Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1986 City Council Agenda packetCITY OF SARATOGA 4 AGENDA BILL NO. AGENDA ITEM l v DATE: 8 -12 -86 (9 -3 -86) DEPT.: Inspection Services CITY MGR. APPROV SUBJECT: Su unary The public improvements required for the subject building site have._ been_ satisfactorily completed Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Memo FINAL ACCEPTANCE, SDR -1419, JOHN E. QUARNSTROM 20619 CARNIEL Recommended Action: Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject building site. Council Action Approved. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREET. 20619 Carniel It appearing that on or about August 12, 1986 the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivision map and on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub- divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Tract No. 774 recorded in Book 30 of Maps, at Page 19 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on August 19 50 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de- clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: To release the Cash Bond in the amount of "$2,000. CITY CLERK The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the 3rd day of SArt 19 R6 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1419 Location: 20619 Carniel The one (1) year maintenance period for 20619 Carniel has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: Address: 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 8 -7 -85 3. Improvement Security: Type: CASH BOND Amount: $4,000 Issuing Co: John Schadegg Address: 555 West Middlefield Road Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: UMW' 04 A UOo c(�' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 John E. •uarnstrom 535 Shadow Glen, San Jose, CA. 95129 Mt. View, CA. 94043 6844 4. Miles of Public Street: Not Applicable DATE: 8 RSS /dsm 5. Special Remarks: Release last 50% of Cash Bond $2,000.00 Rob Shook AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8 -19 -86 (9- 3 -861 DEPT.: Inspection Services SUBJECT: Construction acceptance, For SDR -1559, Osterlund Development, 3 lots, Fruitvale Summary: The public improvements required for the subject lots have been satifactorily completed. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Also begins 60 day maintenance period for the median landscaping. Fiscal Impacts• None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Memo Recommended Action: Grant construction acceptance and authorize refund of cash bond. Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM L/ 3• CITY MGR. APPROVAL MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for GDP -1559 Name Location: Public Improvements required for 14551 Fruitvale and 14563 Fruitvale have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Address: 2. Improvement Security: Type: Cash Amount: $4,000 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm 10) off `H) OQ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Ave. Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. 985 University Ave #30 Los Gatos, CA 950 Issuing Company: Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. Address: 985 University Ave #30 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 6673 Robert S. Shook DATE: 8 -19 -86 i AGENDA BILL NO. f l I DATE: 8 -18 -86 (9- 1-R6) DEPT.: Inspection rvi r es SUBJECT: Summary: The public improvements required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. memo CITY OF SARATOGA 1 AGENDA ITEM 4 4 a CITY MGR. APPROV Council Action Approved. Construction Acceptance, For Tract 7655, J. Lohr. Cabernet Drive Recommended Action: Grant construction acceptance and authorize refund of cash bond. I MEMORANDUM 2. Improvement Security: 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Type: Cash 2021 The Alameda #145 San Jose, CA 95126 Amount: $20,000 Issuing Company: J. Lohr Development Address: 2021 The Alameda 145 San Jose, CA 95126 J Lohr, Cabernet_ Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 6995 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Name Location: DATE 8-18-86 Public Improvements required for Tract 7655 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: J. Lohr Development Address: AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8 -21 -86 (9 -3 -86) DEPT.: Engineering Fiscal Impacts: None Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Final Map Approval of SDR -1453, Michael Conn SUBJECT: Vaquero Court One Lot Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1453 -02 2. Staff Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map AGENDA ITEM 4- R 11. CITY MGR. APPROV Summary: 1. SDR 1453 is ready for Final Map Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been met. 3. All fees have been paid. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 1453 -02, attached, approving Final Map for Michael Conn SECTION 1: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 1453.02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Michael Conn The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 1.616 acre of land designated as Parcel Three, "3 on the Record of Survey Prepared by George S. Nolte, Consulting Civil Engineer, Inc., recorded in Book 243 of Maps at Page 7, in the County Recorder's Office and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, to be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of by the following vote: CITY CLERK MAYOR 19 OTVW cD2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION (amended 9/23/81) DATE: 9/18/81 Commission Meeting: 9 23 81 SUBJECT: SDR -1453 Michael Conn Carole Wellbeloved Vaquero Court BuiJ .ing.. $i to J pp.o z REQUEST: Applicant requests tentative building site approval for a single lot of record in the Measure A Area on Vaquero Court. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative declaration dated to be acted on prior to action on the project. PUBLIC NOTICING: The negative declaration has been advertised. Notice of this application is not required by City. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very law density and Specific Plan Area. ZONING: R- 1- 40,000, pending Specific Plan Zoning District. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential. SITE SIZE: 1.614 acres SITh SLOPE: 37% STAFF ANALYSIS: The 1.6 acre site is a recorded lot of record (1968) and therefore subject to the exemption provisions of the Specific Plan (p.3) and the Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 3E -19 (prohibiting uses within the Specific Plan Area which may be in conflict with the proposed zoning ordinance modifi- cations). The applicant has submitted a site development plan and request for building site approval for a moderately steep site showing a main residence, a detached garage, and an approximate pool area. The nearby large oak cluster is to be retained. The setbacks shown are those required by the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district 25' frontyard and 20' sideyard. The main structure as shown on the plan will require a public hearing Design Review. The Fire Chief has requested that the proposed 2 story garage be attached to the main structure or moved so as not to block emergency access to the main structure. And the pool as shown will need to have a 20' side setback to conform to the current zoning district. The proposed grading would remove 97 cubic yards for the residence, 94 cubic Report to Planning Commission SDR -1453 9/18/81 Page 2 yards for the pool, and 18 cubic yards for the garage (which may be modified to conform to the Fire District's requirements). The City Geologist has reviewed the site and recommended tentative approval (see attached), stating that "No unusual geologic or soil conditions constrain the intended use of the property." The major concern for development of the site is obtaining the required amount of water for fire protection. The Staff Report recommends the conditions for 1000 gallons per minute of water for two hours as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Additionally, staff conditioning recommends deferred improvements on Quarry Road. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: August 26, 1981. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1453 (Exhibit "B" filed August 11, 1981) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS: Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and application Flood Control regulations and require- ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition hereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval (Currently $1,100. /Lot). B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shwon on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to Provide 30 ft. Half- Street on Quarry Road. Report to Planning Commission Page 3 SDR -1453 9/18/81 D. Enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement to improve Quarry Road to City Standards, including the following: E. Construct Stone Drainage System as shwon on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Stone Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. 2. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. G. Construction Driveway Approval 16 feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 inch Aggregate Base. H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. I. No direct access allowed onto Quarry Road from lots. J. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done within State Right -of -Way. K. Enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements. 2. Storm Drain Construction. L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. M. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements marked "D.I.A." III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional prior to issuance of building permits for: 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued. Report to Planning Commission 9/18/81 SDR -1453 Page 4 C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.). 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. Erosion control measures. D. Structures shall include security and fire detection equipment as specified by City. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with require- ments of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated August 25, 1981. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12h% without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 121/2°% to 15% shall be surfaced using 22 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. D. Provide a parking are for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. E. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for 2 hour(s). This is based upon the Insurance Service Officer grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1453 (c 9/18/81 Page 5 F. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY TITER DISTRICT A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley Water District. B. All grading adjacent to the SCVWD right -of -way to be done in accordance with sheets 20 -20B of said agency. Details of grading to include the cross sectional view at the right -of -way and are to be shown on the Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit issuance prior to construction. C. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certifications. D. Comply with requirements of Santa Clara Valley Water District. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING IMPARTMENT A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by Saratoga Fire District prior to Design Review Approval. B. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. D. Prior to Design Review Approval individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1453 9/18/81 Page 6 E. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully support landscaping. F. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face height (existing not included.) G. Applicant shall comply with the following Mitigation Measures: 1. Require that the keeping of horses be restricted to lots which have one acre of level land (less than 5% slope) and that paddock areas not be traversed by water courses. 2. Limit construction to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. 3. Require the subdividers to contribute land and /or money in proportion to the size of each subdivision towards the expense of providing a new fire station. 4. In order to reduce erosion and consequent siltation of the creeks, all grading should be done during the May- September dry period. Revegetation of the site should be initiated as soon as possible following grading on any portion of the site but in no case should unvegetated graded areas be left exposed to the winter rains. The steeper surfaces should be hydromulched, and all revegetation should be watered regularly. A landscape architect should be retained to plan and supervise all revegetation. An inspection of the site by the landscape architect should be made at periodic intervals up to one year following grading to determine if the revegetation is sucessful and to report to the City on same. The developer should be required to post a bond with the City to ensure that the above recommendations are carried out. A detailed plan for this should be completed prior to beginning construction. 5. Erosion control measures should be provided along the creek channels where active scour of the channel_ and banks is occurring. IX. COMMENTS P.C. Agenda: 9/23/81 Report to Planning Commission 9/23/81 SDR -1453 Conn /Wellbeloved 6. Halt all construction activity within a radius of 35 feet if grading reveals prehistoric artifacts, burned rocks, or human interments; and within 17 feet if grading reveals any historic resources such as bottles trash piles, filled basements. A quali- fied archaeologist should be retained to evaluate any such find and recommend any needed mitigation. 7. As a condition to approval require the developer to join any such district if it should be found to be necessary. 8. Require the developers to participate on a pro rata basis in the capital cost of required major traf- fic, flood control or fire improvements (including Pierce Road improvements, a new fire station, drainage improvements for Calabazas Creek, water and sewer improvements). 9. Require subdividers to contribute a proportional share of the cost of making the recommended im- provements at the Pierce Road /Route 85 intersection. A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Kathy Ker$us,'Planning Assistant *as amended at Planning Commission meeting on 9/23/81. AGENDA BILL NO. al() D DATE: 8/27/86 (9/3/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Summa Staff has revised the original proposal as directed by the Council at the May 21, 1986 meeting. The attached report discusses proposed changes in standards and procedures for the single family residential development review process. Fiscal Impacts: There is a possibility that fees for the development review process will need to be changed. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Report on Development Review Process 2. Minutes from Council meeting of 5/21/86. Recommended Action: Review the attached report and direct Staff to begin work on refining it for submittal to the Planning Commission. Council Action Referred to study session 10/29. