transfer control record. Catolyn K4'ng Administrative Assistant im Attachment 2 UgU7 ©2 0 Lni TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM Administrative Assistant City Engineer Senior Addition Adult Care Facility Attached is the architect's current estimate of costs for the pro- posed addition to the Community Center. You will note that the total estimated costs is $221,000. This includes $27,000 for furnishing the kitchen. The Senior Coordinating Council expects to raise funds for better outfitting this kitchen so those costs need not be included. Eliminating those costs brings the cost estimate, including consultant cost but no staff time to $194,000. The funds currently available are: $100;000 50,000 3,000 $153,000 Bond Funds City's HCD SASCC TOTAL The seniors have indicated that available they might be able to Adding the $35,000 to the funds and within 3% of the estimate. RSS /df Attachment if the cost is moderately over the funds raise funds to cover the excess. available would make the total $188,000 DATE: October 24, 1986 WAP R Ei T A N D A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T S PLANNERS 14630 BIG BASIN WAY P.O. BOX 1'4 SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 867-9365 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION ADDITION TO SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER FOR ADULT CARE FACILITY ALLENDALE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA October 23, 1986 The following information is presented as the opinion of this office of the construction costs for the project based on area /quantity take -off and using current construction costs available at this time. General Conditions. Demolition Excavation Concrete Work Carpentry Exterior Walls incl..finish Interior Walls incl. finish Roof /Ceiling Framing Mansard Framing 13,000 5,000 15,000 12,000 45,000 Sheet Metal Work Roofing Shake 3,200 Built -up 4,000 7,200 Doors and Windows Hardware Door /Window /Hardware Labor Finished Ceilings T -bar Acoustical Acoustical Tile /Gypsum Board Gypsum Board 2,000 3,100 2,000 7,100 $4,500 1,500 1,000 16,000 45,000 4,000 7,200 6,200 1,500 1,500 7,100 Laminated Plastic 1,000 Flooring Composition Tile and Base 3,500 Carpeting 2,000 5,500 5,500 Accessories 1,500 Painting 6,500 Heating /Air Conditioning /Ventilation 9,000 Plumbing Building Fixtures and Kitchen Rough 8,2,00 Cast Iron Sewer under Building 1,200 8,400 9,400 a Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Continued Addition to Community Center Adult Care Facility October 23, 1986 Electrical Building Electrical New Electrical Service 10% Contingencies 15% Profit and Overhead Total Estimated Cost of Construction w/o Kitchen Kitchen incl. cabinets and equipment Architect's fee Warren B. Heid AIA Architect 9,000 8,500 17,500 17,500 145,900 15,000 160,900 24,100 $184,000 27,000 $211,000 10,000 $221,000 FROM TO Project /Activity Name 11 Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation Project /Activity Name Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation Unspec. Local 0 Option SA 85 -76 Government Bldg. Access SA 84 -46 6,848.94 120.26 (2,917.76) 2,917.76 3,931.18 3,038.02 Jurisdiction /Agency Saratoga For County Staff Use Only A •urisdiction /agency has approved the above transfer of funds and submitted necessary C. Transfer reflected on CCR and program ledger documentation to justify the transfer Y/N (Date) 2. If No, transfer approved by project Representative Does transfer require GAC, CC, and B/S approval Y/N 1. If yes, B/S approval SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSFER CONTROL RECORD HCD Revised 9/5/85 (Date) (Signature) (Signature) (Date) Date November 5, 1986 Program Year Transfer No. (Date) 12 2 11 AGENDA BILL N0. icq CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM DATE: 10/23/86,.(11/5 /86) DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL DR -86 -019 Pool, Appeal of the Site Review Committee decision to deny the SUBJECT: design review application to allow the construction of a two -story addition located at 20334 Thelma Avenue Summary: 1. On September 10, 1986, the Site Review Committee considered the applicant's request for design review approval of plans to allow the construction of a two -story addition to an existing single story dwelling located at 20334 Thelma Ave. 2. The‘Site Review Committee took public testimony at the hearing and discussed the proposal. The Committee was unable to make the required design review findings regarding compatibility and noted that the applicant's rear yard was abnormally large and could accomodate a similar sized single story addition.. 3. On September 20, 1986, the applicant appealed the Site Review Committee's decision to deny the design review application for the reasons stated on his appeal application. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2.'. Staff report to Site Review Committee dated 9/10/86 3. Appeal letter 4. Site Review Committee minutes dated 9/10/86 5. Plans Recommended Action: Council Action 11/5: Continued to 11119. Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Site Review Committe( BACKGROUND ANALYSIS OF APPEAL TIM ©0 0 UTDDO guEDS REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DR -86 -019, Pool Appeal of the Site Review Committee decision SUBJECT: to deny the design review application to allow the construction of a two -story addition located at 20334 Thelma Avenue The appellant, Brian Pool, wishes to construct a two -story addition to the existing dwelling at 20334 Thelma Ave. The proposal includes a 650 sq. ft. second floor over a 612 sq. ft. first floor addition. On September 10, 1986, the Site Review Committee held a public hearing and considered the appellant's request. The Site Review Committee denied the appellant's application because they were unable to make the required design review findings as set forth in City Code Sec. 15- 45.040. Specifically, the Committee felt that the proposed two -story addition would be incompatible with the predominantly single story neighborhood and noted that the subject lot is very deep and could accomodate a large single story addition. In his appeal application, Mr. Pool has indicated that the staff report to the Site Review Committee (SRC), was incorrect regarding the existence of two -story homes in the neighborhood (I). As reflected in the minutes of the SRC (9/10/86, pg. 3), staff reported that the subject neighborhood is "almost exclusively made up of single story homes..." and described the locations of the two, 2 -story homes, one at the corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. and Thelma Avenue and the other on Franklin Ave. (see site map). The Committee made its decision with the correct information and agreed that the proposed 2 -story addition was incompatible with the neighborhood. Points II VII require no response from staff. The Land Use Committee (including members of SRC) had walked the site, completed a windshield survey of the area and taken public testimony at the meeting. Appellant's statements II VII do not 1 DATE: 10/23/86 11/5/86 COUNCIL MEETING: Report to Mayor and City Council DR -86 -019, Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave. Page 2 affect the findings made by the SRC. Point #VIII indicates that the owner would have to remove significant trees to accomodate a single story addition. Whether or not trees would have to be removed ultimately depends upon the proposed size and placement of the addition. The Committee agreed with the staff that a single story addition could be added in the large rear yard. Properly designed, an addition can be added to the rear without adversely affecting the existing vegetation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal per Exhibit A and affirm the decision of the Site Review Committee. Yu Hsia P1 i nning Director YH /rc /dsc su iva Rzerib REPORT TO SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE DR -86 -019 Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second story addition, 9/10/86 Location: 20334 Thelma Ave. wrIt'!ri A r ri m\ �/.i mre::toi :t /11 td ti r nimmtila;11111 1111 pillow mu in 181 NM iii i■ I: Ad: e i ma y r■■■ r 7c 1 ii., %Itl. rrs �l1,1�rw PI As 1 i 04 am rol ma II 1111111111111171, as tv il'a ►iii iL I R. I th 1■■■ 1111111 PRIMP 'l/l� f1■I®®r .■sue III1l. y�`''.� 7�- o.. pis; Nig 111. pi Fr pit IN ow' 1 9111•1 0 1111411111111" 1115 v�r�� :airs■ ■-jp In I NN MI 11111111111. 111111 211111 .1 •i1- IAi1A WISH SCHOOL ARGONAUT 9 CMOOL L FROM: Robert Calkins PATE: 9/10/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR- 86- 019, 20334 Thelma Avenue APPLICANT: Mahlon and Bill Pool APN: 393 -40 -9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review approval of plans to construct a two story 1,262 sq. ft. addition to the existing residence at 20334 Thelma Avenue in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. ISSUES: 1. The existing neighborhood is made -up exclusively of single story homes. In staff's opinion, a two -story addition would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The second story addition would unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the adjacent property owner to the east. 3. Approximately 1156 sq. ft. floor area was added to the existing dwelling without proper approvals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request per the staff report ATTACHMENTS: REPORT TO SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE 1. Technical Information and Staff Analysis 2. Exhibit A, plans and petition of support TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND STAFF ANALY COMMISSION MEETING: 9/10/86 APN: 393 -40 -9 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR 86 019, 20334 Thelma Avenue ACTION REQUESTED: Design review approval for a 1,262 sq. ft. two story.__ addition to an existing residence. APPLICANT: Brian Pool PROPERTY OWNER: Mahlon Pool OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically exempt under CEQA (15301(e)) ZONING: R 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (medium density) EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: 15,531 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: typical landscaping in the front and rear yards including large pine trees. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front:. 25 Ft. Rear: 86 Ft. Left Side: 15.5 Ft. Right Side: 9 Ft. (existi non- conformin HEIGHT: 22ft. 6 in. (as calculated by staff) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 29% Existing Proposed SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (including garage): 2757 3369 sq. ft. Second Floor: .650 so. ft. f TOTAL: 2757 =`4 @19 sq. ft. See Staff Analysis ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The proposed addition does meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance regarding setbacks and height. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: The applicant proposes to match the existing house in style, materials, and color. Exterior: stucco Roof: asphalt shingle. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to add on 1,262 sq. ft. of living area to the existing 2,757 sq. ft. dwelling. DR -86 -019 BACKGROUND The applicant's plans indicate that the existing dwelling contains 2,757 sq. ft. However, a site investigation and review of building inspection records verified that approximately 1,156 sq. ft. of the existing floor area was constructed without the benefit of building permits. While staff is unable to determine when the nonpermitted portions of the dwelling were constructed, it appears to have occurred after the incorporation of the City. The applicant's proposal to add an additional 1,262 sq. ft. for a total of 4,019 sq. ft. would result in the dwelling exceeding the maximum floor area standard for the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district by 519 sq. ft. PROPOSAL The proposed two -story structure includes a 650 sq. ft. second floor addition over a 612 sq. ft. first floor addition. Staff's primary concern with the proposal is that the applicants neighborhood is predominantly made up of single story homes. Therefore, the proposal to add a two -story addition would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, while mature landscaping currently protects the privacy of the property owners to the east, it would not (because of its current height) sufficiently protect the adjacent property owners privacy if a second story addition was built. Finally, while staff is recommending denial of the application, it recognizes the applicant's desire to upgrade the subject property. However, denial of the application would not prohibit the applicant from adding additional living area. In fact, the applicant has an,t. unusually large rear yard area 7,900 sq. ft.) that could accomodate a large single story addition. CONCLUSION Staff is unable to make the required findings regarding compatibility and privacy and recommends denial of DR -86 -019. Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave. Exhibit A DR -86 -019 FINDINGS 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the height of the the addition is only 22 ft. 6 in. Existing views are constrained by the area's topography (flat). The project does unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that existing vegetation along the eastern property line will not adequately protect the adjacent property owners privacy. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no grading or tree removal 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 two -story addition will only cover 1/4 of the existing residence and is setback 50 ft. from the street. 4. Compatible bulk and height The project is not compatible in terms of bulk and heigh_t.',:with those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that the existing neighborhood is predominantly single -story homes. The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are maintained. 5. Grading and erosion control standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. *Denotes findings that were unable to be made 11 35 Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Z170,- -2 q ;1 }J 9 3-/Y7 -2-3 22 Name of Applicant: Pf 19713 GeA j E Project File No.: Da Y ---D l Project Address: o.v 33z/ cc)g r at', -a Project Description: 1? yI 4 Y r d Decision Bef'ng Appealed: g171 am Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): J 51_0 APPEAL APPLICATION r App'ellant's Signature Date Reccived:f Hearing Date: Fee CITY USE c *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. TffIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DECISIO, 6 d ss 7 t :4* .al r ,r Log,wo-Di Site Review Committee Minutes 9/10/86 Page 3 2. OR -86 -019 Mahlon Pool, request for design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 20334 Thelma Rue., in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Staff explained the project noting the following issues: 1. The existing neighborhood is made up almost exclusively of single story homes and Staff feels this two -story addition would be incompatible with the surrounding residences. They noted that there were two other 2 -story homes in the area, one on Franklin and on the corner of Thelma and Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 2. Staff also feels that the second story addition would interfere with the privacy of the adjacent property to the east. Staff also noted that approximately 1,156 sq. ft. of floor was added previously without prior approval or permits. Staff recommends denial per the staff report. Committee member Harris asked what would be done about the area that was added on without permits? Staff stated that it was the intent to point this out because it came up in calculating the 'total square footage of the residence. It was explained that the applicant would be required to get permits if this area is to remain. The Public Hearing was opened at 4 :28 p.m. Brian Pool, son of the applicant, was present and he stated that his parents wanted to add on because the home is very small with only one bathroom. He stated that the area that was added without permits was done prior to their ownership.