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ISSUE RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND Ythuek Hsia Planning Director YH /vy /dsc Attachment Ug'27 ©2 0 'V Residential Development Review Process DATE: 8/21/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/3/86 At the May 21, 1986 meeting, the City Council directed staff to revise the design review working papers submitted for review. A revised proposal for the residential development review process is attached. Staff recommends that the Council review the proposal and direct staff to begin work on refining it for submittal to the Planning Commission. The previous proposal identified five criteria which affect single- family residential development: size of structure, height, setback, slope and grading, and impervious coverage. The proposal suggested possible changes to these criteria in order to streamline the development review process. The Council felt that there was too much emphasis and dependence on square footage calculations and gave direction for staff to explore other criteria and approaches. The attached report addresses areas of concern expressed by the Council and presents alternatives to the development standards and process for reviewing single- family residential development in the City of Saratoga. BACKGROUND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS The Council reviewed a design review progress report at its May 21, 1986 meeting. Staff was directed to explore other alternatives and reduce emphasis on square footage calculations. The development review process has two distinct parts: 1) the development standards themselves (height, setback, coverage, etc.), and 2) the actual process by which the review takes place. This report addresses both issues, first by presenting revisions to the previously proposed standards and an alternative simplified approach, and second by presenting an analysis of and alternatives for the review process. I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The purpose of development standards is to ensure privacy, maintain open areas for circulation of light and air, protect slope stability and existing mature vegetation, and achieve a level of compatibility among structures in the same zoning district. The City of Saratoga currently has zoning and design review regulations which address many development standards, including structural size and height, setbacks, slope and grading, site coverage, landscaping, and compatibility with neighboring structures. In brief, these regulations restrict height to 30', limit structural square footage and coverage based on zoning district rather than lot size and slope, and provide limited guidelines or standards for assessing bulk and compatibility issues. The previous proposal reviewed by the Council in May suggested basing the allowable floor area on lot size and slope rather than on zoning district. The basic premise of the proposal was the larger the lot (regardless of zone), the more square footage would be allowed, but at a decreasing percentage of lot size (to prevent unusually large homes on very large parcels). In addition, lot coverage (both structural and non structural) also would be changed to relate to lot size and slope rather than zoning district. Lots with excessive slopes would be further restricted in coverage and floor area. The proposal also suggested reducing the height limit from 30 feet to 26 feet and introduced the concept of a "declining height envelope," whereby additional height over 15 feet is permitted only with a concurrent increase in setback from property lines. PROPOSAL "A" A modification to the proposal is suggested as follows. Instead of using a certain maximum floor area (this figure includes both first and second floors), a maximum footprint or structural coverage (first floor only) could be established based on lot size and slope. To address the issue of height and bulk, any portion of the house over 15 feet in height would reduce the maximum footprint on a 1:1 ratio up to a height limit of 26 feet. Any given lot would be permitted a maximum footprint (structural coverage) and a maximum overall coverage (non structural). If the house was one -story (15 feet or less in height), the entire allowable footprint could be used, within the setback limits of the zone. If the house was two -story or over 15 feet in height, the maximum allowable footprint would be reduced pro- portionally 1 foot in perimeter for each 1 foot in height over 15 feet. Therefore an increase in height has a corresponding reduction in footprint. Lots with excessive slopes would still be restricted in terms of house size and coverage based on a reduction in lot size by a certain percentage according to slope. Table A summarizes the proposed footprint allowances and slope penalties. Proposal "A" provides a method to relate house size and coverage to lot size and slope, rather than arbitrary standards based on zoning district. It also limits just coverage rather than total floor area, giving a property owner more creativity in adding second story if desired. PROPOSAL "B" A simplified alternative approach is represented by Proposal "B it combines aspects of existing regulations and Proposal "A It establishes maximum foot— prints by zoning district (these are the same as the floor areas that are currently permitted), but allows variation from these figures if the lot is smaller or larger than the required size for the district. If the lot is smaller, the allowable footprint would be based on a percentage of lot size. If the lot is larger by at least S0% of the minimum required, an additional 20% would be allowed to be added to the maximum footprint; this provision would not apply to hillside lots (where slope is in excess of 10 The existing slope density regulations would still be in effect. Other aspects of Proposal "B" include the following: 1) a reduction in maximum site coverage (both structural and non structural) by 10% in each zoning district; 2) an increase in exterior side and rear yard setbacks for corner lots; 3) decreases in lot width and depth requirements by 5' -10'; 4) decrease in height limit to 28' for all residential zones, except that the height limit would be reduced to 24' for all HCRD, NHR, A and hillside lots. 5) use of the declining height envelope concept; i.e., additional height over 15 feet is permitted only with an increase in setback and a decrease in footprint. Table B summarizes the development standards under Proposal "B EFFECT OF BOTH PROPOSALS A comparison of three recent single family residential applications under each proposal is attached. In general, Proposal A would allow larger houses on larger lots, with no maximum allowable square footage. The calculations encourage additions to the first floor; it would be more difficult to add second stories. Proposal A would also encourage the creation of larger lots in future subdivisions. Proposal B could allow greater square footages for two —story houses than are currently permitted, but the footprint would need to be reduced for those structures. Because house size would still be limited according to zoning district, future subdivision development would probably continue its current pattern. OTHER CHANGES APPLICABLE TO BOTH PROPOSALS One suggested change applicable to both proposals is to make all requests to exceed the size and coverage limits a variance procedure rather than the design review procedure currently used in the Zoning Code. Findings for a variance are much more strict and standardized and relate the request to the physical properties of the lot rather than just to design issues. Both proposals define a three dimensional building envelope or volume within which new residences or additions can be constructed. The envelope is created by setbacks and height restrictions (see Figure 1, from the City of Carmel Zoning Code as an example). It is not the intent to restrict architectural style or design, but rather to establish acceptable standards for development. It should be pointed out, however, that the use_of numbers and quantification should be accompanied by written standards and policies because some development impacts are just too subtle to be easily quantified. Written standards are essential under both proposals because discretionary judgment will still be part of the review process by the Planning Commission. These standards can either be incorporated into the purpose statement of the design review section of the City Code (Section 15- 45.010) or as modified findings (Section 15- 45.040) or as a separate document. Such written standards will help clarify and define for the public the type of residential development the City finds acceptable. As an example, the following is a design standard for mass and bulk from the City of Carmel: "Buildings should not present excess visual mass or bulk to the public view or to adjoining properties. Large box -like buildings and buildings with large, blank or continuous, unrelieved surfaces can appear massive. When viewed from the public right -of -way, excessive mass detracts from the character of Carmel's individual neighborhoods. When viewed from adjoining properties, excess mass can effectively act as a wall that dominates neighboring structures, and interferes with the enjoyment of open space and the free passage of light and air. The use of natural building materials such as wood or stone, the breaking up of building planes and the creative use of landscaping can all be used to avoid excess mass." II. PROCESS The current design review process is required for a large majority of residential projects, including new residences and additions to existing residences. All applications require a public hearing. Because public hearing noticing procedures require a minimum of three weeks, there is a minimum of a one -month wait until an application is scheduled for a hearing. However, due to a variety of reasons (backlog, incomplete applications and plans, full agendas, etc.), the average waiting period is 6 -8 weeks before an application is scheduled for hearing. Recent modifications have been made to planning department administrative procedures to ensure that this 6 -8 week time frame is not exceeded. Depending on the type of proposed construction, applications are heard either by the Site Review Committee (consists of two Planning Commissioners and the Planning Director) or the full Planning.Commission. Both bodies meet twice a month. Many of the applications heard by the Site Review Committee could be handled by staff through the plan check. (building permit) process rather than at a public hearing. This type of application includes minor additions (first floor), minor modifications to approved projects, new residences which do not exceed allowable floor areas, height, or coverage, and accessory structures. If a project meets all the required standards, a building permit could be issued (it usually takes about 3 -6 weeks for issuance of a building permit not requiring design review). There would be no discretionary judgment on the part of staff in terms of design review or compatibility issues. There would be no appeal on the issuance of these permits because the action is ministerial rather than discretionary (see Appeals section in City Code, 2- 05.030 a,b). Planning Commission actions could still be appealed to the City Council. This approach would eliminate the need to establish a separate staff review committee with its own public hearings and findings. It is recommended that the Planning Commission still maintain review authority over certain types of applications such as variances, use permits, rezonings, and single family residential projects such as those listed below: lots requiring design review as a condition of subdivision approval residences with footprints more than 80% of maximum allowed residences with roof heights more than 80% of maximum allowed lots where coverage exceeds 80% of maximum allowed two -story residences (new or as a result of an addition) A flowchart outlining this process is attached (Figure 2). III. SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER The intent of changing the existing design review procedure is to create a new development review process that is easy for the public to understand and use, mitigates potential impacts, is as streamlined as possible, and establishes concise standards and criteria which help achieve residential compatibility with the site itself and the surrounding neighborhood. The following set of questions is from an American Planning Association publication on streamlining land use regulations; it may be helpful to the Council in its consideration of the various proposals and in focusing on the actual issues involved: 1) Will the new process solve our specific problems? What other problems could it create? 2) What will it entail in terms of staff time, funds and expertise? 3) How much time should be allowed to put the new process into effect? 4) Who will benefit from the change? Who might be adversely affected? 5) How will this change affect the rest of the system? Will it reinforce, duplicate, work at cross- purposes? 6) How much of a commitment does the process require? Can it be tried on a provisional or experimental basis? SIZE OF LOT (SQ. FT.) TABLE A PROPOSAL 'A° MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT >10,000 the lessor of 40% or 2500 s.f. 10,001 24,999 25,000 39,999 40,000 79,999 80,000 159,999 160,000+ 26% less .4% for each 1000 s.f. of lot over 10,000 s.f. 20% (5000 s.f.) less .2% for each 1000 s.f. of lot over 25,000 s.f. 17% (6800 5.f.) less .15% for each 1000 s.f. of lot over 40,000 s.f. 11% (8800 s.f.) less .04375% for each 1000 s.f. of lot over 80,000 s.f. 7.5% (12,000 s.f.) less .025% for each 1000 s.f. of lot over 160,000 s.f. SLOPE PENALTY SLOPE OF LOT NOT USABLE 10.01 15% 25% plus 2% for each 1 degree of slope over 10% 15.01 20% 35% plus 2.5% for each 1 degree of slope over 15% 20.01 25% 47.5% plus 3% for each 1 degree of slope over 15% 25.01 30% 62.5% plus 3.5% for each 1 degree of slope over 25% +30% 80% Maximum floor area would be reduced on a 1:1 ratio for roof heights above 15 feet. Minimum setbacks would be increased on a 1:1 ratio for roof heights above 15 feet. TABLE B PROPOSAL °B" R -1 R -1 R -1 R -1 R -1 HCRD, NHR, 10.000 12.500 15.000 20.000 40.000 A Max. footprint 3500 4000 4300 4800 6200 6200 Max. footprint, lots less than 35% 30% 28% 24% 15% 15% minimum size of lot) the lessor of Max. coverage 50% 45% 40% 35% 25% 15,000 s.f. or 20% Front yard 25' 25' 25' 30' 30 30' setback. Side yard 10' 10' 12' 15' 20' 20' setback Exterior side 25' 25' 25' 30' 30' 30' yard setback Rear yard 25' 25' 30' 35' 50' 50' setback Rear yard, 15' 15' 20' 25' 30' 30' corner lot Width 80' 85' 90' 100' 150' 150' Depth 100' 110' 120' 135' 150' 150' Frontage 60' 65' 70' 80' 100' 100' Height* 28' 28' 28' 28' 28' 24' On hillside lots (lots with over 10% slope) in any residential district, the height limit shall be 24'. Maximum footprint would be reduced on a 1:1 ratio for roof heights above 15 feet. Minimum setbacks would be increased on a 1:1 ratio for roof heights above 15 feet. COMPARISON OF THREE RECENT SINGLE- •FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS 1) 14599 Deer Springs Court Zone: NHR Lot size: 54,609 5.f. Average site slope: 17% First floor sq. footage: 4837 s.f. Total coverage: 14% (7645 5.f.) In this case, the property owner applied for a 7800 s.f. two -story house where 6200 s.f. was the maximum allowed. On appeal to the City Council, a modified 6762 s.f. house was denied; the proposed house height was 29'6 Under Proposal A, the lot size would have been reduced to 32,765 s.f. by the slope penalty. The maximum allowable footprint (structural coverage) would be 6061 s.f. This footprint is about 1220 s.f. larger than the approved first floor sq. footage. However, if the proposed house was 29'6" as approved, the footprint would be reduced to about 3070 s.f. If the house were reduced to the proposed height limit of 26 feet, the allowable footprint would be 3497 s.f. Under Proposal B, the applicant would have been permitted a 6200 s.f. footprint. If the house was at the height limit of 24 feet, the footprint would be reduced to 3875 s.f. and the setbacks increased accordingly. The house could theoretically have 7750 s.f. if a second floor identical to the first floor were proposed. 2) 19288 Bainter Avenue Zone: HCRD Lot size: 147,688 s.f. (3.39 acres) Average site slope: 27% First floor sq. footage: 5070 s.f. Total coverage: 8% (11,813 5.f.) In this case, the property owner applied for a 6793 s.f. two -story house where 6200 was the maximum allowed. On appeal to the City Council, a 6664 s.f. house was approved; the house is 24.5' in height. Under Proposal A, the lot size would have been reduced to 45,045 s.f. by the slope penalty. The maximum allowable footprint (structural coverage) would be 7320 s.f. This footprint is about 2250 s.f. larger than the approved first floor sq. footage. However, at a height of 24.5 feet, the footprint would be reduced to 4482 s.f. Under Proposal B, the applicant would have been permitted a 6200 s.f. footprint. At the height of 24.5 feet, the footprint would be reduced to 3796 s.f. and the setbacks increased accordingly. 3) 14035 Saratoga Avenue Zone: R- 1- 20,000 Lot size: 5276 5.f. (substandard lot) Average site slope: >5% First floor sq. footage (not including garage): 1020 s.f. (30 Total coverage: 45% In this case, the property owner applied for an addition to a 2420 s.f. house (including garage) which required a variance to site coverage. The application was denied by both the Planning Commission and, on appeal, by the City Council. Under Proposal A, a 40% maximum footprint (2110 s.f.) would have been permitted. There would be no slope penalty. At a height of 25', the footprint of the house as proposed would have been reduced to 1266 s.f. Under Proposal B, the applicant would have been permitted a 1266 s.f. footprint with 35% maximum total site coverage (1847 s.f.). A 25' height would have reduced the footprint of the house to 760 s.f., including the garage. In this case, the applicant could use the variance procedure to design a larger house than the proposal would permit. Height of plane varies with lot size. Height Tot size r 0041 Lsq. ft. Plane extends upward from front and rear setback lines. Planes extend upward from side setback lines. Side setbacks vary with lot frontage. FRONT /REAR SETBACK PLANES SIDE SETBACK PLANES FIGURE 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Property owner applies for building permit or contacts Planning Department to inquire about procedures. 4. Notice of hearing is published 10 working days prior to hearing. Staff determines level of review required. If Development Review Process If only a building permit is is required, then: required, then: 1. Application for development review 1. submitted by property owner. 2. Staff reviews application for com- pleteness and environmental impact. (Maximum of 30 days) 3. Application assigned to planner and scheduled for hearing before Planning Commission. (Hearing scheduled 4 -6 weeks after application submittal) 5. Staff report is prepared and mailed to applicant one week prior to hearing. 6. Public hearing. Planning Commission reviews the staff report, takes public testimony and takes an action (approve, deny, or continue for further work). 7. Appeal period. Right of appeal to City Council within 10 days of Planning Commission action. 8. If application is approved and there is no appeal, applicant may submit plans for building permits. Application approval is valid for 18 months. Applicant submits two com- plete sets of plans. 2. Plans are routed to appropriate departments for review and approval. 3. If plans are ok, then permits can be issued within 3 -6 weeks. City Council Minutes 05/21/86 P -ge 3 consistent with the General Plan? Would we be annex g the p •perty? Planning Director Hsia stated we would ave to ann- this parcel because it is contiguous to our City bound- y. It is consistent wih the General Plan. Councilme er Fanelli reported on her site visi and the Fire Chief's conc- n that the property would remai part of the county. The Fi e Chief was concerned that S atoga would not have control ove fire, safety and per aps even health problems. Councilmember Moyles asked the City Attorney to clarify conditions und which the appli ant can build. The City Attorney explained: f the City -s to annex solely for the purpose of taking the ••sition would not allow any development, there would be a obi= Conversely, if the City annexed to have some contro ver development and the standards we apply, that would cceptable. Our policy historically has been if t re is a legally created non conforming lot, we will n ertheless -'low development. We may apply special standards to that lot, •ut we will not take the position that an ppliant may not bui at all. The appliant's represen ative, Mr. John Greer, s ted they did not want to be an -xed because they felt the City as too shorthanded. Councilmember Moy es stated he was going to vote for th motion, but wan ed to explain why to the applicant. He stated that he was concerned about fire safety. Councilmembe s FANELLI /CLEVENGER moved to deny the request to waive anne tion rights for parcel on Belnap Road. Passed 5 -0. B. Report from Planning Director on Design Review Planning Director Hsia presented his staff reportwith his six factor development management plan. The Council praised Lucille H i se for her excellent report on the subject matter. The Council was primarily concerned about being stymied by the square footage confinement. They were concerned about whether the square footage was really the issue and if that specific requirement could be worked out with different criteria. Planning Director Hsia recommends a three member staff to review the design review once the City Council has approved the standards for design review process. Councilmember Fanelli was very concerned about the impact on the neighborhood as well as the individual property. She didn't believe that square footage was the best tool for measuring impact. Councilmember Callon felt.the City should not eliminate square footage altogether, but stated she would like to clean it up with findings under the ordinance. Discussion was held about subjectivity relative to square footage. Councilmember Hlava stated we probably needed a separate standard for hillsides. Planning Director Hsia directed to report back to the Council with more information and an approach to includes (1) daylight plane requirements such as in Palo Alto (2) requirements for smaller lots (3) emphasis on total environmental impacts in the neighborhood vs. present emphasis on square footage for the first Council meeting in July. C. deration ew Second units in the R 10.OWWI =^ing distri ontinued AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8 -27 -86 (9 -3 -86) DEPT.: ENGINEERING DEPT. CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAI, FOR SDR -1602 Tom Copenhagen, Pike Road (1 Lot) Summary: 1. SDR 1602 is ready for final approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees, bonds and agreements have been submitted to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1602 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 1602 -02 attached, approving Final Map for SDR 1602, authorize execution of Building Site Agreement. Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4(3, 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Tom Copenhagen The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: The 10.127 Acre and 3.912 Acre Parcels shown as Lot A and B on Final Parcel Map prepared by J. M. Heiss Engineer; and submitted to the City as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 1602 -2 MAYOR r U ME ct 123 REPORT TO PisANNING COMMISSION APPROVED BY Revised: 10/22/85 DATE Q *Revised: 8/1/85 APN: 503 -30 -74 75 Date: 7/16/85 INIT ;ALS. Commissi• Meeting: 7/24/85 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1602, A -1107; 14440 Pike Road APPLICANT: Tom Copenhagen ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site Approval for two (2) lots with an average slope of 31% and Design Review Approval for a new, single family residence on Lot B. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building and grading permits required for Lot B. end Benign Review required for Eo4 67 Delete ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared 7/5/85. *Revised: 7/31/85 ZONING: NHR EXISTING LAND USE: A single family residence exists on Lot A; Lot 8 is undeveloped. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Rural single family residential lots surround the subject parcel. PARCEL SIZE: Lot A 10.1 acres Lot B 3.90 acres Eo4 6 2 795 ecree Delete *Revised: 10/23/85 OWNER: Tom Ann Copenhagen Jack Dorothy Miller GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Hillside Conservation Single Family NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The property is characterized by a moderate to steep sloping topography. A portion of the site is used as an orchard. The minimum access road runs along a ridgeline. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: (For Lot 8) 18% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 31% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 400 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 7 Ft. (For Lot 8) Fill: 400 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 4 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 215 Ft. Rear: +300 Ft. (For Lot B) Left Side: +300 Ft. Right Side: 31 Ft. HEIGHT: (For Lot 8): 22 Ft. Report to Planning Commission A -1107, SDR -1602, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: (For Lot B): 3% SIZE OF STRUCTURE: (For Lot B) (Garage Level): Main Level: TOTAL: 768 sq. ft. 3,477 sq. ft. 4,245 sq. ft. 7/16/85 Page 2 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the project does not meet the requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance which limits the minimum access road to less than 500' and /or a public road to have less than fifteen lots when no emergency access has been provided. The existing home on Lot A does not meet side setback requirements on the southerely side. However, this is not an issue of this application. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: The new home on Lot B will have brown plywood siding with natural used brick and brown concrete tile roof. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting subdivision approval for 2 lots at the end of Pike Road in the NHR zoning district. Pike Road is a private road but is currently designated as a collector on the General Plan, extending through from Pierce Road to Saratoga Hills Road. It has been staff's intent to bring this designation back to the Commission and Council for review because of the steepness of the terrain adjacent to Pike Road, the narrowness of the roadway, the slide that occurred several years ago on Pike Rd., and the lack of legal access through to Saratoga Hills Road. Pike Road currently has over 25 lots which take access from it. The General Plan states that "For safety, every new or developing public or private cul -de -sac greater than 500 feet in length, and every new and developing residential area in the City with more than 15 residential lots on a cul -de -sac should have a primary and an emergency access." The Subdivision Ordinance states "Not as a mandate, but as a statement of future policy on all matters concerning the design and improvements of sites and subdivision, the following shall generally not be approved: Cul -de -sac, dead -end, or other street not having a means of secondary access, where such street services more than fifteen lots or building sites. The Specific Plan states, with respect to circulation, "Extensions of all other roadways shall be considered for emergency /secondary access at the time of development." and "Require public right -of -way to be offered on all private access roads used for secondary /emergency access." The two (2) lots in this proposal would access from a minimum access road greater than 500' in length. Delete ¥hie mtntmw' eccett road currently het three tots tektng ecceaa from t4; whteh would tnereeee to free F54 +ott by this propose The Sebdtvttton Ordinance a +e t only four lots on e mtntrei eeceet road more then four tote regetret e peb }te rued.- to edditton; Approval of this subdivision request would allow more than 15 Report to Planning Commission SDR -1602, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. 7/16/85 Page 3 lots on a cul -de -sac greater than 500 feet in length without a legal emergency access. The applicant believes that the City has previously designated the access over to Saratoga Hills from Pike Road as an emergency access in their actions of 1970. Attached are the Planning Commission and Council minutes regarding this action which relate to a pathway between the two roads. Staff has discussed these minutes with the City Attorney and has determined that they do not legalize the roadway as an emergency access. The Planning Commission, at an earlier Committee -of- the -Whole discussed the emergency access problem and suggested to the applicants that they obtain legal access from the adjacent property owners to Saratoga Hills Road (even though Saratoga Hills in itself is a private road). Staff has not received any documentation that this has been accomplished. No subdivision of any lot on Pike Road has occurred since 1974 when the lots on Perata Court were created. It appears that these lots were allowed under the assumption that Pike Road would eventually extend through to Saratoga Hills, per the 1974 General Plan. However, this is not stated in any of the written materials available for the subdivision. *Delete in addition to emergency access problem; it is difficult to serve the site with sewer.- The site is currently within the Sphere of influence of Sanitation &I-strict No- 4 but one of the lots may be better served by eupertino Sanitary Gist-riot- Staff has conditioned all of the lots to be served by sewer rather than septic tank; but has left the question of which district to be determined prior to Fine+ Map Approval- The existing residence on thie site is non conforming with respect to setbacks. However, since it is a main structure and was built with a permit, City Ordinances do not require a variance prior to approval of this application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the subdivision since it is not in conformance with the General Plan due to Ordinance provisions requiring an emergency access road for cul -de -sacs exceeding 500 feet in length and having more than 15 lots. and the provision disallowing more than four x44 lots on a Minimum access road.- *Delete If the Commission wishes to approve the subdivision, staff has included the draft findings and conditions for this action. DRAFT PROJECT STATUS: Said project (complies)fdoes not comply9with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The combination of easements that traverse the area between Pike Road and Saratoga Hills Drive, could constitute a secondary access that may be used in the case of an emergency. The existence of these easements would also. seem to prevent this access from being permanently blocked. Therefore, an exception to the policy for an emergency access in this situation can be granted. I. GENERAL CONDITIONS C C Report to Planning Commission SDR -1602, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. 