- He stated that in his opinion the structure has always been substandard and they hope to ,bring it up to Code at time they build the addition. He stated that they had =explored the possibility of adding on by putting in a basement, but found out that many people in the area who had basements were having trouble with water seeping into them. He stated that he polled most of his neighbors and, with the exception of one, they did not have any objection to the addition. He also added that there were at least two and maybe as many as four second stories within a 500 ft. range from their home. Lenny Bee, 20355 Franklin. was present. He stated that he was directly south of the property and the addition would look directly into his backyard. He added that this would be an invasion of his privacy and is very much opposed to the second story addition. He noted that none of the residents on Franklin were polled regarding the addition. Site Review Committee Minutes 9 -10 -86 Page 4 Committee member Harris noted letters from Mrs. Finn Hall, 20275 Franklin and Joan Martin, 20344 Franklin Ave., both in opposition of the second story addition. Mrs. Butera, a neighbor in back of the Pool property, stated that she is opposed to the addition and that this would be an invasion of privacy. She noted that the lots on Thelma were much larger than lots on Franklin and that a one -story addition could be added very easily. Mrs. Cameron, 20315 Franklin Rve., also spoke in opposition of the second story addition. Uicki Stern, 20375 Franklin Ave., stated that she was opposed to the second story addition for the same reasons stated by the other neighbors. HSIR HRRRIS MOUED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HERRING. Passed 2 -0. Committee member Harris wanted to clarify this this application is a design review and not a variance and explained the difference. Committee member Hsia stated that he would have to support staff's recommendation for denial since the neighborhood is pre- dominantly single story and allowing a two -story would drastically change the the neighborhood. Committee member Harris stated that she went out the site and noted it was an 86 ft. rear yard and that a one -story addition could be added. HSIA /HARRIS MOUE) THE DENY DR -86 -019 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 2 -0. The appeal period was noted. 3 DR -86- 005--- -Roli•zy -Inc: request -for- design •review- appryal for a new 5.731 sq. ft: two -story singlefamily dwelling at 15070 Sperry Ln., in then -=1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Staff explained the application noting that their concerns were that the proposed would disrupt -the view of surrounding residences mainly because of the ,prominence of the site and not the design of the hone. However, given the slope of the site (22X), the location of tha home as proposed and the two story design is the most practical \They noted a condition that landscaping is to'screen the homerom view. Staff is also concerned about erosion since the site is very steep and are requiring landscaping, grading and drainage, plans to insure that the site is developed safely. Staff recommends approval by adopting Resolution DR -86 -005 and the findings. 4. oeD02 75 w it/11 r 9-C-e 96 7- g.c P )7xliee' a oan e. Sl4aztin 20344 9zan /Lin C7qvEnue c$azato9a, CaLif oznia 95070 Saratoga City Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: September 10, 1986 This letter concerns the proposed second story addition to the Pool residence which is located at 20334 Thelma Avenue. I strongly bbject to the proposed addition for the following reasons. First, although the lots in this area are zoned R -1 10,000, the Pool's lot is a mimimum of R -1 15,000. With such a large lot, there is no reason the addition cannot be added behind the existing structure instead of on top. Secondly, the single story homes in this area of Saratoga have law roof lines and now the neighborhood has an 'old- fashioned look that appeals to those of us who live here. When two story homes are added next to the one story homes, they are usually over- powering, and make the whole neighborhood less attractive. One of the reasons that Saratoga is such a desirable area to live in is that the Planning Commission has been sensitive to such considerations.. Finally, a second story addition would destroy the privacy of the neighbors on Franklin Avenue whose yards back up to the Pool' property. It would also ruin the view of those of us whose homes face that direction. For these reasons, I hope that the Pool's request for a second story addition will be denied. Sincerely yours, NiilLmomr 4 0-e-ki,--0Q7 1 /77c a447 S 0 auf >se -7e44-10 5 6 1 --1-424-44 "e It pi ii4-114Z: d=-7‘ ZAk-Lf ECF7r7 N OV 4 1986 320 30? 125- 1.34 y 3'75 ?-0 7�rLE 47,4, 7 4 kt/ 7' 41A.A7 ✓14 d !z t f Ace-9 /ifelA"Le 74, /Opt,40 Cvwv.) 1),i/v-Avi Lk \2o27 C-1"' VULIC 4'. 84- 3319L if: f 1.464-4fa C. .6b, r.-&.c,-st-1:-. e/pv,1 1-C69S i P l i --c-, 74). 4fo 4,.., 0 eir 1 c)1,■-433.9---Wkr---Vatc-)-^•,,,/ F -4( `L/' fz i Ps P. Y2eA. ---7- I t) 5 g 72L 19 4 2579 133- Sva4 67- L4,6, Lc hiei g(i(7 got_ ?-9 33 j 'fr icd 9 c} 4 v74 et'4 L 5( 741 a 1.5 17) -oxiq tt;( eg 'r-ces t '11\. Ur6 2e 310 Ado- a_ _14:41-4.1 Mil 70141f 51 le° I VI r g 01 4 AaA l71 7 7 22-- 3 9- Y4 go-5/ -a 54-2 d wfI (4.) 13111 Ic:,I<AL leL Ai 4 /1 F, i9R6Cris 6 A 2 3 37a r 2 .4414477, rn• g is4 re 4,4 g 7 Ybrt 4 1' 0 Z qz--1 e...51 70 7 •c;‘ JJ3" a fr-:_e(K_ %tut- H. 1 r f L C 7o c% 3 L--"E ec, //Ty- 0 11 V Ce'lF CC k /3-6(ip -I. 4 5‘7- 6<e.. _..5tt /1 7 Y/ 64.- 15 r 57°.7.Q.Ko .95-G 2 I I' J'6 7 0 p2.4 -1-‘ c:+( 7/4 ja, 3e S e=1141t :5' 7- K.4144 ?Ai" 5 1 33 a'c g( 11 ri-xa<1._ 0'12i?" C4E4 rd e C4 95v70 7Y/- 033 7 c90 64„, Ch 6 1 ,y4-c04_ A5-A CA 74-t c= 2 2,6 c1,0 CA 9 .5 2 a 2 99- se... 2 15 '7 1•.*; 2G ,y,V1,4< .c (C_ (E, 4-/ 1/2;64 xi t z P6 3 73 A TEXT CONSISTING OF: CITY OF SARATOGA'S SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE announces the following public hearing on WEDNESDAY, the 10th day of September, 1986 at 4:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, Ca. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 13777 Fruitvate Avenue, Saratoga, Ca. DR-86-019 MAHLEN POOL, 20334 THELMA AVE. CONSIDER GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL OF PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 20334 THELMA AVE., SARATOGA, CA. IN THE R-1-10,000 ZONING DISTRICT PER CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE. WAS MAILED TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS: HOLLERAN C R AND RUTH A MILLER CHRISTIAN S AND NANCY C MADDEN THOMAS E AND DOROTHY E PETERSEN ROBERT W AND BETTY E *EPES RAYMOND E AND KATHLEEN C TRU MCCARTHY ROBERT M AND SHIRLEY D SAWYER RAYMOND E AND DARLENE M MC CANN WILLIAM F JR AND DOLORES KOENIG JOSEPH W AND GERALDINE E GINN ROBERT AND LAURA M THCRBURN ROBERT C AND MARION F IVIE JOHN AND MILLICENT EDDY WILLIAM M AND DOROTHY L NELSON WARREN F AND DORIS J CHAMBERLIN LAWRENCE M AND LINDA L MEYER AUGUSTA C MOORE LEON V AND ANN F EATMON ESTELLE B ROORIGUES JOSEPH J AND NELLIE A CROUCH HOLMES F AND IRMA J ET AL SULLIVAN BARBARA E LYON ELLEN L GUZZETTA DONNA R JACKS GREGORY AND SARAH YONGE RALPH E AND DOROTHY A PLECHATY MICHAEL R AND ESTHER L KLEAR MILO R AND ELIZABETH P TRUS BUTERA CARMELLA D KRALJ PERSA LIFE EST ET AL EATON FRANCIS V AND LONNIE LEE ROGER M AND RUTHIELLEN KLAUER JOHN E AND MARY T TRUSTEE MARTIN CHRISTOPHER 8 AND JOAN C E MEYER CARL AND MARINA ROUSH ELLA W BROWN PAUL M AND BOBBIE S HANSEN LAURIDS T AND GRETHE ARTANA LEO R AND ANGELINA L LINDERS THOMAS E HANSEN LAUN1 R ET AL BAINES PHYLLIS NOTICE OF HEARING 20462 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 393/33/024 20440 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 393/33/025 20428 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 393/33/026 20406 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 393/33/027 20394 MANOA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/028 20392 MANOA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/029 20390 MANOA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/030 20388 MANOA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/031 20376 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 393/33/032 20354 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 393/33/033 20332 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 393/33/034 13355 KAHALA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/035 13367 KAHALA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/036 13379 KAHALA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/037 13368 KAHALA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/038 13356 KAHALA CT SARATOGA CA 393/33/039 13465 HAMMONS AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/042 13487 HAMMONS AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/043 13499 HAMMONS AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/044 20261 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/045 20269 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/046 20297'THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/047 20315 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/048 20333 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/049 20351 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/050 20369 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/051 20387 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/052 20405 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/053 20423 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/054 20441 'THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/33/055 13514 HAMMONS AV SARATOGA CA 393/34/009 13496 HAMMONS AV SARATOGA CA 393/34/010 20344 FRANKLIN AV SARATOGA CA 393/39/001 20324 FRANKLIN AV SARATOGA CA 393/39/002 20304 FRANKLIN AV SARATOGA CA 393/39/003 20284 .FRANKLIN AV SARATOGA CA 393/39/004 20264 FRANKLIN AV SARATOGA CA 393/39/005 20244 FRANKLIN AV SARATOGA CA 393/39/006 KAREN LADD AND JOHN GILLIS 2228 MC KINLEY AVE #B BERKELEY CA 393/39/013 20240 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/39/014 20450 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA 393/40/003 BILIC ZDRAVKO AND RADOYKA CLARKE THOMAS H AND MADELINE V RUDDELL KENNETH H AND ROSA M LOUDERBACK JEROLD W AND CAROL F BRIDGES DITZLER B AND JANET S POOL MAHLON H AND ISABEL F TRUSTE VAN OVER NANCY M TOTTON DAVID L AND ANNETTE R BUCARIA CHARLOTTE F KLINE HARRY 0 AND CHARLOTTE HALL ANNE S MACK JOHN D AND GWENDOLYN S CAMERON DONALD L AND JOYCE M BUTERA ANGELO H AND MARY L BEE LENNEY E AND WILMA J STERN VICTORIA BOISSERANC AUGUST ET AL LIN BRIAN C ET AL LANG JACK W BALASUBRAMANIAN N ET AL KLETT WILLIAM C AND BONNIE K PAVLINA JOHN P AND MARY S BOURGEOIS JAMES P AND JOANNE G CHURCH JAMES B AND ANNE L LINERUO CORNELL AND DONNA M SHRIRAM KAVITARK R AND VIDJEALATC SPADARO ANTHONY R STREGGER ANNA C SHOOR STANFORD AND LAURIE D WELSH BRIAN M AND BIRGIT HALLA BRIAN L AND CAROLYN A JAEGER KLAUS AND MARIA SAGERDAHL RICHARD B AND JOAN M ZWAGERMAN JAY A AND MERIBETH E JANET S BRIDGES 20430 THELMA AV 20410 THELMA AV 20390 THELMA AV 20370 THELMA AV 20352 THELMA AV 20334 THELMA AV 20316 THELMA AV 20298 THELMA AV 20280 THELMA AV 20262 THELMA AV 20275 FRANKLIN AV 20295 FRANKLIN AV 20315 FRANKLIN AV 20335 FRANKLIN AV 20355 FRANKLIN AV 20375 FRANKLIN AV 13650 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD 13645 LEXINGTON CT 20374 CHALET LN 20361 CHALET LN 20369 CHALET LN 20373 CHALET LN 20381 CHALET LN 20296 SARATOGA VISTA CT 20253 SARATOGA VISTA CT 20267 SARATOGA VISTA CT 4634 N 38TH ST 20295 SARATOGA VISTA CT 20309 SARATOGA VISTA CT 20325 SARATOGA VISTA CT 13683 CALLE TACUBA 13685 CALLE TACUBA 13676 LEXINGTON CT 13654 LEXINGTON CT TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED: 75 BILLING FOR THIS MAILING: $61.50 SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA ARLINGTON VA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA 393/40/004 393/40/005 393/40/006 393/40/007 393/40/008 393/40/009 393/40/010 393/40/011 393/40/012 393/40/013 393/40/014 393/40/015 393/40/016 393/40/017 393/40/018 393/40/019 393/40/020 393/40/021 393/41/010 393/41/011 393/41/012 393/41/013 393/41/014 393/42/021 393/42/029 393/42/030 393/42/031 393/42/032 393/42/033 393/42/034 393/42/035 393/42/036 393/42/065 393/42/066 0 'V> Af I 0 sI E V ft t,i!jt7 A'O of P4,44' AGENDA BILL NO. //s7 DATE: 10/27/86 (11/5/86) DEPT.: ENGINEERING CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Summary: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on April 16, 1986 awarded the contract for the above project o O'Grady Paving, Inc. The work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted. Fiscal Impacts: Total construction cost: of 271,441.41. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. 