1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 7/16/85 Page 4 The Staff Report recommends (approval )Fdeniai4of the tentative map for SDR 1602 (Exhibit "B -2" filed 7/31/85) subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; .payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu- lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. *II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). E. Improve unnamed road to City Standards.inc +riding the following: dndergrowiding Existing Overhead dti +±ties- Delete F. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: G. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Pike Road to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 12 -1/2% and 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1602, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. 2. Access roads having slopes between 157 and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 157 shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Access roads having slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not permitted. Note: a> The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. H. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. I. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. J. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. K. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. L. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. M. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. N. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Storm Drain Construction 2. Access Road Construction. 7/16/85 Page 5 0. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. P. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. Q. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1602, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 4. Erosion control measures. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 7/16/85 Page 6 III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional. 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued. 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross- sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No.4 end eupertino Senrtery Bratr #et- 6. Property to annex toepproprreteSanitation District No. 4 prior to Final Map Approval. A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling Slope of driveway shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 12 -1/2% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 'Report to Planning Commission SDR -1602, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. 7/16/85 Page 7 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17 -1/27 shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 21 foot inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. D. Driveways shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 21 feet. E. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. F. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to buildng site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. 6. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark. arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the residence and connected to ther Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station. Location of detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. H Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed pursuant to Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any residential structure shall be further than five hundred feet from at least one hydrant and the fire protection system shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the 1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two hours (Ordinance No. 60.4). VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Bepertino Sanitary Bistrict andSanitation District No. 4.ms appropriate.- Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. Report to Planning Commission SDR -16 @2, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION 7/6/85 Page 8 VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration. A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. C. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. IX. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. A -1107 DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS CONCERNS Placement of the home on this lot is complicated by geologic considerations. The potential ground movement map shows that most of the site including all that area west of the road, has been designated PS or potentially unstable. It appears that the proposed location of the residence was an attempt to keep within a narrow band of the realtively stable, Sbr region. In NHR zoning regulations, preference is made to areas classified on geologic maps as relatively stable. Sites on potentially moving slopes need special geologic and soil engineering analysis to demonstrate longterm stability. While the proposed location of the home is more stable, it also sits on one of the highest portions of the lot. The road that traverses the lot is along a ridgeline. The top of the home will be extending above this ridgeline. However, the home's design is such that it is a low profile, two -story with a maximum height of 22 ft. Staff will be conditioning the approval with a further reduction in height to 21 feet. This 21 ft. height is a restriction placed on other projects by the Commission when the home was located in an area where visual impacts could be significant. Landscaping can also help to reduce visual impacts. This will be made another condition of approval. Interpretation of the lot is difficult due to its irregular shape. Staff has made the interpretation that the front will be the easterly property 1 FINDINGS Report to Planning Commission SDR -1802, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk 7/1G/85 Page 9 line and likewise, the rear will be the westerly property line. All other property lines will be interpreted as sides. There is also a minimum access road which traverses the site. At the closest point, the structure (westerly deck) is set back. 18 ft. from the road. Because the road in this location traverses the interior portion of the lot, staff is interpreting that required setbacks are not measured from it. The final determination lies with the Planning Commission. Where the road curves along what is shown as the front elevation, setbacks are measured from the right -of -way as the road is located within a sideyard. There will be a tall pony wall visible from the rear. At minimum, this area should be screened by landscaping. The home could be stepped down more from the front to rear. However, the concern about this area being later converted to living space is minimal because the proposed home is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. below the design review standard. The grading proposed is balanced for cut and fill. It appears that the excavated material will be deposited on -site to create the patio area. 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 of the surrounding residences in that the residence is a low profile, two -story structure with maximum height of 21 ft. and is also at a lower elevation than the two adjacent homes. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the home is oriented toward the view to the east of the property which is away from the two adjacent homes. Setbacks between homes will minimize impacts. The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal and grade changes in that no trees will be removed and the grading proposed is not unreasonable for the project given that excavated materials will be deposited on -site. The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the home is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. below the Design Review Standard for'gross floor area and the appearance of bulk of the home will be minimized by the size of the lot. 1 Report to Planning Commission SDR -1602, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. 4. Compatible Bulk. and Height The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 ft. and in the same zoning district in that the new home is of comparable size and height to those of surrounding homes. The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that large setbacks between this home and existing structures are being proposed. Also, the height of the home will be 21 feet as a condition of approval. 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards 7/16/85 Page 10 The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that the cut and fill grading figures are balanced and all exposed slopes shall be contour graded as a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 7/16/85 and Exhibits "B and C subject to the following conditions: 1. Height of structure, measured in accordance with Ordinance NS -3, Section 14.8 shall not exceed 22 feet. 2. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the residence (Ordinance 38.121) and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station (Ordinance- 1984). Location of the detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. 3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. 5. Landscaping for screening of the pony wall area shown on the rear elevation and the northeasterly portion of the home and driveway shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit the following for Planning Division review and approval. A. Any modification to the proposed site development plans or eleva- tions. B. Landscape plans for screening as stated in Condition #5. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1602, A -1107, Copenhagen, Pike Rd. 7/16/85 Page 11 7. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site grading, drainage and foundation plans and provide a written statement to the City certifying he /she has done such a review and that the plans are consistent with the recommendations of his /her report. Building permits will not be issued until this statement is received. 8. All conditions of the City Geologist's report dated 5/29/85 shall be met. APPROVED: I/ P.C. Agenda: 7 /24/85 DL /dsc Diana Lewis Planner *NOTE: These revisions were made by the Planning Commission at their 10/23/85 Regular Meeting. I. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. J/ A AGENDA ITEM DATE:September 3, 1986 DEPT.:City Manager CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT:Written Communication from Paul and Marian Friedl Summary: Paul and Marian Friedl are requesting a rescission of a building permit fee of $84.86 on the grounds that they were not notified when their original permits ran out in 1974 without having a final inspection by the City. There are two bases for not honoring this request. City files indicate the Friedls were sent carbon copies of two letters to their contractor notifying the contractor that permits were about to expire, giving the specific date. Also, the City has incurred expense to make the final inspection and only charged the 1974 Building Code fee. Had we charged the current building code fee it would have been $158.50. It is recommended the rescission request be refused. No action recommended on express notification of property owner as well as owner's contractor. Fiscal Impacts: None if Council agrees not to rescind the requirement under Section 16- 10.030(d). Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Report from Senior Building Inspector 2. Pages 16 -8 and 16 -9 Saratoga Municipal Code 3. Letters to Al Young Construction (cc: Mr. and Mrs. Paul Friedl dated Oct. 11, 1974, and Nov. 26, 1974) 4. Letter from Friedls dated Aug. 4, 1986 Recommended Action: Deny requests. Inform Friedls of City Council decision and the reasons therefor. Council Action Approved staff recommendation. g 0 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: refund for Mr. Paul Freidl, 13240 Via Blanc, Saratoga, CA. DATE: 8/19/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/3/86 In an effort to insure that all construction is proceeding in accordance with the safest, most current and up to date standards, section 305 of the Uniform Building Code lists the inspections that are required, section 305 requiring final inspection. If these inspections are not made within the limits and require- ment of section 16- 10.030(d) of the code of the City of Saratoga, (see attachment) a_j. building permit will expire and become null and void. If a permit has been expired for less than 180 days, it may be renewed for a fee of one -half the amount required for a..new permit. After..the 180..day period renewed for the full amount required for a :.new permit. The amount charged Mr. Paul Freidl ($84.86) was in accordance with what the permit would have cost in 1974. Whereas a new permit, based on the fees we charge today would be $158.50. It has been Building Division policy to only charge the original permit fee for renewal of an expired permit. It should be noted here that the Uniform Building Code has not, or does not make any require- ments that notification of expiration of a:..building permit is about to occur, or has occured, although the Saratoga Building Department, in 1974, did in fact send Mr. Freidl notification that his permits were about to expire (see attached copies). To minimize confusion in the future, the new building permit forms, currently in design, will clearly state the expiration conditions. As for the fees paid July 16, 1986, it is recommended that they not be refunded in that the Building Inspection division is a fee recovery division and the final inspection has already been done by the city staff. Respectfully submitted, sue._ R ek,4 Steven R. Harper Senior Building Inspector Building Regulations §16- 10.030 specifications "Reviewed." Such reviewed plans and specifications shall not be changed, modified or altered without authorizations from the building official, and all work shall be done in accordance with the reviewed plans. The building official may issue a permit for the construction of part of a building, structure or building service equipment before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building, structure or building service equipment have been submitted or reviewed, provided adequate information and detailed statements have been filed complying with all pertinent requirements of the technical codes. The holder of such permit shall proceed at his own risk without assurance that the permit for the entire building, structure or building service will be granted. (b) Retention of Plans. One set of reviewed plans and specifications shall be returned to the applicant and shall be kept on the site of the building or work at all times during which the work authorized thereby is in progress. One set of reviewed plans, specifications and computations shall be retained by the building official until final approval of the work. (c) Validity of Permit. The issuance of a permit or the reviewing of plans and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this Code or the technical codes, or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of these codes shall be valid. The issuance of a permit based upon plans, specifications and other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans, specifications and other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on thereunder when in violation of these codes or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction. (d) Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within one hundred eighty days from the date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of one hundred eighty days, or if the permittee fails or refuses to request an inspection pursuant to this Code within any period of one hundred eighty consecutive days after the work authorized by the permit is commenced. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first Page 16 -8 Building Regulations §16- 10.040 obtained to do so, and the fee therefor shall be one -half the amount required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such work; and provided further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. Where a permit has expired in accord with the foregoing, and the building, structure, or other work authorized by such permit has not been completed, if a new permit for such work is not obtained within thirty days thereafter, said building, structure, or work shall be conclusively presumed to be abandoned and a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare, and subject to all of the provisions of Section 203 of Chapter 2 of this Code. S16-10.040 Section 304 amended concerning fees Section 304 of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 304 (a) Permit Fees. The amount of the fees to be paid for each permit shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made by the building official pursuant to a schedule of valuation rates as shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. (b) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted by Subsection (b) of Section 302, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Said plan review fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Where plans are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at a rate as shall be established by resolution of the City Council. (c) Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no permit is issued within one hundred eighty days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty days Page 16 -9 INCORPORATED 195E cp Al Young Construction 5541 Fern Drive San Jose, CA city of SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 .November 26, 1974 Dear Mr. Young: SUBJECT: ADDITION TO THE HOME OF MR. MRS. PAUL FRIED AT 13240 VIA BLANC IN SARATOGA, CA Under the provisions of the Saratoga Building Code, your permit will expire on December 2, 1974. You may call the Building Department at 867-3438 for an extension if further time is needed to complete construction. If the permit expires, a new permit may be required with an additional fee. If the work has been completed, please notify the Building Department and a final inspection will be made to complete our records. cc: Mr. Mrs. Paul Fried ndy Perri Buildi Depart emt Secretary INCORPOR.IED 1950 cp Al Young Construction 5541 Fern Drive San Jose, CA cc: -Mr. Mrs. Fried city of S ARAT GA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 October 11, 1974 Dear Mr. Young: SUBJECT: ADDITION FOR MR. MRS. PAUL FRIED AT 13240 VIA BLANC IN SARAGOGA Under the provisions of the Saratoga Building Code, your permit will expire on October 21, 1974. You may call the Building Department at 867 -3438 for an extension if further time is needed to complete construction. If the permit expires, a new permit may be required with an additional fee. If the work has been completed, please notify the Building Department and a final inspection will be made to complete our records. Thik you, /G Candy Perri Buildi>g Department Secretary e ^u Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Fruity ale CA. 95070 Dear Council Members, 13240 Via Blanc Ct. Saratoga, CA. 98070 July 18, 1986 Over the past several months we have been attempting to refinance our home and in this process we were called upon to prove that the home addition constructed in 1974 had a valid building permit. Upon checking with the Saratoga Building Department we discovered that unbeknownest to us, the final inspection for that project was never completed. The contractor we hired disappeared before the job was completed. With the help of an attorney we were able to complete the project and assumed we were up to date on all requirements. The permit expired and we did not know it was incomplete or had eXpired. The Saratoga Building Department informed us that even though we had paid for the original building permit in full, we now would have to pay a duplicate fee of $84.86 to get the final approval inspection. According to section 3038 in the Uniform Building Code a notice of expiration is sent only to the contractor. In our case he had been long gone from the address he gave. The people I spoke to in the building permit department agreed that a notice should be sent to the homeowner as well. In fact, as a matter of courtesy, such a practice is done now. The Building Department advised us to bring this matter to the attention of the Saratoga City Council if we wanted a recision of the duplicate fee. We also urge the City Council to amend the code so that the contractor and the homeowner are notified when a building permit is about to expire. The homeowner is at the mercy of contractors that are, all too often, unwilling or unable to complete jobs on time. Further, since thehomeowner is usually a resident .of the City of Saratoga, the city should be more than willing to offer this service. The fee we paid was a duplication of fees paid in 1974 and we feel it is unwarranted. The homeowner has a right to know when a permit they paid for is about to expire and is incomplete. We were not notified and request a recision of the fee paid July 16, 1986 of $84.86. Your attention to the recision of fee and amendment to the present code will be appreciated. If you require any further information we can be reached at 867-0408 or at Mr. Friedl's place of employment (415) 855-3113. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, a u, k Paul J. Fedl Marian Friedl CITY OF SARATOGA ,1 9 AGENDA BILL NO. /Mb AGENDA ITEM I DATE: September 3, 1986 DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Reconstruction of ELVA AVENUE "Notice of Completion" Summary: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting of April 2, 1986, awarded the contract for the above project to Raisch Construction Company. Due to ground water discovered during construction costs ran over by $17051.98. This extra cost was due to stabilization of suba "se, installa- .tion.of extra asphalt concrete and wooden retaining wall. The work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted. Project Cost Breakdown Raisch Construction Company Arcon Concrete Company Driveways U. S. Rockery Topsoil Vicra Corporation Surveys Fiscal Impacts: TOTAL Total construction cost of $121,441.98. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion 2 Appropriation, Resolution 118,171.38 2,074.60 396.00 800.00 121,441.98 Recommended Action: The work on the subject project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recommendation that this work be accepted and that the City Council adopt Appropriation Resolution No. to provide funds for 'the additional costs of the project. Council Action Approved noticeof completion and appropriation resolution. Nome Street Address City d Stars L RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO Hour is hereby given that the agent of]* the owner of th certain lot piece or, parcel of land situated in the Gity...a£..Satataga County of State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: Reconstruction of ELVA AVENUE. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Nutira of (Iumpletimt I the undersigned, Harry R. Peacock That as owner of said land, did, on the ..2nd day of APRIL, 19 $6 enter into a contract with .Rai.sch..Gozls txucti pa,.C9mPAnx for Recanatructiort.. enac upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the county of State of California, on the day of 19 That on the 8.th day of 4I1P115I 1 9 86 the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said Raisch..Canstzuctian..GOA RAUF That the name and address of all the owner of said property are as follows: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 and the nature of title to said property is STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of By being duly sworn, 1 am the agent oft the owner of the property described in the foregoing notice. 1 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. nor document le only a pener& form Msid1 meY Ops —T1y Ise rr pr lo, a in sim o ple trenetiont end in no e* eats, or is intended to eeL M JYLetltatti ttte edict o f sr."'"1,- .L.pt,.. ptyyioo a 1[6tFii Cowderv's Form No. 774— NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY OWNER. IC. C. P. Sec. 1193.1) Agent Owner Subsidiary: Purpose: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 2347. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1986 -87 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2347 be amended as follows: Transfer: $]7,500 from Fund Balance to Appropriations Capital Improvement Fund Project Charge 0032 -2000 Credit 3200 6700 -1916 PROVIDE FUNDING OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST OF ELVA AVENUE. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: Deputy City Clerk 1 Mayor SUBJECT: Approved. AGENDA BILL NO.. 1 DATE: September 3, 1986 DEPT.: Community Services Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA Contract to provide Processing of Parking Citations and False Alarm Ordinance Violations Exhibits /Attachments: Draft contract with VMS AGENDA ITEM 4 1 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Suamary: In 1983, the City contracted with Datacom Systems, Inc., to process the City's parking violations. Similar contracts were signed with the other cities in this County, as well as the County itself. The contract was for three years, and expires Sept. 14, 1986. Earlier this year, all the contracting jurisdictions met and decided to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to determine if Datacom was still the most cost effective vendor to provide this service. The response to the RFP revealed that Vertical Man- agement Systems, Inc. (VMS) was willing to provide the same service at a significantly lower rate. Specifically, VMS's charge for pro- cessing including two billings per violation was 88 each compared to $1.25 each for the first notice and 50 more for a second notice which would be charged by the City's current vendor. In addition, Verticle agreed to process Saratoga's false alarm billings. In' exchange-for 15% of revenue collected, VMS would handle all printing, mailing, and collection costs. Fiscal Impacts: Last year, 1466 citations were issued in Saratoga. By contracting with MVS to provide processing and two billings per citation, as much as an additional $1,275 could be realized in revenue to the City if the same number of parking citations were issued. Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to execute contract in City's behalf with Vertical Management Systems for the collection of parking fines and False Alarm Ordinance violation fines. ARTICTF, I Processing AGREEMENT FOR PROCESSING PARKING CITATIONS OR/G /4/44 This Agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate originals, between "VERTICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS hereinafter referred to as Contractor, a California Corporation, 18700 Beach Boulevard, Suite 110, Huntington Beach, California 92648 and the "CITY OF SARATOGA", hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY", and entered into this day of 1986. The parties intend by this agreement to provide for the processing of fines, bail and forfeiture thereof, in connection with the issuance of citations for illegal parking pursuant to the laws of the State of California and ordinances of the CITY OF SARATOGA. 1.1 Referral and Reconciliation. Contractor shall receive and process parking citations which Contractor shall pick up and process within three (3) days of receipt from AGENCY. Contractor will provide a daily reconciliation of the number of citations delivered by AGENCY. The AGENCY will be notified of discrepancies in citation counts delivered for processing. 1.2 Determination of Processable Citations. Contractor shall screen the parking citations referred to it by Agency to determine if the citation is processable. If the citation is determined by Contractor to be unprocessable (e.g., essential processing information is missing), Contractor shall return the citation to Agency within seven (7) days for clarification. Contractor will be paid the contractual rate hereinafter provided, for citations returned to the AGENCY as unprocessable. 1.3 Collection and Deposit of Funds. Contractor shall collect and deposit all monies received for the payment of parking citation fines and fees in an account maintained by Contractor. Contractor will receive payments from vehicle owners through the mails and in person, and from issuing agencies forwarding payments collected by than from registered owners. Contractor shall be open a minimum of four hours per day to accept walk in payments. The four hour period will be determined by Contractor and Parking Advisory Committee, and will be based on peak payment demand periods. 1.4 Disbursement of Funds. Contractor shall disburse monthly, all monies on deposit from the payment of parking citation fines and fees to the AGENCY. Disbursement shall be made within the first fifteen (15) working days of each month. 1.5 Identification of Registered Vehicle Owners. Contractor shall make up to ten requests to obtain the name and address of the registered vehicle owner from the California State Department of Motor Vehicles. TWo attempts shall be made from the appropriate out -of -state Department of Motor Vehicles for each vehicle for which a parking citation has been issued but payment has not been received within the required time period. Contractor shall follow all procedures specified by the California State Department of Motor Vehicles, and be consistent with the California Vehicle Code when identifying registered vehicle owners. 1.6 Verification of Ownership. Contractor shall insure that adequate identification of registered vehicle owners and verification procedures are utilized which take into consideration, at the very least, the following factors: Issuance of new license plates, address changes, license plate transfers to other vehicles, name changes, and the validity of plates and registration during specific time periods applicable to individual cases. 1.7 Delinquency Notices. Contractor shall generate and mail (presorted, first -class postage) within forty -five (45) days, a delinquency notice to all identified registered owners of vehicles who fail to pay their parking citation tines or to post bail in the required manner. The delinquency notice form rust comply with the requirements of State law. The mailed notice will include all information required by the California Vehicle Code, including, but not limited to, the following: a. The parking citation issuance date and number; b. The consequences of nonpayment (i.e., a hold on the vehicle registration and the imposition of penalties, towing, or issuance of a possible warrant for their arrest; and c. The amount of fines and fees due and payable. 