2. Progress Payment. Recommended Action: Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4 RECONSTRUCTION OF REID LANE AND OVERLAY OF REID LANE AND BEAUMONT AVENUE "NOTICE OF COMPLETION" The work on the subject project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recommendation that this work be accepted and "Notice of Completion" filed. l c 3 0. r Name Street Address City State L RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO J Cowderv's Form No. 774 NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY OWNER. C. C. P. Ser. 1193.1) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Nutin of Tamp triton NAtirP is hereby given that the undersigned, HARRY R. PEACOCK Ithe agent ofJ* the owner of th certain lot piece or, parcel of land situated in the City of aratop County of State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: That as owner of said land, did, on the 1b.th day of April 19 86 enter into a contract with for Q'.GRADY..PAVING.... Tar. Reconstruction.. and overlay... a£..Reid..Itana..and. ReAm 4.Pt AyTnµµ upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the county of of California, on the 7th day of Qc.t o.ker 19 6 That on the day of 19 the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said Q. That the name and address of all the owner of said property are as follows: CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 II and the nature of title to said property is il III 'I STATE OF CALIFORNIA Owner ss. By County of Agent being duly sworn, says: 1 am (the agent of]* the owner of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 Delete words in brackets if owner signs. TMi. document i. only g.ner.l lam wltid, me, W proper for on in simple tnne.etione and in no env ease. orb intended to tea..u0etiwte_tothM.ediant .e ...r....e_Th►P0b5.5. doesnot_ook.son- wr.aote eidu.oeptees at implied- ee -to -tM »'wtr_w+n�t_w_evKa «tlubiun SIReekkeirw:4_enrasai!iewmanion 0. r Name Street Address City State L RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO J Cowderv's Form No. 774 NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY OWNER. C. C. P. Ser. 1193.1) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE BID ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL WRK.DONE PREVIOUS EST. WRK..DONE THIS EST. TOTAL WRK.DONE UNIT PRICE, TOTAL DUE %WORK DONE 1. Road way excavation 1399 12.00 16.788.00 1.199110 0.0 1.399.00 12.00 16,788.00 100.00 2. Lime treat. sub base 8" deep 64750 0.55 35,612.50 64.1R0.00 0.0 64,380.00 0.55 35,409.00 99.43 3. Install asphalt concrete 1/4u 2074 11_R5 68,512.40 1 _9n9_R9 n_n 1.902.83 33 85 64 410.80 94.01 4. Install asphalt concrete 1/2" 2588 32.0 82,816.00 9,955 97 0.0 2.355.97 32.00 75,391.04 91.03 5. Install asphalt concrete 1/4" 48 90.0 4,320.00 45'.00 0.0 45.00• 90.00 4,050.00 93.75 6. Install fabric mat 8501 0.5 4,250.50 8,501.00 0.00 8,501.00 0.50 4,250.50 100.00 7. Install A.R. 4000 asphalt binder 2150 1.3 2,795.00 1,224.00• 0.00, 1.224.00 1.30 1,591.20 56.93 8. Install 18" R.C.P. 220 74.0 16,28 0.00 214.00. 0.00 214.00 74.00 15,836.00 97.27 v 9. Provide wedge cut 3300 1.6 5,280.00 3,817:00 0.00 3,817.00 1.60 6,107.20 115.66 10. Install 12" R.C. P. 456 51.0 23,256.00 447.00 0.00 447.00 51.00 22,797.00 98.02 11. Construct manholes 4 2000.00 8,000.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 100.00 12. Construct drop inlet 4 1200.00 4,800.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 1,200.00 4,800.00 100.00 13. Construct roll curb and nutter 50 14.0 700.00 non 0 =50:00 14.00 700.00 100.00 14. Construct curb and gutter V -24 190 12.0 2,280.00 127.00 0.0 127.00 12.00 1,524.00 66.84 15. Paint.double yellow line 463 1.1 509.30 463.00 0.0 463.00 1.1 509.30 100.00 Reconstruction and overlay of Reid Lane and Beaumont Avenue /PROJECT: DATE: Oct. 23, 1986 EST. NO. 5 FROM: Oct. 15, 1986 TO: Oct. 24, 1986 PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Sheet CONTRACTOR:O'Grady Paving tnc ADDRESS: 2513 Wyandotte Stre Mt. View, CA 9404 WRK. DONE THIS EST. TOTAL WRK.DONE UNIT PRICE TOTAL DUE %WORK DONE 4 16 BID ITEM Q UA N TI T Y UNIT PRICE TOTAL WRK:DONE PREVIOUS EST. 64.00 4.40 -4.40 281.60 79.20 96-97 90.0C Install marker double yellow "D" 66 4.4 290.40 64.0 0.00_, 18.00 0.00- 17 Install marker type "C' 20 4.4 88.00 18:00 0.00. 19.00 4.40 83.60 95.0C 18 Install marker type "G 20 4.4 88.00 19.00 19 Paint pavement markings L.S. 675.00 675.00 L.S. L.S. L.S. 675.00 675.00 100.00 20 Paint mellow ped. cross walk 200.00 200.00 1.0 0.00 1.00 200.00 200.00 100.0C 21 Adjust manhole valves 5 200.00 1,000.00 5.00 0.00: 5.00 200.00 1,000.00 100.0( 0 0 0 0 22 Reset monument 3 150.00 450.00 0 0 23 Install Detector Loops 6 550.00 3,300.00 6.00 0 6.00 550.00 3,300.00 100.0C 24 Extra Excavation on Reid Lane 1.,5, 583.00 583.00 L.S. 0 L.S. 583.00 583.00 100.0 25 Dig out cul -de -sac of Reid Lane L,$. 1,281.00 1,281.00 L.S. 0- L.S. 1,281.00 1,281.00 100.0 26 27 Extra for Change of Ali_nment of 12" R.C.P. L.S. lam -.1 T. 763.97 763.97 100.0 Extra Flat grate 000.00 1 000.00 0.0 _S_ 1.0 1.0 1.000.00 1.000.00 100.00 TOTAL DUE 271.411.41 RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 1 June 23, 1986 1 125,657.82 LESS 10% RETENTION 27,141.14 TOTAL PAYMENT 744.770.77 7 A„v,Gr 6, 1986 101 OR1.00 Made By: I LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 242,860.90 3 I October 15, 1986 14,122.08 ��s i Checked Bye. •AYMENT DUE THIS EST. 1,409.37 TOTAL 242.860.90 Approved by: ri tv Rncri nper AGENDA BILL NO. I5 8 DATE: 10/23/86 (11/5/86) DEPT.: Planning SDR -1624, LL -86 -001, DR -86 -004 Protiva, Appeal of the Planning Commission SUBJECT: decisions approving new single family residence at 14460 Oak Place Summary: 1. On September 24, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request for building site and design review approvals of plans to allow construction of a new 3,210 sq. ft. two -story addition on a 10,300 sq. ft. infill lot at 14460 Oak Place in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Also, the applicant requested approval of a lot line adjustment to allow direct access to an existing garage. 2. The Planning Commission took public testimony at the hearing and discussed the proposal. The Commission determined that the subject lot is a legal lot of record, the proposal meets all the zoning code requirements, is compatible with the existing neighborhood and will not unreasonably interfere with' :the privacy of adjacent property owners. The Planning Commission was able to make the required desicgn_review findings pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.040 and approved the applications.'. 3. On September 25, 1986, Ms. Holly Davies appealed the Planning Commission's decisions for the reasons stated in her appeal application. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2.' Staff report to Planning Commission dated 9/24/86 3. Appeal letter from Ms. Holly Davies 4. Planning;:Commission minutes dated 9/24/86 5. Plans Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision.of the Planning Commission. Council Action Granted appeal 4 -1 (Peterson opposed). CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MGR. APPROVAL 6. Correspondence received (added since last meeting) REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BACKGROUND 0,7 cDff 0 7N o Cdr DATE: 10/23/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/5/86 SDR -1629, LL -86 -001, DR -86 -004 Protiva, Appeal of the SUBJECT: Planning Commission decisions approving new single family residence at 14460 Oak Place Ms. Linda Protiva wishes to construct a new 3,210 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling on an infill lot in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district located at 14460 Oak Place. On September 24, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the above applications. The Commission approved the Negative Declaration and SDR -1629, LL -86 -001 and DR -86 -001. In approving DR -86 -001, the Planning Commission was able to make all of the applicable findings required by City Code Section 14- 45.040 as follows: 1. The placement of the house on the site and placement of windows on the second story do not interfere with the views and privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2. The natural landscape is preserved in a manner that will remove only one orange tree on site; any landscape screening to be removed on the east property line will be replaced. The design of the house minimizes the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the proposed dwelling is only 25 ft. high and the total square footage is under the floor area standard for the zoning district. 4. The proposed dwelling is compatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing neighborhood in that there are other two -story homes of similar size in the vicinity. 5. The project will not interfere with the light, air and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are maintained and the height of the proposed dwelling (25 ft.) is reasonable. REPORT TO• MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 11/5/86 SDR -1629, LL-86 -001, DR -86 -004 PROTIVA The appellant presents three grounds for the appeal: perception of excessive bulk, privacy problems, and non conformance with other houses. These three points were discussed by the Planning Commission and findings #3, #1, and #4 respectively were approved by the Commission (5 -1), which addresses these grounds for appeal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decisions of the Planning Commission. YH /dsc huek Hsia nning Director REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SDR -1629, LL -86 -001, DR -86 -004 Protiva Request for Site and Design Review Approvals, 9/24/86 Location: 14458, 14462 Oak Place AGENDA ITEM 1f 5 0048 ti FROM: Robert Calkins DATE: 9/24/86 APPLICATION NO, LOCATION: SDR -1629, LL -86 -001, DR -86 -004, 14460 Oak Place APPLICANT: Linda Protiva APN: 397 -22 -09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests site and design review approval of plans to allow the construction of a new 3,210 sq. ft. two story (25 ft. high) single family dwelling on a 10,300 sq. ft. infill lot in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. In addition, approval of a lot line adjustment is requested to transfer approximately 2,190 sq. ft. from Lot 13 to Lot 12 to enable construction of a driveway to serve an existing garage on a land locked parcel (applicant is proposing to merge the triangular shaped parcel with Lot 12) located to the south and adjoining Lot 12. ISSUES: 1. The proposal will result in the overbuilding of the project area. 2. The applicant's proposal is incompatible in terms of design, height and bulk with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The rural atmosphere of the existing neighborhood will be adversely affected by the proposal. 4. The proposal will not minimize privacy impacts. 5. Options are available that would minimize the impacts described in 1 -4 above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Negative Declaration and deny SDR -1629, LL -86 -001, and DR -86 -004. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 2. Negative Declaration 3. Correspondence 4. Minutes July 2, 1986 Heritage Preservation Commission 5. Minutes July 3, 1985 City Council Meeting 6. Exhibit A, Preliminary Parcel Map Guarantee 7. Recommended Conditions of Approval SDR -1629, LL -86 -001 8. Recommended Conditions of Approval DR -86 -004 9. Exhibit B, Plans 0049 TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: 9/24/86 APN: 397 -22 -09 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1629, LL -86 -001, DR -86 -004, 14460 Oak Place ACTION REQUESTED: Site and design review approval to allow the construction of a new 3,210 sq. ft two -story single family dwelling. In addition, approval of a lot line adjustment is requested to transfer approximately 2,190 sq. ft. from Lot 13 to Lot 12. APPLICANT: Linda Protiva PROPERTY OWNER: same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final map approval, building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared September 1, 1986 ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (medium denity) EXISTING LAND USE: A garage and cottage (vacant) currently exist on Lot 13 A two -story single dwelling is on Lot 12 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: Lot 12: Lot 13: Existinn Proposed 14,910 17,100 12,490 10,300 NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Typical landscaping in front and rear yards including four large( 36 -48 oaks and a 42" fir on Parcel A. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3.5% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading proposed PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 48 Ft. Rear: 35 Ft. (lot 13) Left Side: 10 Ft. Right Side: 10 Ft. HEIGHT: 25 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Parcel A (Lot 12): ±41% (7,011 sq. ft.) Parcel B (Lot 13): ±24% (2,472 sq. ft.) PROPOSED SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (including garage): 1706 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1504 sq. ft. TOTAL:` 3210 sq. ft. OROINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that Lot 13 is substandard in terms of lot frontage (28 ft. wide where 60 ft. is required). 0 05:. SDR -1629, DR -86 -004, LL 86 -001 Protiva MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: stain. Roof: cedar shakes STAFF ANALYSIS A. BACKGROUND /PROPOSAL The applicant currently owns 4 contiguous lots on Oak Place Lot Nos. 3, 11, 12, 13 as shown and described in the Preliminary Parcel Map Guarantee attached as Exhibit A. All four parcels are legal lots of record as they were part of tract maps recorded in 1909 and 1914. The applicant's two -story home is located on Lot 12; Lot 3 is a land locked parcel and has a "garage /studio" on it, Lot 11 is substandard in terms of width and area.and is currently undeveloped and Lot 13 (substandard in lot frontage only) has a garage and cottage on it. The applicant's proposal includes the following: Lot 13 remove the existing cottage and garage. acquire the 27 ft. wide alley that currently extends along the east property line (see plans). construct a 3210 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling Lot 11 plywood siding, clear penetrating Lot 12 Lot 3 adjust the existing lot line dividing Lots 12 and 13 and so that it no longer encroaches 2.5 ft. into the exist- ing dwelling construct a 16 ft. wide driveway that will pro- vide access to the exist- ing garage /studio on Lot 3. -merge Lot 3 with Lot 12. no plans at this time (zoned R 1- 10,000, 6,750 sq. ft.) The applicant requests that the Planning Commission consider and approve all three applications (SDR -1629, LL -86 -001, DR -86 -004) at this time. B. STAFF CONCERNS Review of the development plans for Lot 13 indicate the applicant's proposal meets all of the numerical standards of the Zoning Ordinance regarding lot size, setbacks, height and impervious coverage. However, staff is very concerned with the cumulative impacts the proposed project will have on the subject parcels and on the existing neighborhood. Specifically, staffs concerns include the following: (1) The proposed elimination of existing mature landscaping will have an adverse effect on the visua r and aesthetic quality of the subject lots and neighborhood (2) the proposed two -story dwelling on Lot 13 will be incompatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of of bulk, height and design and (3) the project will have an adverse impact on the privacy of properties in the area. 0051 SDR -1629, LL -86 -001, DR -86 -004 Protiva 1. Elimination of Existing Landscaping One specific objective of the City's Housing Element is to "maintain the existing rural and residential character of Saratoga" (pg.3- 55). Methods of achieving this objective include promoting the preservation of existing vegetation and limiting the area of a site covered by impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lots, sidewalks, driveways, decks). The subject neighborhood is characterized by homes constructed in the early to mid 1900's with large open landscaped front yard areas and single lane driveways to the garage located in the rear of the lot (Oak Place, La Paloma Avenue and Orchard Place). The applicant proposes to construct two•new driveways; one to serve the new dwelling on Lot 13, the other to provide access to the existing garage /studio on Lot 12. In doing so, the applicant proposes to remove and pave over approximately 1000 sq. ft. of mature landacaping /ground cover that currently exists in the front and side yard areas of Lots 12 and 13. In addition the applicant has indicated her desire to retain the existing circular driveway on Lot 12. While impervious coverage limits on Lot 12 and 13 will not be exceeded (41% on Lot 12 and 24% on Lot 13, where 60% is permitted) most of the landscaped areas will be in the rear portion of the lots and out of view when traveling on Oak Place. As such, the proposal to eliminate a substantial area of existing landscaping to develop the subject property does not meet the intent of the Housing Element, will be materially injurious to the properties and improvements and diminish the neighborhood's visual attractiveness and rural atmosphere. 