1.8 Registration Holds. The Contractor will provide the system and procedures and will interface with the California State Department of Motor Vehicles to place a hold on vehicle registration having unpaid parking fines and fees due against those vehicles in accordance with the California Vehicle Code and any other applicable State and local laws. The holds will be placed within seventy -five (75) days of the issuance of the citation or thirty (30) days after the issuance of a delinquency notice. 1.9 Removal of Registration Holds. Contractor will provide the system and procedures and will interface with the California State Department of Motor Vehicles to remove registration holds when a registered vehicle owner satisfies the entire amount of parking citation fines, penalties, and fees due against the vehicle and establishes such payment to the satisfaction of Contractor. -2- 1.10 Contested Citations. In the event a registered vehicle owner disputes the liability tor the outstanding parking citation, Contractor shall advise the registered vehicle owner of his/her right to request a court appearance. The Contractor will coordinate a court appearance for the registered vehicle owner to the court. All contested citations will be forwarded to the Santa Clara County Municipal Court within a reasonable time period atter notification by the court. 1.11 Citations Disposed of by Court. The Contractor may be required, as a result of court action, to reduce or cancel, on an individual basis, parking citations which have been referred to it. Contractor shall be paid the contractual rate hereinafter provided for processing the citation regardless of the outcome of court action. Contractor shall maintain records indicating the date notice received and any reduction or cancellations of parking citations as a result of court action. Parking citations which are dismissed as a result of court action, will have the dismissal processed by the Contractor within two working days after receipt from the Santa Clara County Municipal Court. 1.12 Suspension of Processing. Contractor shall suspend processing any citation referred to it for processing upon written notice to do so by an authorized officer of the AGENCY. Contractor will return any citation or facsimile requested. Contractor shall maintain records indicating any suspension of citation as a result of County's request. Contractor shall be paid the contractual rate hereinafter provided tor processing the citations suspended by the County. 1.13 Parking Citation System Master File Update. Contractor will update the parking citation master tile tor new citations, payments, reductions, cancellations, dismissals and any other pertinent date a minimum of three times a week. 1.14 On -Line Terminal Inquiry. Contractor will provide on -line terminal inquiry capability within forty -five (45) days of an execution of a contract. Contractor will provide a maximum of six (6) computer terminals, technical and administrative support (as defined in Article III, section 3.8) for the use of contracting agencies, to be disbursed throughout Santa Clara County. ARTICLE II General 2.1 Public Inquiries. For phone calls and correspondence, the contractor will process matters of a nonjudicial nature; matters of a judicial nature will be referred to the appropriate agency for determination. For scheduled court hearings, the Contractor will coordinate the necessary information with the court. -3- The ability to deal with Spanish speaking individuals will be provided by the Contractor. The Contractor will provide a reasonable number of phone lines to accommodate public inquiries. 2.2 Contractor Limitations. Contractor may not do any of the following without AGENCY's prior approval, in writing: a. Take legal action; b. Threaten any legal action; or c. Make any communication, oral or written, regarding potential legal action. 2.3 Use of Approved Forms. All forms, delinquency notices, and correspondence sent by the Contractor must conform to State and local law, and be approved by the County. 2.4 Books and Records. Contractor shall maintain separate books or records within the County of Santa Clara for parking citations issued within the AGENCY'S jurisdiction and referred to Contractor for processing. Such books or records; and computer processing methods and procedures shall be available for inspection and audit by AGENCY at all reasonable times with prior notice to Contractor. 2.5 Property of Contractor. a. The parties hereto agree that Contractor is the owner of and shall remain the owner of all of its concepts, approaches, trade secrets, computer programs, experience, written procedures, forms, magnetic tapes, pinch cards, and similar computer materials. b. Trade secrets shall be defined by agreement between the parties hereto include without limitation, computer software and ideas included therein. c. During the term of this Agreement and the relationship of the parties, contractor may develop new and additional programs, and methods of handling and processing the data which is the subject of this Agreement which programs and methods are agreed to be the property of Contractor. 2.6 Property of AGENCY. All documents, records, tapes, information supplied by AGENCY to Contractor or generated by Contractor in performance of this contract is agreed to be and to remain the sole property of AGENCY and Contractor agrees to return the physical evidence of same supplied by customer to AGENCY no later than forty -five (45) days following notice to the Contractor. Within such period, the AGENCY may make arrangements with Contractor for the transmission of such data to the AGENCY upon payment to Contractor of the cost of such tape from Contractor's computer facilities to AGENCY's designated point of delivery. If termination of this document is by Contractor, Contractor will waive all costs set out in this paragraph. 2.7 Contractor Files. Contractor shall maintain master files on each parking citation referred to it for processing under this agreement. Such files will contain records of payments, collection efforts, dispositions, and any other pertinent information required to provide a reasonable audit trail. 2.8 Offices of Contractor. Contractor shall establish and maintain throughout the period of this agreement and any extensions thereof, an office within the County of Santa Clara, for the processing of parking citations, the maintenance of telephones, and the receipt of mail or other correspondence or inquiries relating to citations referred to Contractor under this agreement. The ability to handle walk in traffic shall be available to the public. 2.9 Storage for AGENCY. a. Contractor agrees to store citation hard copy until termination of the contract and have available on system or magnetic tape data for AGJ!NCY's parking citations for no less than a three year period and provide AGENCY retrieval of same during such period. AGENCY relieves Contractor of all liability costs associated with storage or retrieval of data released by AGENCY to any other person or entity using such data. b. Subsequent to the termination of the contract, Contractor will return hard copy to the AGENCY. If requested, a magnetic tape of its processed data will be provided for a fee of Seventy -Five Dollars (75.00). ARTICtF III Contract Price 3.1 Basis for Fee Structure. The fee structure hereinafter provided shall be based on the combined parking citation volume of all agencies within the County of Santa Clara who have contracted with the Contractor for the processing of parking citations. -5- 3.2 Basis of Fee Computation. The fee due and payable to Contractor will be computed on a per parking citation basis and will be based on the issuance date of the citation. Each parking citation assigned to Contractor for processing shall be utilized in computing the base tor the total fee. Once the initial tee has been charged by parking citation, no additional costs can be charged by Contractor to pursue collection except as defined in Article II, Section 2.9b, Article III, Section 3.4 and 3.5 and Article V, Section 5.3, of this agreement. 3.3 Rate. The fee for the term of this agreement is eighty -eight cents ($.88) per parking citation based on a minimum volume ot 200,000 parking citations per year for all agencies contracting with the Contractor within the County of Santa Clara. 3.4 Postal Rate Increases. The Contractor will maintain auditable records to document the Contractor's actual increase in postage costs associated with the mailing of delinquency notices for unpaid citations and for other mailings related to the processing of correspondence, etc., concerning any citations. Contractor will be reimbursed for postal rate increases tor presorted first -class mail after September 15, 1986, on a per piece mailed basis. The increase will be effective on the date that the postal rate increase takes place. 3.5 Other Fees. Contractor shall retain thirty -five percent (3570 of payments tram delinquent citations which have been processed in accordance with the current agreements, which remain unpaid for 40 days after the issue date, and meeting the following criteria: a. Citations for which the California State Department of Motor Vehicles has not provided registered owner information of and at least ten requests tor that information have been made. b. Citations for which the California State Department of Motor Vehicles has dropped the registration hold because ot a transfer of ownership of non renewal registration. c. Citations written on vehicles for which a manual request of the registered owner or the payment of a tee to a Department of Motor Vehicles for registered owner information is required. This would not include license plates for which the AGENCY or Contractor could obtain the registered owner information tree of charge. d. Citations with out -of -state license plates. e. Any other citations which the AGENCY so designates and refers to Contractor under this agreement. 3.6 In the event that technological advances, e.g. automated ticket writer, reduce Contractor's processing costs, Contractor agrees to pass any cost savings on to AGENCY. -6- 3.7 Bi11in s andJNC Analysis. ontrractor sh811.su mitt a statement and revenue to e once a month. anaiysis i accura e reflects the fees earned during the month will be included with the statement. Not later than fifteen (15) business days after the bill and fee analysis have been received, Agency shall either approve or reject the statement and tee analysis. If these documents are rejected by AGENCY, Contractor will be notified and problems shall be resolved. In the event that the aggregate citation volume of all contracting agencies within Santa Clara County drops below 200,000 citations for a contract year, the Contractor shall prepare an annual billing recalculating the fees due Contractor, at the rate of eighty -nine cents ($.89) per parking citation. 3.8 On -Line Terminal Inquiry. Contractor will provide within the basic cost per citation a maximum of six (6) on -line terminals tor use of issuing agencies that are within Santa Clara County and processing with Contractor. Contractor will provide technical and administrative support in the installation of the on -line inquiry feature at no additional cost. Agency will be responsible tor all telephone line charges related to the on -line terminal inquiry feature. Additionally, each agency may individually purchase, rent, or lease such equipment for its own use, should it so desire. 3.9 Maximum Charges. The per citation tee charged to AGENCY hereunder represents the maximum cost (as detined in Article III, section 3.2) to be charged to AGENCY in the absence of any other written agreement. ARTICLE, IV Reports 4.1 Periodic Reports. Contractor shall submit reports to AGENCY within fifteen (15) working days after the end of the month or period. The reports will provide activities relating to performance under this agreement, including but not limited to the list of reports as follows: 1. Report of Revenue Collected tor Month A detail report for each issuing agency identifying the parking citations which have been paid, and the related payment distribution (Bail, Penalties, DMV Fee, Jail Construction, etc.). This will also include revenues collected and distributed under Section 3.5 of this agreement and the related reason tor collection. 2. Report by Parking Citations Issued for Month A summary report by issuing agency, providing the number of parking citations issued, violation codes and bail imposed. 3. Report of Jail /Court Construction Revenues Collected For Month A summary report of all issuing agencies identifying the agency and the amount of funds collected for jail /court construction. 4. Report of Monthly Activity A balanced summary report by issuing agency providing the status of all parking citations at the beginning of the month, current month activity, and at the end of the month. Typical items that would be included: Payments on Citations Payments on Notice Payments on DMV Holds Dismissals Registered Owner Request Pending Registered Owner Discrepancy Registered Owner Notified Registered Owner Placed on DMV Hold Registered Owner Holds Released New Citations Payments in Full 5. Payment Analysis Report (Monthly) A summary report by issuing agency, identifying collection results by month in which the parking citations were issued. Payment statistics would be broken down to original citation, delinquent notice, and DMV hold. 6. Habitual Offenders Report (Monthly) A detailed report by issuing agency identifying registered vehicle owners with five (5) or more outstanding parking citations. The latest DMV registered owner name and address should be included on the report. 7. Officer Performance Report (Monthly) A detailed report by issuing agency and officer identifying the parking citations issued, location, violation and bail imposed. 8. Status History Report (Quarterly) A detailed report by issuing agency showing the periodic status of open and closed parking citations maintained on the file. 9. Special Reports as Requested or Required 4.2 Microfiche. Contractor will provide all reports on microfiche if AGENCY so desires. -8- ARTICLE V Term of Contract and Additional Service 5.1 Texts and Renewals. The term of this agreement shall be for the period commencing September 15, 1986, and ending September 14, 1987 and, if no notice of change or termination is given by the AGENCY, the agreement shall be automatically renewed for an additional one -year period, on the same terms and conditions provides herein. If no notice of change or termination is given by the AGENCY during this initial extension period, a second additional one -year renewal of the agreement shall automatically occur, on the same terms and conditions provided herein. 5.2 Cancellation. Upon a material breach or upon sixty (60) days written notice to Contractor, the AGENCY may cancel or terminate this agreement. All citations, files, reports, information, data, and monies relating to such citations shall be returned to AGENCY after Contractor has fulfilled all their responsibilities relative to the processing of the parking citations. 5.3 Additional Service. Any other contracting agency shall be free to negotiate a different agreement with the Contractor for any specialized service which does not fall within the standardized policy of this agreement. 5.4 Exclusivity. The parties agree that the consideration to be paid to Contractor is based in part upon Contractor furthering and developing its good will as the exclusive servicer of said services to AGENCY. AGENCY therefore agrees to utilize only the services of Contractor during the term of this Agreement for the processing of the citations referred to above. AGENCY agrees during the term of the Agreement to not directly or indirectly assist a competitor of Contractor in the pertormance of the services provided by Contractor under this Agreement, and subsequent to the term of this agreement to not divulge the trade secrets or property of Contractor to any entity other than Contractor. 