2. Compatibility /Overbuilding of the Area One specific objective of the City's General Plan is to assure that all new construction is "compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings." Although two -story homes are scattered throughout the subject neighborhood, one -story period -style (early to mid 1900's) dwellings are the majority. As such, the Historic Preservation Commission has requested the Planning Commission approve a design which is consistent with the historic character of the neighborhood (see attached minutes). The applicant's proposed design is neither sensitive to the historic character of the existing neighborhood or compatible in terms of height and bulk in that a two -story structure with plywood siding and a cedar shake roof is proposed. Therefore, staff feels the proposal is incompatible with the existing neighborhood and therefore inconsistent with the General Plan and would contribute to the overbuilding of the subject area. 3. Privacy As stated above, the applicants proposal to build on Lot 13 meets all of the existing setback requirements for the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Ten foot side yards and a 35 ft. rear yard are maintained. 0052 SDR -1629, LL-86-001, DR -86 -004 Protiva Existing landscaping along the eastern property line will adequately protect the adjacent property owner. Additionally, the applicants have attempted to minimize the impact on privacy by restricting second story windows along the structures west elevation. However, existing second story windows along the east side of the existing dwelling on Lot 12 permit an unobstructed view of the rear and side yard areas of Lot 13. Finally, the proposed location of the driveway. on Lot 12 restricts the property owners of this lot to add additional landscaping along their eastern border if the 10 ft. side yard setback of the dwelling on Lot 13 proved to be inadequate. C. CONCLUSION /STAFF RECOMMENDATION As proposed, the project would: (1) result in the overbuilding of the subject area, (2) be incompatible with the existing neighborhood, (3) diminish the rural atmosphere of the subject lots and neighborhood, and (4) adversely impact the privacy of property owners on Lots 12 and 13. Finally, staff is unable to recommend approval of the subject applications because options exist that would minimize the impacts identified above. Specifically, staff recommends consideration of the following options: (1) delete the lot line dividing lots 12 and 13, leave the existing cottage on Lot 13 and use it as a second unit (Planning Commission approval would be required) or proposing a one -story dwelling on the subject lot. Staff feels both of these options would be more compatible with the existing lot and neighborhood than the current proposal. (2) Consider including Lot 11 in designing an overall development plan for the remaining lots. If, however the Planning Commission wishes to approve SOR-1629, LL -86 -001, and DR -86 -004, conditions of approval are attached. SDR -1629 EIA -4 LL -86 -001 Saratoga File No: DR -86 -004 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 .The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests site and design review approval of plans to allow the construction of a new 3,210 sq. ft. two -story (25 ft. high) single family dwelling on a 10,300 sq. ft. infill lot in the R 1 10,000 zoning district. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Linda Protiva 14466 Oak Place Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION An initial study was completed which that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 24th day of September Yuckuek Asia Planning Director DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 19 86 0054 I. BACKGROUND CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: 1-\, LOCATION: `-Kao I L.1' A e t 1. Name of Proponent: 17- 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 1.CR1 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: \4404 DA Q1 e 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: C.kAl t_ c 0 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ti FORM EIA -lb (42 t01 FILE NO: I,‘"'") J YES MAYBE NO 0055 e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or region- ally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? -0he c�A care n o. c i (2), c. Alteration o o or ow of £food waters: -2- YES MAYBE NO 0056 d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding? Significant changes in the temperature, flow,, or chemical. content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? -3- YES MAYBE NO ©057. C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? (Atki 6k.AAN CG s b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE NO 0058 YES MAYBE NO 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 1 e eLi SsO c tD C 'c- -5- b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ©59 b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantka1 amounts of fuel or energy? -6- YES MAYBE NO 0060 b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion o f any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? cs N VIA o. eNkANINC> 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -7- ti YES MAYBE NO 0061. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, suhs an. ally reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) YES MAYBE NO 0062 C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi- dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -9- YES MAYBE NO 0063 IV. DETERMINATION 0 the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the'proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. O I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and-an ENVIRONIMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: Ng, Dw ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: c SIGNA URE For: -10- (rev. 5/1G /80) 0064 FILING FEE: GENERAL INFORMATION: 2. Address of project: Assessor's Parcel Number: 14. Associated projects: CITY OF SARATOGA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE (to be completed by applicant) Ig DATE: 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: 1S. Anticipated incremental development: NG/.; G FILE NO: FORM EIA -la A PrV :a 7 ZZ ocT P7 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ,5 w 1. ;.j-•- 7/: 0 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal- agencies: Di. S Q �Q 6. Existing zoning district: k /O, ^C 7. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): 8. Site size: 9. Square footage: /C, ?nom :7:j 10. Number of floors of construction: :L-- 11. Amount of off- street parking: 12. Attached plans? Yes N 13. Proposed scheduling: o g. 'os 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected: W/177. h .7 p I S 1 1 00 G2 r 0665 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: J' 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: 20. If the project involves' a variance, conditional use or rezoning appli- cation, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21. Change in existing features of any lakes or hills, or sub- stantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0066. YES NO .mac— 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. DATE: 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- t on the site, and the use of the structures. J- `i,.1,',' ,ill "1' C.. �'�t e,) ii, it ci t .a :':;r-f— JA, j 1 f£ i./-1 f i� '.'f l t '._J L L. cvu.' .0 -mot c C 4 r L2 ✓lA 4f„c, rflt, .1. e.ef,_7! -G -I1.- (5, (i 'e. 44,:,(..- /v'_C.'- .i�.r .t1IVt. t_c(S/ f.(a eN.f� 3' 4 l.li e %',ls• 4-e/ A •7") f t.�.[ Vs- 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants .and animals-and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, "•commercial, etcs.), intensity. of land use (one family, apartment houses, shops.; department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear_ yard, etc.).. *✓Li'' ,t_.t -C._ (T n •..0)t .A _R1'. 11.r t r s r it -j;? !1*r r1"L..- ,4 Vic_. ot-' ;4'. es.. !..4., 4i. /.7-3,f, rA....- ,t4 i (4 es.,/ i CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my know- ledge and belief. (Signature) For: 0067 Planning Commission Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 V SEP 1 1985 September 17, 1986 The undersigned are all residents of the area adjacent to Oak Place. The streets involved are: La Paloma, Orchard, Park Place, and Westcott. We are most concerned with the Protiva plan to build two more houses on the former Pohle property, bringing the total to four houses. The original house is very large -3,500 sq. ft. including the garage -and the Protivas intend to make the old house sit on a lot with only a fifty foot wide frontage on Oak Place. The crowding of four two -story houses on the property will be ruinous to the character and appearance of the neighborhood -to say nothing of added congestion. This is the second time this matter has come before the Planning Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Sears, former owners of the Pohle property petitioned also to build three additional houses, and were denied. We hope the Planning Commission will give our appeal a great deal of consideration. Most of us are long time residents who chose to live here because of the pleasant character of the area. The William Coughlan's, 14474 Oak Place, have already suffered a great loss of privacy from the last 2,380 sq. ft. house Mrs. Protiva built on a fifty -foot wide lot. We request that the Planning Commission take a look at the impact this house has had on Oak Place, and visualize how the former Pohle mansion will look when squeezed onto only a fifty -foot wide lot! Please uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission Staff to deny the Protiva proposal! 7/0 t A) AANA QeZ a e itt-t+1 Cak /WY i/(% 7 y ad 03 C a— /e/4U/ O (k I�LQcc, 0068 S `1 C9a_ b --6 a2- /1 6k r -L 26-7,6/ gi n U r�� )7kileA, R A° 4, 9- cles4) Oe c, o ,e„ 71 CA 9s7D 70 /0 c""( c3 h 7 £n A 2 33 ohcM' e 9` d 3 2 F c d e/ a�� Q 203 7,5 a 7 7' s i 2 U 3 cP 2 a 2 0 7 5 6 7 1 moo .20.28/ L& e eee J'cc ,l-, -a_. /yy5y Q -c 0 1 4 0— f 4,_4 1iL1/ 3 eat -32a-c_g. 2/– J /yI 1 o�a i'Al-ce,Q a t 3 (e odbvi a/i (229 g& I i 10 Gt 3A 3 3 y b� sl i4A9 0/ A-- /y`1` 4J( 7141 SQ rate° a eec_- 7507/ 4- ia g 7607/ ,2c .3 6 5c :4 -Lr, Gros 2 sal' `9 Q 9 sPMO C G "k e m 3 LILL) ortt y �i�.v�:c.va 1 1/ I f L o OM 'Or 5G-VG: c. C aS °70 tL 9s o Ll .00tf S'.- ct -La ea %50'78 z e (:z o .3 (—o !1h-� /e`G. a. o a 7 o vo. fate. ct-Nre S te, 7s s S` •(-G9 PS 7sey a 0 75k �'�c Cam ?Co 7 o- 0 6 1 u P d-66-il-e} f O MRS. RALPH GOLDEEN POST OFFICE BOX 648 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95071 ITEM 8D S C P 1119B from the desk of pLANNI o KARYL M. 1—IALL 9 -z- 397/13/00z /ta ti,90 06 w _ice, ,l 0-taxgx_ r7-L- 744ix- �2..oze/ 6.2C/4, ,e.D Rp i i i CA- 75'676 0070 Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California To the Members of the Commission: P. 0. Box 145 Saratoga, CA 95071 Saratoga, California September 9, 1986 30?„ [CO29 v R. e -do4 LL g6 We oppose Mrs. Linda Protiva's request for design approval and lot line adjustment to allow the construction of a two story, single family home at 14458 Oak Place, Saratoga, on the basis that its implementation would: 1. add to the over building of the area 2. require too great a proportion of paving 3. have a negative impact on family privacy 4. result in the removal of desirable existing landscaping. We have lived at 14482 Oak Place since 1940 and have seen Saratoga grow, but we feel that it should grow in a controlled and rational manner. Yours truly, !ie #6;41 Vir iI H. Campbell u ,r¢� )Y' ane W. Campbell l PrpcervRtimn Commissiop. Minutes 7/2/86 Page 2 urged the City Attorney to "keep moving." C. Sign for Central Park Orchard. Chair Landsness stated that the sign is being made for the City Hall and the Orchard. It is hand carved by a meticulous carver, per Roy Swanson, Parks Supervisor. D. California History Center Report. Commissioner Voester requested that the Heritage Preservation Commission should review copies of the individual evaluations from the house tour which is on file with the California History Center. Chair Landsness will get copies. E. Budget. Staff presented copies of the approved budget (Exhibit A, attached). The Commission approved the purchase of copies of Saratoga's First Hundred Years. Commissioner Heid will bring them to the next meeting. F Discussion of Protiva project, Oak Place. The Commission discussed the proposed development of Oak Place, expressing concern that the structures not be oversized. It was M/S VOESTER /KOEPERNIK to express the Historic Preservation Commission's support to the Planning Commission in the design review process, that the Planners "not allow an oversized structure and use good judgement regarding the percentage of lot cover a a The design should be sensitive to the older historic c arh acter of the neighborhood, circa 1920, 1930. 1940 era," F 2. Commissioner Koepernik informed the Commission that he would not be attending the Main Street Program, Sept. 3 -5 in Winston Salem. F -3. The Commission will review Resolutions of Appreciation for Mr. Mrs. Lomas, Bregman and Peck at the next meeting. II. OLD BUSINESS. The Commissioners reviewed the Heritage Preservation Commission Inventory beginning with 431 and made comments as follows: Numbers refer to numerical order in Survey Book. #31 One of Mr. Jarbo's home. Remodeled over the years to a large structure. Henry Jarbo was one of the original founders of Madronia Cemetery Association. 432 F. B. Willard House. Mr. Willards main residence. Executive of the "City of Paris." Architectural style California Craftsman (1890- 1920). No known major changes made to original building. 433 Remove "secluded Neale's Hollow remove "resort cottage proposed." Insert California Craftsman. "One of the largest coast live oaks." Owner: John R. Kahle. Typifies Julia Morgan architecture and remains as originally designed. Secluded on a knoll above Saratoga Creek. 0072 3- 7/3/85 Councilmember Hlava stated that the intent of the Task Force was to have commercial uses on Big Basin Way; she did not wish to change the General Plan yet. Councilmember Clevenger felt the proposed change was not a good one for the site, and she did not wish to change the Land Use Element. CLEVENGER /HLAVA MOVED TO TABLE THE MATTER FOR RECONSIDERATION WHEN THE VILLAGE PLAN IS CONSIDERED. Passed 5 -0. B. Amendment of General Plan Designation of property at 20661 Fifth St. and portion of Property at 14644 Oak St. from Residential Multi Family to Retail Commercial (Applicant, D. Morrison) (CPA -85 -1) (continued from 6/19) City Attorney noted that the amendment depended upon the change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan; the Council could deny the application, he said, or, with the consent of the applicant, continue it for consideration with the Land Use Element. Councilmember Hlava noted that if the application were denied the applicant would have to pay fees again if it were considered at a later time; she wished to continue it. Mr. Morrison rose to say that he would agree to continuance. CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN APPROXIMATELY 90 DAYS. (Clerk's note: The meeting nearest to 90 days away would be the first meeting in October, October 2.) Mayor Fanelli then called a recess from 8:42 to 8:58 p.m. esign Review Approval to Construct a Two -Story Residence on a Substandard Lot at 14466 Oak Ptare (A -1069) (continued from 6/5) 1. Appeal of Above Approval (Appellant, W. and A. Coughlan) 2. Appeal of Condition of Above Approval to Limit Size of Residence to 2,380 sq. ft. (Applicant /appellant, L. and E. Protiva) Senior Planner Kerdus explained the appeals, and the public hearing was opened at 9:00 p.m. Althea Coughlan, 14474 Oak, spoke as an appellant opposing the approval. She felt that although concessions had been made, the problems with the setbacks remained. She also felt that the house would have great bulk and a massive appearance in a restricted space, and she raised questions about inconsistencies in the maps. Norm Matteoni then spoke_on behalf of the Protivas, pointing out that Lot 10 had building site approval. Although the house was still larger than the Planning Commission recommended he said, there were aesthetic reasons for that. In response to Mayor Fanelli, he stated that the square footage included the garage area. Linda Protiva spoke as the applicant. She said that they had addressed all the points brought up by the Council, including reducing the height, turning the house on the lot, and reducing the square footage. She compared the proposed house to the Coughlans' house, saying that the Coughlan house was larger in proportion to the size of the lot than the proposed house. She then stated that the entrance had been improved in appearance and attractive architectural features added. Greg Grodhaus expressed concern about the inconsistency of the maps but stated that the main point should be development of a total plan for all the lots in the area. John Saunders, 1570 Aloha, stated that he was in the sphere of influence of the project. He warned the Council that there was a danger for all property owners if some property owners were not allowed to exercise their rights. He believed the project would enhance the neighborhood. Suzanne Moreno Lorshbough, 14475 Oak Place, felt that the project would destroy the historical ambience of the area. She reviewed the historical significance of various houses in the area and expressed the belief that the density, composition flavor and conformity to historical standards were most important, and a plan should be developed to protect the neighborhood. long -range Holly Davies, 14.78 Oak Place, expressed objections to the particular plan and to the general effect. She requested that the Council draft a memo stating that the existing Protiva residence on Lot 12 is too large for the lot and was not designed for it. She feared that whatever was approved for Lot 10 would also be built on Lot /,\,-/66? 0073 4 7/3/85 11, resulting in four contiguous two -story structures. Although concessions had been made, she said that the requests to place the garage to the rear, place a driveway or wider setback between the houses, and make the house one story had been ignored. Bill Sanguinetti, 18700 Parley Dr., expressed concern that the rights of the Protivas were being denied them. Mrs. William Craft, 22000 Dorsey Way, spoke representing Mrs. Byron Singletary, saying that Mrs. Singletary was a neighbor who approved of the project. She felt the other neighbors were depriving the Protivas of their rights. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:39 p.m. City Attorney stated that the lots had become lots of record before incorporation of the City. He noted that Saratoga as yet has no merger ordinance which could be applied. Councilmembers then discussed various aspects of the situation, including whether a specific plan for the area should be required; the fact that future buildings would have to go through design review in any case; the possibility of of the applicant's moving the lot lines to combine Lots 10 and 11, building a bigger house on the combined lot; the fact that the City cannot force a merger of lots. Most Councilmembers felt that the Protivas had met the major concerns of the neighbors in minimizing the impact of the project and should not be further held up in their project. Councilmember Clevenger felt that the house was inappropriate for the neighborhood. If they were held up, she said, it was because of their efforts to capitalize on the neighborhood. She believed the proposal to be incompatible with the area because of its size, bulk, and design. HLAVA /MOYLES MOVED TO DENY THE COUGHLAN APPEAL OF THE PROTIVA APPROVAL. Passed 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed). HLAVA MOYLES MOVED TO GRANT THE PROTIVA APPEAL 1;ER EXHIBITS B -2 AND C -2, MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, PER THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed). Councilmember Movies asked that the record show that the Council's decision made Lot 11 virtually useless. Ordinance Raising Speed Limit on Portion of McCoy Avenue to 30 mph (first reading) Community Development Director explained ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 10:07 p.m. No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 10:08 p. CLEVENGER /HLAVA MOVED INTRODUCE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5 -0. Mayor Fanelli requested that in the future the Deputy City Clerk read the titles of the ordinances and insert the ordinance number where appropriate. B. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES 1. Attendance Reports Councilmember Callon noted that two Heritage Preservation Commissioners had been absent from half the meetings; Mayor Fanelli stated that, according to policy, she would communicate with those commissioners to determine their intentions. 2. Oral Reports from Commissioners None. Councilmember Hlava then brought up the Public Safety Commission's memo on a possible ordinance to charge homeowners for Sheriff's services for uncontrolled parties. Councilmembers brought up various objections to such an ordinance, including the fact that the homeowners may not have the situation under control to start with; the City already accepts some costs attributable to individuals such as Sheriff's costs and ought not to charge for services which people are entitled to; the fact that some houses may have the same problem week after week; the lack of a comprehensive philosophy to cover this general type of situation. There was consensus to request the Public Safety Commission to be more specific about how these and other questions would be handled. City Attorney expressed reservations about legal ramifications of such an ordinance. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS None. 0 O7 hdilfo1r WESTERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Countersigned: VICE PRESIDENT C LTA GUARANTEE FORM NO. 24 PART 1 (3-16-78) 000689 PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP GUARANTEE CITY OF SARATOGA Fec $100.00 No. 500902 Parcel Map Reference SUBJECT TO TI-IE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND OTI -IER PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HERETO ANNEXED AND MADE A PART OF TIIIS GUARANTEE, WESTERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES herein called the Assured, against loss not exceeding $1,000, which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurance which the Company hereby gives that, ac- cording to the public records on the date statcd below, The title to the herein described estate or interest was vested in the vestee named, sub- ject to the matters shown as Exceptions herein, which Exceptions arc not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. THIS PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP GUARANTEE IS FURNISHED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PARCEL MAP GUARANTEE. IT SHALL NOT BE USED OR RELIED UPON FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. Dated July 9, 1986 in the County of Santa Clara WESTERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1NSU RA y r By o 3 .0 Bv7fL K 1 0 I gllf 0 mot' o 0075 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms when used in this Cuarantee mean: (a) "land": the land described, spe- cifically or by reference, in this Guaran- tee and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property; (b) "public records those records which impart constructive notice of mat- ters relating to said land; (c) "date the effective date; (d) "the Assured the party or parties named as the Assured in this Guarantee, or in :t supplemental writing executed by the Company; (e) "mortgage mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instru- ment.. 2. EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE OF THIS GUARANTEE The Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. (b) Unpatented mining claims; res- ervations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. (c) Title to any property beyond the lines of the land expressly described in the description set forth in this Guar- antee, or title to streets. roads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways on which such land abuts, or the right to maintain there- in vaults, tunnels, ramps or any other structure or improvement; or any rights or easements therein unless such prop-:. erty, rights or easements are expressly.. and specifically set forth in said descrip tion. (d) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims against the title as guar- anteed or other matters (1) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assured; or (2) resulting in no loss to the Assured. 3. PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS (a) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish or confirm the matters herein guaranteed; and the Company may take any appro- priate action under the terms of this Guarantee whether or not it shall he liable thereunder and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision hereof. (b) In all cases where the Company clues so institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, the Assured shall permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the Assured for such purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Assured shall give the Company all CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS reasonable aid in prosecuting such action or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse the Assured for any expense so incurred. 4. NOTICE OF LOSS LIMITATION OF ACTION A statement in writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the Com- pany is liable under this Guarantee shall be furnished to t Company within sixty days after such loss or damage shall have been determined, and no right of action shall accrue to the Assured under this Guarantee until thirty days after such statement. shall have been furnished. and no recovery shall be had by the Assured under this Guarantee unless action shall be commenced thereon within two years after expiration of said thirty day period. Failure to furnish such statement of loss or damage or to commence such action within the time hereinbefore specified, shall be a conclusive bar against mainte- nance by the Assured of any action under this Guarantee. 5. OPTION TO PAY, SETTLE OR COMPROMISE CLAIMS The Company shall have the option to pay or settle or compromise for or in the name of the Assured any claim which could result in loss to the Assured within the coverage of this Guarantee, or to pay the full amount of this Guarantee or, it this Guarantee is issued for the benefit of a holder of a mortgage, the Company shall have the option to purchase the indebtedness secured by said mortgage. Such purchase, payment or tender of payment of the full amount of the Guar- antee shall terminate all liability of the Company hereunder. In the event after notice of claim has been given to the Company by the Assured the Company offers to purchase said indebtedness, the owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and assign said indebtedness and the mortgage securing the same to the Com- pany upon payment of the purchase price. 6. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY— PAYMENT OF LOSS (a) 'I'}re liability of the Company under this Guarantee shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurances herein set' forth, but in 00 event shall such liability exceed the amount of the liability stated on the face page herof. (b) The Company will pay all costs imposed upon the Assured in litigation carried on by the Company for the Assured, and all costs and attorney's fees in litigation carried on by the Assured with the written authorization of the Company. (e) No claim for damages shall arise or be maintainable under this Guarantee I) if the Coinpany after having received not ice of an alleged defect, lien or encum- brance not. shown as an 1 ?xcept ur ex- eluded herein removes such defect, lien or encumbrance within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice, or (2) for liahility voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without written consent of the Company. (d) All payments under this Guar- antee, except for attorneys' fees as pro- vided for in paragraph 6(b) hereof, shall reduce the amount of the liability here- under pro tanto, and no payment shall be made without producing this Guaran- tee for indorsement of such payment un- less the Guarantee be lost or destroyed, in which case proof of such loss or de- struction shall be furnished to the satis- faction of the Company. (e) When liability has been defi- nitely fixed in accordance with the con- ditions of this Guarantee, the loss or damage shall be payable within thirty days thereafter. 7. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured, and it shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to such claim had this Guarantee not been issued. If the payment does not cover the loss of the Assured, the Com- pany shall be subrogated to such rights and remedies in the proportion which said payment bears to the amount of said loss. The Assured if requested by the Company, shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any per- son or property necessary in order to perfect such right of subrogation, and shall permit the Company to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving such rights or remedies. 8. GUARANTEE ENTIRE CONTRACT Any action or actions or rights of action that the Assured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the subject matter hereof must be based on the provisions of this Guarantee. No provision or condition of this Guarantee can be waived or changed except by a writing endorsed or attached hereto signed by the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary or other validating officer of the Company. 9. NOTICES, WHERE SENT All notices required to be given the Com- pany and any statement in writing re- quired to be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at its Main Office, 350 Bush Street, San Francisco, California. 10. The fee specified on the face of this Guarantee is the total fee for title search and examination and for this Guarraanttee_ The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Prelim- inary Guarantee is a fee. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: ERIC V. PROTIVA and LINDA C. PROTIVA, husband and wife, as joint tenants The land referred to in this Preliminary Guarantee is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" EXCEPTIONS: 1— 1986 -87 taxes a lien, not yet due or payable, 2— Supplemental Real Property Tax Assessments (Chapter 498, Statutes of 1983, as amended); The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 3— Deed of trust to secure payment of $400,000.00 and any other amounts secured thereby; Dated: May 8, 1984 Trustor: Eric V. Protiva and Linda C. Protiva, husband and wife Trustee: Imperial Corporation of America, a corporation Beneficiary: Imperial Savings Association, a California corporation Loan No.: 006 01287 -6 Recorded: May 22, 1984 Series No.: 8071433 CLTA GUARANTEE FORM NO. 24 PART 2 (3-16 -78) (continued) 007 Order Number: -3- 500902 PARCEL MAP GUARANTEE: 4- Credit line deed of trust with a maximun limit of $50,000.00 and any other amounts secured thereby; Dated: October 12, 1985 Trustor: Eric V. Protiva and Linda C. Protiva, husband and wife, as joint tenants Trustee: First Santa Clara Corporation Beneficiary: Bank of The West, a corporation Loan No.: None Shown Recorded: October 18, 1985 Series No.: 8562824, Book 490 OR, page 1894 1985 -86 TAX INFORMATION Assessor's Reference No.: 397 -22 -009 Code Area: 15 -043 1st Installment: $3,342.50, paid 2nd Installment: $3,342.50, paid Values: Land: $428,727.00 Improvements: $189,563.00 Personal Property: None Exemption: $7,000.00 Homeowner's (Affects additional property) 0078 ORDER NUMBER: 500902 Those parcels of land in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as-follows: PARCEL 1: Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots, being part of the Quito Rancho, at Saratoga, filed August 14, 1914, Map Book 0, page 58, Santa Clara County Records. PARCEL 2: Lot 13, Block 1, Saratoga Park Lots, being part of the Quito Rancho, at Saratoga, filed May 17, 1909, Map Book M. page 62, Santa Clara County Records. PARCEL 3: Beginning at a stake standing on the South line of Sub division entitled "Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots, being part of the Quito Rancho at Saratoga, and which Map was recorded on August 17, 1914 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Vol. 0 of Maps, page 58, at the common corner for Lots 9 and 10 in Block 1 of said Subdivision; thence S.43 33' E. 124.65 feet to a stake standing on the Northwesterly line of the 5.34 acre tract, formerly of Sarah S. Bell; thence along said line N. 46 27'E. 131.13 feet to the Southerly line of Lot 13 in Block 1 of said Subdivision; thence Westerly and along the Southerly lines of Lots 13, 12, 11 and 10 in Block 1 of said Subdivision, 180.92 feet to the place of beginning, and being a portion of the Quito Rancho. "EXHIBIT A" BLOCK 1 QUITO RANCHO AT SMMA TOGA P1. ACE THIS IS NOT A SURVEY Of THE LAND, BUT IS COMPILED FROM DATA SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS WESTERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 5 WL y 1 lwf Quin R-RA mckfo A r $pA,ATooA ak °N1 's PG58 SDR -1629 Protiva Exhibit C Conditions of Approval SOR-1629 The Applicant shall submit a written agreement to the following conditions as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or such resolution shall be void: I. Specific Conditions Encineerina Division 1. Pay storm drainage fee in'effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required checking and recordation fees. 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. half- street on Oak Place. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements as required. 5. Improve Oak Place to City standards, including the following: A. Designed structural section between centerline and flowline. B. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). C. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.). 6. Enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements in #5 above. 7. Convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the City Engineer. 8. Construct standard driveway approaches. 9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 10. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change or retard or prevent flow. 11. Engineered improvement plans required for street improvements. 12. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement r plans. 13. Applicant shall remove fence from the public right-of -way and obtain an encroachment permit for the new driveway. SDR -1629, Conditions cont. 14. Record joint driveway easements between lots 11 and 12 and lots 12 and 13. II. Santa C1aCa C,Pnt_v_Ngajt. DeQartmgn 1. Any existing septic tanks must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health Standards. 2. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company. III. SAeci }s Condktign__ —S_ r1tAClar _Vall_Y 41.1cr_Dis,trict 1. The 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 registration. IV. $oecific Cor�dit_•ns $rC aro ntvanitat�on District 1. The applicant shall pay appropriate fees to County Sanitation District No. 4 for connection to the sanitary sewer. V. S PS.kf Jc itions Pacific Gd k Ele ctric 1. Provide for a 5 ft, public utility easement property line. VI. 5 ors__ Sar4toaa_Fire District 1. Construct shoulders aggregate dwelling on driveway(s) 14 feet width, plus one using double seal coat oil and screens or base from public street or access road Parcel B and garage on Parcel A. along the east foot better on 6 to proposed 2. Install in the garage on Lot 12 an automatic sprinkler system with heat detectors. Those shall be connected to the Saratoga Fire District's receiver. 3. The developer shall install one (1) hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any buildings. 4. Maximum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 800 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. 5. Provide 15 ft. clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site, remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. VII. Spe Plannthr.Lpper me rit 1. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall request and the City Council vacate the existing 27' wide alley on the easterly portion of Lot 13. SD -1629, Planning Dept. Conditions, cont. 2. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall bring the existing garage /studio on Lot 13 up to code regarding setbacks and height and receive proper approvals. The foregoing conditions are accepted. Signature of Applicant Date DR -86 -004 Exhibit D DR -86 -004 Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to these conditions and the 'project as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or such resolution shall be void. 2. The height of the the structure shall not exceed 25 ft. as measured in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 06.340 of the City Code. 3. Total gross floor area for all structures on Lot 13 shall not exceed 3210 sq. ft. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demolish and remove the existing cottage and garage on Lot 13. 5. The applicant shall make every effort to maintain the existing landscape screening along Lot 13 east property line. If the applicant removes the existing landscaping, Condition #6 and #7 shall apply. 6. If the existing landscape screening along the east property line of Lot 13 is removed, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit landscaping plans providing for a minimum 5 ft. landscape screen, to the Planning Director for review and approval. 7. The required landscaping noted in Condition #6 above shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 8. No second story windows shall be installed on the west elevation of the proposed dwelling on Lot 13. 9. A 6 ft. high fence shall be erected between Lots 12 and 13. 10. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit. The foregoing conditions are accepted. Signature of Applicant Date Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Con(ernl ar v(e u,4 h. tkL Canc lusr'o vi of flu NM/ COmr��5s;On sfnff tJl1�'�l1 WU' d,. LJL ol round Ad a ravA( rI Cc ui'l(c.rrektz s 3s-00 �ieu'x on 50 .lo1 perct r1 a e x s k ti f L. a Ton fi f �nva roblrms 11cn Crvl rM(t.ctt,L W1fl1 oHr I1G(15(s h )-s' a eirsicrb yr )10,43.(.3 14 Aux. b u l os+ st-1 m n�c,f it 1114 Pir�-� vA s h a 11�0✓ttoo1 UW�✓C� ht c h ink vr�c(a (iSJ1— AcU hd�u c I Lc in a frf ot l 4 11, fh Ul I.1kt firOvrt or) Ytt c) Vilg Oak Ph() Sn(fi) h CA Project Description: ,S,fC qN,d c�(°s1 re_ v tj /G� j �YOVh(S h l I.(S I mi►1 ani No Avr, PectArrk -k'o +3 4I(ac) A )iJG X1 5] si h 'filmic h6 Decision Being App aled: AprOith *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. THHIS APPLICAITION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DECISIO, APPEAL APPLICATION e. Neil Dtwi(S f Lf 7 Q,k PI a ct_ 7 —((1'07 Lf Pra 1. SDR 00L1 )L1.— 86 40 1 Appellant A MP ignature Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee 5 CITY USE ON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 pill3LIC HEARINGS: 5. SDR -1629 Protiva, request for site and design review approvals, a lot line adjustment and DR -86 -004 Negative Declaration to allow the construction of a two -story single family LL- 86-001 home at 14458 Oak Pl., in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district Continued from September 10, 1986. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission" of September 24, 1986. Planner Caldwell stated that in Exhibit "B" lot 3 is not a legal lot of record; it is a parcel. She noted that a Condition 13 and a Condition 14 would be added to Specific Conditions, Engineering Division, if this application is approved. In regard to the public right of way the notation on exhibit "B "proposed area to be abandoned" is to be removed from the Exhibit. In response to Chairwoman Burger's question, the City Attorney stated that the City has historically taken the position that a legal lot of record allows the owner to develop the property: The parcel shown as lot 3 on the map is not a legal lot of record; it appears to be a remainder parcel left from prior subdivision or acreage from earlier owners. This subdivision goes back about 80 years. The title report, as well, only shows that it has meets and bounds description as opposed to Lots 11, 12 and 13 which are described as Lot numbers shown on a recorded map. The significance is that lot 3 is not a legal lot of record; it is one of the few parcels in the City that qualify for a mandatory merger, the proposal submitted by the applicant does involve the merger of the parcel identified as lot 3 to Lot 12. The City wishes to assure that this merger takes place. If the application is approved by the Commission, the City would look for a sequence of: The recording of the parcel map to accomplish the lot line adjustment and the merger at one time Abandonment of the alleyway along the side of Lot 13. The two parcels of land involved are the alleyway and the northerly property line of Lots 12 and 13, the triangular area labeled, "proposed area to be abandoned." This area is part of the public right of way, and was dedicated and accepted; therefore this area is not to be abandoned. The alleyway, dedicated but not accepted, is the property to be abandoned. The applicant is entitled to have the dedication removed from the tide; some form of encroachment permit is necessary to install the driveway. Design Review of structures for the building permit. The City Attroney does not want the City in the position of abandoning the property in question before the merger of lots takes place. Thus, approval of this application will result in the above steps. The applicant has indicated a willingness to merge. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried stated that the staff report and the site visit made did not correlate well with each other. One of his concerns is that it needs to be made clear that Lot 13 is a legal, existing lot of record; the owners of the Lot have a right to develop this lot. There is almost a suggestion to the contrary; this is not true. In response to Commissioner Pines' request, the City Attorney stated that the application would come before the Planning Commission for building site approval and lot line adjustment; in regard to presenting the design review to the Commission for consideration, the primary reason was the circumstances under which design review would be required is where a main structure is being constructed upon an infill lot, i.e., a lot surrounded by other developments. There is also a general provision allowing the Planning Director to present to the Commission any application which is controversial. Finally, the design review is before the Planning Commission rather than the Site Review Committee, which ordinarily reviews applications meeting standards, to promote the convenience of the Staff, Applicant and concerned citizens; the entire proposal will be dealt with at one time. Commissioner Pines requested that such information be stated in the Staff Report in the future. In response to Commissioner Harris' question regarding the comment of Councilmember Moyles, City Council Meeting, July 3, 1985, "Councilmember Moyles asked that the record show that the Council's decision made Lot 11 virtually useless," the City Attorney stated that this Application was an appeal for design review on Lot 10; the Council upheld the appeal. It was the opinion of the Councilmember that due to the bulk of the structures on Lots 10 and 12, any structure placed on Lot 11 was of concern to him; he would oppose any substantial structure on Lot 11; Lot 13 was not being addressed at the time. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Planner Caldwell stated that Staff did not have a specific square footage for a one story house suggested in the Staff Report. Chairwoman noted and read into the record names of individuals who wrote to the Planning Commission. The following individuals wrote letters in opposition to the Application: Ms. Jane Pinel Chris Kinn Garth Garland Mr. Alain Pinel Dr. and Mrs. Hugh Lorshbaugh Mr. Joe Donahue The Planning Commission has received the following letters in support of the Application Mr. and Mrs. William Craft Veronica Nourse Dr. Robert Rosen Mrs. Byron Singletary Mr. and Mrs. John Saunders Tom and Rosemary Tisch C. Farley Young Chairwoman Burger acknowledged a petition in favor of the Application, signed by 39 citizens. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Norm Matteoni, 12601 Cambridge Dr., Saratoga, spoke on behalf of the Applicant, stressed that Lot 13 is a legal lot; in addition the application is within setback and size requirements of the zoning district. He addressed the following points of the Staff Report, Issues: On 3, the statement that the rural atmosphere of the existing neighborhood will be adversely affected by this application. The term "rural" is important to the City of Saratoga and is used even in political brochures; however, he questioned whether this is the proper use of the term and pointed out the rural character of the lots surrounding the Village. Rural, in this sense has an effect on 2, which deals with compatibility with the neighborhood in design, height, and bulk. The Village is an inner community within the City and brings together the commercial atmosphere with residents living near the Village. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued This application is for a minor lot line adjustment; the applicant is not asking that the rules under which this subdivision were laid out, be changed. The issue is whether the proposal is compatible in terms of design. He stated that her proposal is compatible with the atmosphere of the Village. The request for a lot line adjustment allows the opportunity to legalize the situation. Ms. Linda Protiva, Applicant, stated that she has applied for site approval and design review for a single family dwelling. In April, the applicant meet with staff to discuss the best approach to the project, the lot line encroachment of Lots 12 and 13 and the landlocked parcel being referred to as lot 3; recommendations were made. Due to a change of staff, new recommendations were made in June and July; changes in the tentative map were necessary. The application was submitted due to a necessary lot line adjustment and to resolve the encroachment issue. The applicant stated that she was told by staff that she must merge Lot 12 and parcel 3; she has complied with reluctance. The proposed design of the house was an attempt to preserve as much vegetation as possible and allow for a large garden. The applicants will remove the cottage, the carport, and a three car garage. She noted that staffs statement that the cottage is vacant is incorrect; the cottage has been rented for the last eight years. Ms. Protiva agrees with the staff report in that she has a legal lot, has met code and ordinance requirements for impervious coverage, for setbacks, height and square footage. On Issues of the Staff Report: 1. Overbuilding of the site. Ms. Protiva stated that a permit to remodel was granted in March for a house three doors away; the lot was 10,125 sq. ft., the house and garage were increased to 3,242 sq. ft. and the impervious coverage increased to 45% the remodeling permit allowed a second story to be added. This application is for a larger lot, less square footage and less impervious coverage. The Applicant asked to be treated in the same manner as other applicants. Of the 14 houses on Oak Place, 8 of them are two -story houses. The Applicant presented an Exhibit 1, to demonstrate the relationship of the site with other lots in the Village area. Of the 72 lots in this area, 14 of them are larger than the lot in question and 58 are smaller in size; this equals 80% of the lots in the area are smaller than the lot the applicant proposes to build on. The diversity of lot shape was presented. The applicant stated that she is not asking for anything neighbors do not already enjoy. 2. Landscaping. Exhibit 3, a collection of maps and Exhibit 2, a series of 12 photographs was presented, showing the mature landscape screening surrounding the proposed building site. Effort was made to reduce the impervious coverage on the property. The applicants are removing almost 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage and replacing this area with landscaping; this results in only 24% impervious coverage. From the street, the house will barely be visible; there will be minimal change in the property from street view. 3. Compatibility. Exhibit 4 was presented showing the diversity of homes in the area; Ms. Protiva stated that variation is definitely part of the Village atmosphere. The applicants feel that the proposed design is imminently compatible with the Village. 4. Privacy. Exhibit 2, picture 8 and Exhibit 3 presented. The applicant stated that of the 4 windows on the second floor of the house, two are opaque. They value their privacy as well as the privacy of others. The southwest comer of the proposed house is 60 ft. from the Protiva house; the northwest comer is 38 ft. from their house. Proper screening along the driveway will provide the privacy necessary for both houses. There are three windows on the second story of the east side; one of the windows is opaque. Suggestions made by Commissioner Pines on rotation of the bedroom window and elimination of another second window were adopted. No other neighbors privacy will be affected. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In summary, the Applicant stated they are not asking for a variance; they have complied with everything the Planning Department has requested by lifting the lot line to merge and resolving the encroachment problem. Impervious coverage will be lessened; landscaping will be increased. The house was designed to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant asked that their legal right to develop the property be respected. Ms. Billie Coughlan, 14474 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that many facts presented were not correct; for example, the two -story houses, with the exception of the Coughlan house, are on larger lots than the one in question. The house on Lot 41, while built on a corner, is on a much larger lot. The neighborhood is a little, quiet place; this proposal will make congestion with so many two-story houses. The big house that the Protiva's live in is close to 3,500 sq. ft.; how can this house fit on a 50 ft. lot? Ms. Coughlan pointed out that the people who signed the petition she submitted are residents of Oak Place, LaPaloma Ave. and Orchard Rd. All but two of the individuals who wrote letters in favor of the proposal do not live anywhere near the area. She asked that the Commissioners go and look at the area. Chairwoman Burger stated that each Commissioner had made a site visit. Ms. Holly Daives, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that her objections to the proposal before the Commission are: Approval of the proposal will radically alter the character of Oak Place, one of Saratoga's more charming streets. The old Pohle Mansion, 3,500 sq. ft., will be made to sit on a lot with only a 50 ft. front on Oak Place; houses on either side will closely flank the new house. The proposed house will be non conforming in the following ways: Placement on a triangle shaped lot, with little frontage on Oak Place Virtually identical with the house the Protiva's built last summer, this in a neighborhood where houses are highly individual. The Pohle house and the proposed new house will be separated by only a 16 ft. wide driveway; this will make the creation of natural landscaping for privacy screening impossible and will render both houses unlivable. Approval of this two-story structure will invade the privacy of one -story homes and will create a perception of excessive bulk from the street. Ms. Dailies urged the Commission to uphold the recommendation of the planning staff and deny the proposal. Mrs. Rosemary Tish, 14735 Aloha Ave., Saratoga, stated that she knows the applicant is concerned about Saratoga and has been active in activities in the area. Mrs. Protiva has carefully remodelled the house she lives in. Mrs. Tish supported the proposal and noted that the property is a legal lot and no variance is required; she asked that the Commission support this application. Ms. Betty Rohl, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that restoring her house took a lot of time, effort and money; many of the other homes in the area are being preserved. She gave a brief history of her experiences with the Protivas. The two-story house built by the Protivas was without regard to immediate neighbors or to the impact on the Village. There are plans for additional two-story homes with removal of shrubbery and added pavement. The effect will be devestating to the historical nature of the neighborhood overbuilt and over kill seems to be the model. She asked that the Commission deny the proposal. Ms. Dolores Piecemeal, 14560 Westcott Dr., Saratoga, stated that she was surprised to find that she has 39 neighbors who support this change. She has watched the development of this property. She asked that the Commission follow the historical, legal and logical process and not grant that the historical parcel 3 be changed. The applicant cites that the City wants to resolve the map issues; as part of the City, Ms. Piecemeal does not want any change in the map. A change in parcel 3 is of major concern to her, loss of this parcel will greatly affect the adjoining neighbors. Mrs. Virgil Campbell, 14482 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that she directed a letter to the Commission; Chairwoman Burger assured Mrs. Campbell that her letter had already become a matter of record. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Lisa Donahue, 14441 Oak Place, Saratoga, concurred with neighbors who are not in support of the Protiva application. Mrs. William H. Craft, 22000 Dorsey Way, Saratoga, stated that what is legal and right for one property owner on Oak Place should be legal and right for another property owner. It is that simple. The Protivas own a lot of record, zoned R- 1- 10,000 and the design for the house meets all the building code requirements for the area. Their request is being denied, citing overbuilding of property; in March a neighbor was granted a permit for 45% coverage while the Protivas will have 24% coverage. Is this fair? Is this right? Is this democratic? Mrs. Craft urged the Commission to approve this application. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood the historic nature of the area however, the suggestion has been made that the Protivas cannot build; the fact is that they have a legal lot of record and the application meets the requirements of the zoning area. The question is whether this is a reasonable home and a resonable design for the lot; a two -story home on a triangular shaped lot is reasonable construction and it has adequate landscape screening. This proposal will not have any impact or will change or modify the nature of the neighborhood. There is no special privilege being asked for. Commissioner Harris stated that she was concerned with the side elevations of the proposed house; from a design point of view these sides are very stark. She expressed her concern that the design of the house is incompatible with other homes she saw in the nieghborhood. She stated that she wished this concern to be addressed adequately. Commissioner Pines stated that he has spent considerable time at the site; he concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's opinion and stated that the applicant has worked to protect the privacy of the neighbors. It is a lot of record and meets the requirements. Letters received expressed valid issues of size of house in relation to size of lot; in this case the size of the lot is larger than required and the house smaller than allowed. The Commissioner will vote in favor of this application and stated that he could make the necessary findings. Commissioner Guch noted on a site visit that there was adequate screening from the east side and to the rear of the property. The property has mature landscaping and there are a number of oak trees on the property; the orange tree being removed is small. She stated that there would be minimal impact on the vegetation on the property. The lot in question is not being overbuilt; the proposed house meets all the requirements. Due to the mature vegetation, privacy will not be denied to neighbors. Essentially the applicant proposes to take this lot of record, remove two structures and replace it with a house. The Commissioner concurs with Commissioners Pines and Siegfried. Commissioner Tucker noted on a site visit that the area is lovely; she concurred with other Commissioners and stated that the proposed house will not overbuild the lot. Chairwoman Burger concurred with the above. The impact of the design proposed for this house will be relatively low due to the mature vegetation on the property. Planner Caldwell stated that in Specific Conditions Engineering Division, Condition 13 to read, "The applicant shall remove the fence from the public right of way and obtain an encroachment permit for the new driveway. Condition 14, "Applicant to record joint driveway easement between Lots 11 and 12 and Lots 12 and 13. Commissioner Pines questioned Conditions of Approval, VI. Specific Conditions Saratoga Fire District, 2 and 3; on 3, Planner Caldwell confirmed that this Condition will place a fire hydrant in the area. The City Attorney stated that in reference to Condition 2, the primary reason for the requirement is that the garage is a three car garage with a living area ajoining the garage; the Fire Chief expressed concern regarding an area used for vehicle storage and resident occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris questioned Condition 1 of the same section; Condition to read, "Construct driveway (s) 14 feet width, plus one foot shoulders using On Conditions of Approval, DR -86 -004, 5 and 6, the word "screening" to be added to landscape to read in both Conditions, "landscape screening." PINES /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6 -0. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MERGER, LL -86 -001. Passed 6 -0. PINES /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE SDR -1629 AND DR -86 -001 MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT: A. THE PLACEMENT OF HOUSE ON THE SITE AND PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS ON THE SECOND STORY DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH VIEWS AND PRIVACY OF ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. B. THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IS PRESERVED IN A MANNER THAT WILL REMOVE ONLY ONE ORANGE TREE ON SITE; ANY SCREEN LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE WILL BE REPLACED. C. HOUSE DESIGN MINIMIZES PERCEPTION OF EXCESSIVE BULK THROUGH USE OF TWO STORIES REDUCING THE SPREAD OF THE HOUSE ON AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE IS BELOW ALLOWABLE AREA FOR A LOT OF THIS SIZE. D. COMPATIBLE BULK AND HEIGHT, AS STATED IN C. WITH THE ADDITION OF THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FOR A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE. E. NOT APPLICABLE F. INFILLS, COMPATIBILITY VIEWS, PRIVACY AND NATURAL FEATURES AS STATED IN A. AND B. G. NOT APPLICABLE. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SDR -1629; LL -86 -001, CONDITIONS 1 -12; ADDITION OF CONDITION 13, TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE FENCE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR THE NEW DRIVEWAY." ADDITION OF CONDITION 14, TO READ, "APPLICANT TO RECORD JOINT DRIVEWAY EASEMENT BETWEEN LOTS 11 AND 12 AND LOTS 12 AND 13." ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, DR -1629, VI, 1, DELETE THE WORD "MINIMUM." ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR -86 -004, CONDITIONS 1 -4; CONDITION 5, ADD THE WORD "SCREENING" TO READ "LANDSCAPE SCREENING;" CONDITION 6, ADD THE WORD "SCREENING" TO READ "LANDSCAPE SCREENING." Passed 5 -1, Commissioner Harris opposed. Commissioned Harris opposed, stating that design was incompatible with the neighborhood. DR -86 -004 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to these conditions and the project as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or such resolution shall be void. 2. The height of the the structure shall not exceed 25 ft. as measured in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 06.340 of the City Code. 3. Total gross floor area for all structures on Lot 13 shall not exceed 3210 sq. ft. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demolish and remove the existing cottage and garage on Lot 13. 5. The applicant shall make every effort to maintain the existing landscape screening along Lot 13 east property line. If the applicant removes the existing landscaping, Condition #6 and #7 shall apply. 6. If the existing landscape screening along the east property line of Lot 13 is removed, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit landscaping plans providing for a minimum 5 ft. landscape screen, to the Planning Director for review and approval. 7. The required landscaping noted in Condition #6 above shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 8. No second story windows shall be installed on the west elevation of the proposed dwelling on Lot 13, 9. A 6 ft. high fence shall be erected between Lots 12 and 13. 10. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaAning a tree removal permit. The foregoing conditions are accepted. Signature of Applicant Exhibit 0 DR -86 -004 Conditions of Approval Date Matteoni, Saxe Nanda /Lawyers 852 North First Street 3rd Floor l San Jose, California 95112 Telephone (408) 971 -6411 November 24, 1986 Hon. City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council: 1. The site is a legal lot. A Professional Association Norman E. Matteoni* Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda RE: Site and Design Review Approval for Infill Lot at 14460 Oak Place (Protiva) City Council Agenda: December 3, 1986 *Professional Corporation I represent the applicant regarding site and design review approval to allow construction of a new two story single family residence on a 10,300 square foot infill lot in an R1- 10,000 zoning district on Oak Place. Addition- ally, approval is sought for a lot line adjustment between this lot and an adjacent lot which is the existing Protiva residence for construction of a driveway. The Planning Commission granted its approval and there was an appeal by neighbors in the immediate area. In reviewing this matter, I ask the Council to consider the following key points: 2. The building proposed will replace an existing house and garage. 3. The proposal meets the City standards regarding lot size, setback, height and impervious coverage. I know that you have been invited to view the site by the Protivas and I am sure you will find that site visit r Hon. City Council November 24, 1986 Page Two most helpful in determining that the proposal is in keeping with the general standards of the neighborhood and does not violate anyone's privacy. The view from the street will be virtually unchanged from what exists today. But, at the same time, the improvement that is proposed greatly enhances the property. I ask for your favorable consideration of this matter on behalf of the applicant. NEM:sd cc: Linda Protiva NORMAN E MATTEON BLOCK 1 Qurro RANCHO AT SARA TOGA PL ACE THIS IS NOT A SURVEY Of THE LAND, RUT IS COMPILED FROM DATA SHOWN IT THE PURUC RECORDS WESTERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY m! 3 Z929:115) a %P D (PTIV. (vi ro RAt1L E <5\ Sw i-y LINE Quirt) RA Ncr+o A r STOaA ak t VMRf'S P&5 6.61), n��a NOV N V 3 5. 0 //71#6, e2aA s 11(0 Q �s ftv Nw ..r.E�,.�. .6X/O&Lete 04v A e U y, t, 0-UiV .�y�..{�crn� ,C(/yw /W„/, 5 i 2Lt ��i arn2Glztv vitpuv .6d*1QIi4x, 07'v Az:v ifxl December 5, 1986 Mrs. C. Holly Davies 14478 Oak Place Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mrs. Davies: This is your official notification that the Saratoga City Council, at its meeting of December 3, 1986, granted your appeal of the Planning Commission decisions approving a new single family residence at 14460 Oak Place (SDR 1624, LL 86 -001, DR 86 -004) (L. Protiva, applicant). Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Cler UMW' ©ff 0 IV cc: Linda Protiva, 14466 Oak Place 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson SENDER: Complete Reins Pueyour address in the E'�TURN card from being returned to delivered to and the date of 1 and 2 when additional services TO" space on•the•reverse yogThe return receipt fee will delivery. For additional fees the re desired, and complete )tams 3 end 4. si Failure to do this will. prevent this pro you the name of the person following services are available. Consult requested. 2. Restricted Delivery. postmaster for fees and check boxles) for additional servicess) 1. (ow to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 3. Article Addressed to: �'(I A /J /(w{ 4. Article Number Type of Service: Registered Insured Q'Certified COD IU Express Mall Always obtain signature of addressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5. S a X r Ad ee 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if requested and fee paid) 6. Signature Agent X 7. Date of Deliv ry ttp hy 1 pc F...... /ail Feh` 19R6 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OFFICIAL BUSINESS SENDER INSTRUCTIONS Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in the space below. Complete items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the reverse. Attach to front of article If space permits, otherwise affix to back of article. Endorse article "Return Receipt Requested" adjacent to number. RETURN TO PENALTY FOR .PRIVATE USE, S3001 ti Print Sender's name, address. arid-ZIP Code in the space below. SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additlalal services Put your address in the "RETURN TO" space on the reverse card from being returned to you. The return receipt %s will provide delivered to and the date of delivery. For additional fees the are desired, and complete Items 3 and 4. side. Failure to do this will prevent this you the nerne of thspervon following services are available. Consult requested. 2. Restricted Delivery. postmaster for fees and check box(es) for additional service(s) 1. ow to whom delivered, date, and addressee's asldres. 3. Article Addressed to: c` r 4.�rticle Nu /fi ber G 14-4/ /1 yyppee of Service: k Registered insured Certified COD Express Mail Always obtain signature of addressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5. Si natur; ddre ee X �j 1 1,1/co 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if requested and fee paid) 6. Signature ent ;X Mate I f 11IPery ie 1 PS Form 3811. Feb. 1986 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI OFFICIAL BUSINESS S SENDER INSTRUCTIONS Print your name, address, and ZI de in the space below. Complete items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the reverse. Attach to front of article if space permits, otherwise affix to back of article. Endorse article "Return Receipt Requested" adjacent to number. Itf IE Y U RN TO 5E c4 PM 7 1 ??9a6 PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, 5300 Print Sender's name, address, and ZIP Code in the space below. 6 /31 1 FA4-6' AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 11/5/86 (10/28/86) DEPT.: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Elva Avenue Followup Traffic Review Summar Study of traffic pattern through the Elva, Reid, Michaels, Canyon View intersection and on Elva after improvements and modification of the intersection indicate a redistribution of traffic essentially as predicted. Less traffic on Elva and more on Canyon View Drive. Traffic on Michaels Drive should be stopped before entering the inter- section. Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $100 to install stop sign. Exhibits /Attachments: Resolution MV Staff Report, Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. MV designating the intersection of Michaels Drive and Reid Lane as a stop intersection. Council Action 11/5: Adopted Resolution. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 67 creating stop intersection on Michaels at Reid Lane. OgU'W ©2 0 Lr'iCoDg3 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Elva Avenue Followup Traffic Review Recommend Motion: Prepared by: S. Shook City Engineer Move to. adopt Resolution designating the intersection of Michaels Drive and Reid Lane as a stop intersection. DATE: 10 -28 -86 COUNCIL MEETING: 11 -05 -86 Earlier this year you authorized certain improvements on Elva Avenue between Fourth Street and Canyon View Drive. Also authorized was the modification of the configuration of. the Reid, Michaels, Elva, Canyon View intersection. These improvements were meant in part to modify the traffic patterns providing some relief to the through traffic pattern on Elva. Staff was directed to observe the results of these changes and report to you three months after they were installed. A comparison of traffic patterns after the improvements with those before the changes is shown on the attached intersection Volume Study. This comparison shows that the desired result has been achieved. The traffic on Elva has been reduced and other legs of the intersection, particularly the parallel portion of Canyon View Drive, are carrying greater percentages of traffic entering the intersection. The only additional modification that is recommended is the installation of a stop sign on Michaels Drive at Reid Lane. There is a sight- distance problem at this leg of the intersection and this change will improve motorist access to the intersection as well as assigning right -of -way. t. Ci ry OF INTERS /ON SARA TO!'A !moo L UME S rao y w, 1 z/ DA re 10 2 /d 124y: ru'e 77 E Fromm, 0 To Cy4A/G( /N NUMBER -18 `I OF VEHICLES AFTER IMPROVE MENrs RFCOR0E0 :5y: RFMARvs; Coax CatnEs ,,{4 t Exisibig OibP Si AGENDA BILL NO. 1 I t c DATE: DEPT.: CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Summary: Fiscal Impacts: Exhibits /Attachments: Council Action 11/5: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SDR 1523, James W. Day Construction Company, Inc., Sobey Road AGENDA ITEM The one year maintenance period for SDR -1523 has expired and all deficiencies of the improvement along Sobey Road and minimum access roads have been corrected.. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept improvements and release Bond of $11,000.00. None. 1.• Staff Report. Recommended Action: Grant "Final Acceptance" on. SDR -1523. 41K /lit? MEMORANDUM Location: 011 o ff 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1523 (Final Acceptance) James Day Construction 14960 Sobey Road All improvements required of SDR 1523 and agreed to in the Building Site Approval Agreement dated March 21, 1986 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: James W. Day Construction Company, Inc. 2. Improvement Security: RSS /dsm Address: P. 0. Box 2387, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Type: Amount: $11,000.00 Assignment Certificate Issuing Co.: Wells Fargo Bank Address: Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 3. Special Remarks: c- DATE: 10 -17 -96 1730 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, Ca. 95129 Ass 6502 048051 000 Release Assignment Certificate of $11,000.00 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 AGENDA BILL NO. I l c DATE: October 23, 1986 DEPT.: CITY OF SARATOGA City Attorney CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Adoption of 1985 Edition of Uniform Fire Code and Amendment to Technical Requirements for Early Warning Fire Alarm System Summary: The ordinance will serve to adopt and modify the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code and will also establish alternative specifications for the early warning fire alarm system where the structure is equipped with automatic sprinklers. The changes are described in the memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Exhibits /Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney. (b) Proposed ordinance. Recommended Action: (a) Introduction and adoption of ordinance. Council Action: 11/5: Introduced ordinance. 6-c AGENDA ITEM PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD DATE: October 23, 1986 ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney RE: Adoption of 1985 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code and Amendment to Technical Requirements for Early Warning Fire Alarm System The proposed ordinance represents the adoption of the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code and various modifications to such code as jointly recommended by Central Fire District and Saratoga Fire District. The 1985 Edition has been modified to a lesser extent than the 1979 code, which is the most recent code adopted by the City. The changes are indicated by handwritten notiations on the ordinance. The ordinance also amends Section 16- 60.020 pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. This amendment would establish alternative requirements where an automatic sprinkler system is installed in a residential structure. Under the existing ordinance, heat and smoke detectors are both required as part of the early warning system. However, where automatic sprinklers have also been installed in a residential structure which are equipped with a monitoring device that will send a signal to the Saratoga Fire Station if the sprinklers are activated, the fire districts have agreed that no heat detectors should be required and smoke detectors would be required only within the bedrooms and hallways providing access to bedrooms. This amendment would serve to encourage the installation of residential sprinkler systems to the extent it eliminates duplication of detecting devices and thereby reduces the overall cost of fire prevention. It should be noted that the City does not require the installation of an automatic sprinkler system in single family residential structures, except for the amendment to the Building Code •opted by the Council at your last meeting requiring the installation of sprinkler i- I f ages for or more cars. r. 'old Saratoga City Attorney J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)