5.5 Contractor Responsibility at Termination of Agreement. For all parking citation for which Contractor has been paid a fee as described in Section 3.3, the Contractor will perform those functions as provided for in Article I and II of this agreement; provided the Santa Clara County Municipal Court allows the Contractor to continue to use the court requestor code for reporting to the California State Department of Motor Vehicles. ARTICLE VI Confidentiality 6.1 Material Confidential. AGENCY agrees to keep confidential the procedures, approaches, and trade secrets. Contractor agrees to keep confidential the data supplied it by AGENCY except if same is delivered to -9- or released to a third party or parties at the request of AGENCY or as reasonably anticipated in order to supply the herein services to AGENCY, e.g. delivery of information to Department of Motor Vehicles. Contractor shall not be obligated through third parties, or to keep confidential techniques developed solely by Contractor jointly with AGENCY regarding this subject of this Agreement. 6.2 Consent Required for Disclosure. No report, information, data, files, or tapes furnished or prepared by Contractor or its subcontractors, successors or agents, shall be made available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of AGENCY other than individuals or organizations who are reasonably necessary to properly effectuate the terms and conditions of this agreement. ARTIC1F VII Claims and Actions 7.1 Reasonable Assistance ot Contractor. In the event any claim or action is brought against AGENCY relating to Contractor's performance or services rendered under this agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which AGENCY might require. 7.2 AGENCY Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against Contractor relating to Contractor's performance of services rendered under this agreement, Contractor shall notify the AGENCY, in writing, within five (5) days, of said claim or action. 7.3 Hold Harmless and Insurance Provisions. Contractor agrees to furnish the following bonds and insurance policies prior to the commencement of work under this agreement and agrees to maintain them throughout the term of this contract and any renewals thereot: a) Contractor agrees to indemnify, detend and hold harmless the AGENCY, its ofticers, agents and employees from any loss, injury or damage arising out of or in connection with Contractor his agents, contractors or employees performance under this agreement, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused solely by acts or omissions ot personnel employed by AGENCY. Contractor further agrees to reimburse AGENCY for all costs, attorney's fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in any litigation arising out of any obligation of Contractor's part to be pertormed under this agrecnent or arising from any negligence of Contractor or Contractor's agents, contractors or employees. b) AGENCY agrees to indemnify, detend and hold harmless the Contractor, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, injury or damage arising out of or in connection with AGENCY his agents, contractors or employees performance under this agreement, excepting only loss, injury or damage -1u- caused solely by acts or omissions of personal employed by Contractor. AGENCY further agrees to reimburse Contractor for all costs, attorney's fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in any litigation arising out of any negligence of AGENCY or AGENCY's agents, contractors or employees. c) Throughout the term of this agreement, Contractor at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect comprehensive automobile and general liability insurance covering bodily and personal injury and property damage. Limits shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurence. Such insurance policies shall name AGENCY, its officers, agents and employees, individually and collectively, as additional insureds. Such coverage for additional insureds shall apply as primary insurance and any other insurance or self insured retention maintained by the AGENCY, its officers, agents and employees, shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance provided under said policy. Such insurance policies shall not be cancelled or materially changed without thirty (30) days advance written notice to the AGENCY. d) Throughout the period of this agreement, Contractor at its sole cost shall maintain in full force and effect a policy of Worker's Compensation Insurance covering all of its employees. e) Throughout the period of this agreement, Contractor at its sole cost shall maintain in full force and effect a Fidelity Bond which provides crime coverage including employee theft and mysterious disappearance tor $100,000. f) Throughout the period of this agreement, Contractor at its sole cost shall maintain in full force and effect to cover all agencies within Santa Clara County doing business with Contractor, a performance bond in the amount of $150,000. Prior to commencement of this agreement, Contractor shall provide, on a torn approved by AGENCY, a Certificate of Insurance along with copies of required endorsements certifying that coverage, as required, has been obtained and remains in force until the date of the notice of completion or after the date of cancellation of this agreement, whichever is first to occur. g ARTICLE VIII Subcontractors and Assignments 8.1 Subcontracting. Contractor is authorized to engage subcontracts within the State of Calitornia at Contractor's own expense. 8.2 Assignments. This contract may not be assigned without the prior written consent of the AGENCY. -11- ARTICIF; IX Independent Contractor 9.1 Contractor's Relationship. Contractor's relationship to AGENCY in the performance of this agreement is that of an independent contractor. Personnel performing services under this agreement shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control and shall be employees of Contractor and not employees of the AGENCY. Contractor shall pay all wages and salaries and shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them relating to social security, income tax withholding unemployment compensation, worker's compensation, and similar matters. Neither Contractor nor any agent or employee of Contractor shall obtain any right to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to employees ot AGENCY, and Contractor hereby expressly waives any claim it might have to such rights. ARTIQ-F X Additional Processing Services 10.1 Contractor agrees to process Agency's "False Alarm Ordinance" violations in a similar manner as the parking violations are processed, except as noted below. 10.2 Contractor will be paid 15% of all revenues collected. 10.3 Contractor will be responsible for printing and postage costs, as we11 as design and development costs. 10.4 Contractor agrees to provide at least two billing notices per violation, and may provide additional notices at contractor's own cost and discretion. 10.5 Contractor will provide Agency with monthly reports of revenue and disposition of violations. 10.6 Contractor will be responsible for all accounting of revenues and reporting. 10.7 Contractor agrees to have system operational within 30 days of the effective date of this contract. ARTICL.F. XI Entire Agreement 11.1 Integrated Agreement. This contract is intended by the parties as a final expression ot their agreement and also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms thereof, any prior oral or written agreement regarding the same subject matter notwithstanding. This agreement may not be modified or terminated orally, and no moditication or any claim of waiver ot any of the provisions shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties. -12- 11.2 Law Applicable. Contractor agrees to comply with all laws within the State of California governing the conduct of business, including, but not limited to, laws pertaining to licenses, taxes corporation regulation, and collection practices. 11.3 Notices to Parties. Any notice required under this agreement to be given to either party may be given by depositing in the United States mail, postage prepaid, tirst- class, addressed to the following: AGENCY: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 CONTRACTOR: Vertical Management Systems, Inc. 18700 Beach Boulevard, Suite 110 Huntington Beach, California 92648 WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have entered into this agreement as of the day and year hereinabove written. UONTRACTOR AGENCY By Date Name Title Date Of/ kvh AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: September 3, 1986 DEPT.: City Manager SUBJECT: Summary: The City Council of the City of Saratoga at their regular meeting of April 2, 1986, selected USX Telecenters as vendor for the City's new telephone system and authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with USX. The work is now complete. Fiscal Impacts: Per 1985 -86 Budget Exhibits /Attachments: 1. August 6, 1986, letter from USX Telecenters 2. Notice of Completion Recommended Action: Approve Notice of Completion Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM T (3, 7 CITY MGR. APPROVAL/ Notice of Completion Telephone Equipment Purchase and Installation t1SX TEL1:(.t:NTERS i )S Lawrence Expressway Sunnyvale. (:A )-na.■ 4OSI O i -f5 August 6, 1986 Mr. Bob Nugent Mission Communications P.O. Box 3588 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Nugent: Please consider this notification that USX TELECENTERS has completed the installation of a telephone system at the City of Saratoga as described in EPIA No. 1018 and Installation Change Orders Nos. 1 -4. I have enclosed a copy of the EPIA and associated ICOs, and a statement for your review. We request that you file the required Notice of Completion with the City Council. I hope the enclosed information is suffi- cient for this purpose. One ICO has not yet been completed. Prior to commencing work on the installation of ten emergency phones, we need information regarding the length and routing of cable, and the location of phones. We will treat this ICO as separate from the original installation. Thank you for your anticipated consideration. Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Jeririifer Buttimer Corporate Center Business Manager JB /SCL Enclosure i Te4 etttito-ei RECEIVED AUG 13 1986 CITY MANAGER. USX 1056 Phone System Per EPIA No. 1018 ICO No. 1 Sales Tax for EPIA No. 1018 and ICO No 1 ICO No. 2 ICO No. 3 ICO No. 4 Total System Price Less Payments Received: Check No. 22152 Check No. 23586 Check No. 30183 Amount Outstanding STATEMENT $25,120.41 2,993.94 877.29 142.00 476.70 100.50 6,280.10 16,913.29 381.36 $29,170.84 (23,574.75) 5,596.09 Nam. Street Address Cite IL L Slat. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO T M ina is hereby given that the undersigned, Harry R. Peacock the agent of]* the owner of th certain lot piece or, parcel of land situated in the County of State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: That day of April...3Q., STATE OF CALIFORNIA J County of Mitt of atampliettim City of Saratoga SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE as owner of said land, did, on the 19 86' enter into a contract with I USX Telecenters for Telephone equipment purchase and installatiOn I I upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the 111 county of the State of California, on l' day of l9 That on the 6th day of Au9us+ ,19 86 the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said S75X Telecenters That the name and address of all the owner of said property are as follows: and the nature of title to said property is s ROD ICe VF CO NPLtIIUN OY UWhtR. (L. L. P. Sec. 1193.1) By Agent Owner being duly sworn, says: am (the agent oil* the owner of the property described in the foregoing notice. I hare 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. This don.n.m is only gamma from which rtay W ON** ta VW in swot. translations soft in no wry .ea, a N Marq.d to R a *Acmes. is the .deice Ol an .ttpnn, Th. fahlmar don not m... ony war.nly, .ith.r M. ny0to. is iai ordoc.tshIffyachwrip111n,n i i* inaction AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: Sept. 3, 1986 DEPT.: City Manager SUBJECT: JOB DESCRIPTIONS Sunmary Job descriptions for several of the management positions have not been updated and adopted by Council following departmental reorgan- izations in the past few years. Approval of the four attached Job Descriptions will complete the process and provide the City with accurate descriptions for all current positions. It is recommended that the title of Community Center Manager be changed to Recreation Superintendent in order to be more indicative of the scope of the position and its relative ranking in the recrea- tion field. For similar reasons, it is also recommended that the position of Senior Inspector be retitled Chief Building Inspector. These changes are reflected in the attached descriptions. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: Job Descriptions 1. Maintenance Director 2. Chief Building Inspector 3. Recreation Superintendent 4. Administrative Assistant Recommended Action: Council Action Approved job descriptions (no resolution). CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM4/3 /(L/ CITY MGR. APPROVAL City of Saratoga September, 1986 MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR DEFINITION Under the administrative direction of the City Manager, to plan, organize, direct and coordinate the full range of all City maintenance programs; and do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Assumes full administrative responsibility for all Department operations. These include: street, parks and landscape maintenance; janitorial and structural maintenance of all City facilities; equipment maintenance; operation and maintenance of Hakone Japanese Garden, and the pavement management system. Functions as the Secretary to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Plans and provides for the implementation and management of all Department programs consistent with community needs, City policy and legal requirements. Evaluates programs and develops means for improving methods, equipment and personnel utilization and performance. As appropriate, institutes such improvements or recommends their adoption. Maintains close liaison with other City departments, community representatives, contractors and appropriate personnel of other public jurisdictions. Represents the City on inter agency committees and in other cooperative programs. Establishes and administers department policies, rules and procedures; prepares and administers the Department's operating and capital improvement budgets. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS Education: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited college or university in civil engineering or a related field. Experience: Six years of increasingly responsible engineering and maintenance experience, including at least two years in a supervisory or administrative capacity. Experience with a local government agency highly desirable. Additional experience in supervision or managing maintenance activities may be accepted in lieu of appropriate amounts of college -level engineering training. Knowledges and Abilities: A thorough knowledge of principles, methods, and equipment relating to public works and parks maintenance; a knowledge of civil engineering principles relating to maintenance operations; a thorough knowledge of administrative principles, methods and trends, including personnel and budget administration; knowledge of applicable codes, ordinances and regulations; a thorough knowledge of applicable City policy; and the ability to effectively administer all operations of the Department. Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California Driver's License. City of Saratoga September, 1986 a, CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR DEFINITION Under the general direction of the City Engineer, is directly responsible for managing all building code enforcement functions. As a division head, supervises a technical and clerical staff, and directly performs complex inspections, plans checking and other technical duties. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Assumes full supervisory responsibility for all building code enforcement activities of the Inspection Division. As necessary, coordinates inspections concerning public improvement projects and municipal code compliance with Division staff and other City personnel. Implements and manages all Division programs consistent with community neeeds, City and Department policies and legal requirements. Assists in the development of Division programs and policies. Evaluates programs and develops means for improving services and personnel utilization and performance. As appropriate, institutes such improvements or recommends their adoption. Directly performs a variety of high -level technical work, including conducting complex inspections, reviewing plans and interpreting codes. Coordinates inspection activities with other appropriate agencies as well as with other City departments and divisions. May represent the City on inter- agency committees and in other cooperative programs. Prepares and administers the Division budget. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS Education: Equivalent to Associate of Arts degree from an accredited college or university supplemented by college -level coursework in engineering, architecture or a closely related field. Experience: Four years of increasingly responsible building inspection experience, including at least two years in a supervisory capacity. Experience in building construction or professional engineering may be accepted in lieu of appropriate amounts of inspection experience. Certification: Possession of at least one of the following certificates issued by the International Conference of Building Officials: Building Inspector, Combination Inspector, or Plans Examiner. Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California Driver s License. City of Saratoga September, 1986 RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT DEFINITION Under general direction of the Community Services Director, is directly responsible for managing the Community Center, all related activities and the City's recreation programs. As assigned, the Recreation Superintendent assumes additional administrative responsibilities either on a project or on an ongoing basis. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES As a division head, directs the planning, programming and scheduling of all activities and events at the Community Center and provides for the implementation and management of all recreation programs. Oversees the operation and maintenance of the Community Center, including public relations, promotional activities, purchasing and facility maintenance. Evaluates programs and develops means for improving services and providing facilities for programs Assesses community needs and interests concerning programs offered and, as appropriate, recommends or institutes program changes; oversees rentals by outside parties of the Community Center and Civic Theatre. As assigned, undertakes a variety of special or ongoing projects of a general administrative nature, including staff support to the Library Commission and other committees and may serve as City representative to civic organizations; oversees City volunteer program. Supervises a staff of full -time and part -time personnel assigned to the Community Center and may direct the work of other employees on a project basis; prepares and administers Division budget. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS: Education: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited college or university in recreation or a related field. Experience: Four years of increasingly responsible professional recreation experience including at least two years in a supervisory capacity. Knowledges and Abilities: A thorough knowledge of the development and administration of recreation and special service programs; a thorough knowledge of supervisory principles, methods and trends, including personnel and budget administration; a thorough knowledge of Department policy and of applicable City policy; and the ability to effectively administer all operations of the Division. Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California Driver License. City of Saratoga September, 1986 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DEFINITION Under general supervision of the City Manager, performs a variety of administrative support functions as the direct staff assistant to the City Manager. These functions include administering programs, conducting studies, and undertaking special projects. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Manages and administers the City's Personnel function, including conducting the recruitment and selection process for new employees; administering the employee benefits program; interpreting personnel policies and counseling managers and employees in personnel actions; and maintaining employee personnel records. Performs a variety of administrative City Manager. Such functions administering assigned programs, analyzing data. support duties as staff assistant to the include undertaking special projects, conducting studies and assembling and Prepares reports for submittal to the City Manger, the City Council and other appropriate bodies. Serves, as assigned, as the City representative at meetings involving other City departments and other government agencies. Prepares and administers the Personnel Management budget. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS Education: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited college or university in public administration, business administration, or a related field. Experience: Sufficient work experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of the classification. Knowledges and Abilities: Knowledge of basic principles of public administration and personnel management. Ability to work effectively with a wide variety of individuals and groups; communicate effectively in writing and verbally; comprehend projects and issues and effectively administer assigned programs. Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California Driver 'ver s License. AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/26/86 (9/3/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 52` V -739, Needman Appeal of Planning Commission denial to exceed 40% maximum impervious coverage at 13917 Camino Barco Summary: 1. Applicant applied for a variance from City Code to cover 52% of the lot. 2. July 23, 1986 the Planning Commis denied the request 4 -0, being unable to make the findings required. 3. Applicant is appealing the denial. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. Staff report to Planning Commission dated 7/23/86. 3. Appeal letter 4. Planning Commission minutes of 7/23/86 5. Site plan analysis of impervious coverage Recommended Action: Affirm the decision of the Planning Commis and deny the appeal. Council Action Granted appeal, but no further impervious coverage to be allowed on this property in the future. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: v -739 Needman, Appeal of denial of variance to allow 52% impervious coverage where 40% is the maximum -13917 Camino Barco ISSUE: Applicant wishes to construct a 7200 sq. ft. tennis court as shown on the enclosed plot plan. The two driveways, paths, home, and patio area total 34% coverage; the tennis court would add 17.9% for a total of 52% (see attached analysis submitted by applicant). The Planning Commission denied the request to exceed the 40% maximum coverage. BACKGROUND: City Code Sec. 15- 06.370 defines impervious surface as "any hard surface which substantially impairs the natural permeability of the soil, including but not limited to recreational courts...." In the R -1- 40,000 zone, the coverage is 40 In conformance with the General Plan policies, the impervious coverage limits are established to minimize runoff due to development (i.e., allow water to continue to permeate the soil). Limiting impervious coverage also serves to conserve the open spaces and vegetation which contributes to the rural ambiance so typical of the City of Saratoga. On July 23rd, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the request to allow 52% impervious coverage, per the staff report dated 7/23/86. Essentially, findings could not be made to support the variance (see Exhibit A -1). Staff recommends that the Council affirm that decision and deny the appeal. Y c huek Hsia P1 nning Director g ct 0 °1"oC� 1 DATE: 8/26/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/3/86 OEMT ©2 0 2-Jo IS FROM: Lisa Welge, Assistant Planner /'t) DATE: 7/23/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V 739 13917 Camino Barco APPLICANT: Barry and Janet Needman APN: 397 -01 -059 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Needmans propose to build a tennis court on their lot in the R 1 40 zoning district. In so doing, the impervious covrage on the lot will be 52% where 40% is the maximum allowed. A variance 'is require to permit the impervious coverage to exceed 40 ISSUES: 1. No extraordinary physical circumstances apply to the subject property. It is a corner lot with an unusually large amount of surface in driveways and walkways. Thus, the difficulty in compling with the impervious coverage standard results from the owner's. action. 2. There are alternatives available which would allow the proposed development to conform to code. For example, portions of the existing pavement could be replaced by interlocking paving stones. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance having been unable to make the findings. If Planning Commission wishes to approve thie variance, the necessary findings must be made.• ATTACHMENTS: 1. ,Findings Exhibit A -1 2. Technical Information and Staff Analysis 3. Findings by Applicant 4. Location Aiap U -739, Needman EXHIBIT A -1 FINDINGS: 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship Strict enforcement would not impose unnecessary hardship in that there are alternatives available which would allow a tennis court to be built on the site without exceeding the 40% limit on impervious coverage. For example, portions of the existing pavement could be replaced with interlocking paving stones, which are not impervious. Thus this finding cannot be made. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances There are no exceptional or extraordinary physical conditions applicable to the subject property; it is level and very similar to surrounding properties in the same zoning district. The only exceptional characteristic on the lot is th large amount of existing impervious coverage, which is a result of the owner's action. Therefore this finding cannot be made. 3. Common Privilege 4. Special Privilege Strict enforcement of the 40% limit on impervious coverage cover would not deprive the applicant of a common privilege since there are alternatives which would permit development within the standard. Other properties in the district are not permitted to exceed the limit on impervious coverage, therefore, this finding cannot be made. Granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege, since ther are no exceptional physical circumstances not of the owner's making which would limit the proposed development. 5. Public Health, Safety. or Welfare Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or mentally injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity since the proposed tennis court will be fenced in and screened by vegetation. TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: 7/23/86 APN: 397 01 059 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V 739, 13917 Camino Barco ACTION REQUESTED: Variance to allow impervious coverage to exceed 40% with construction of a proposed tennis court. APPLICANT: Barry and Janet Needman PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits (pending) ZONING: R- 1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density EXISTING LAND USE: Residential single family home SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential; church and parking lot to the west. PARCEL SIZE: 40,031.64 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Landscaping large historic oak tree to be left as is. $LOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: N/A Ft. Rear: 15 Ft. Left Side: 20 Ft. Right Side: 20 Ft. HEIGHT: 10 ft. (fence) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Total: 20,840 sq. ft. (52 Tennis Court: 7200 sq. ft. (18G) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Tennis Court: 7,200 sq. ft. House: 3,680 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance and a variance is required to exceed impervious coverage standard. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Clay court STAFF ANALYSIS The proposal is to build a tennis court which will bring the total impervious coverage to 52% of their 40,000 sq. ft. lot. This substantially (18%) exceeds the ordinance standard for the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (40%). U -739, Needman The applicants state that many homes in the vicinity cover over 50% of their lots. There are some large houses nearby which exceed the floor area standard of 6200 sq. ft., and some have tennis courts and swimming pools on their lots according to the plans on file. However, in the past, no variance has been granted in the area to allow impervious coverage to exceed the standard. VARIANCE FINDINGS (Supplement to Variance Application) FILE NO. V431;1 Variance applications are requests to construct structures or create lots, parking spacings, etc., that do not conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which the site is located. Five (5) findings must be made to obtain approval. (Additional findings are required for variances pertaining to signs and parking). The findings point to the special circumstances that would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulties inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The special circumstances pertain to the physical characteristics of the site, including site size, dimensions, shape and topography. The circumstances are to be site specific and not pertain to all properties within the zoning district. Please describe in clear, concise language how your project would meet the required findings below: 1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance. 2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district, (The exceptional circumstances are no to be a result from actions of the owner.) •IL .(�1: 9 4 r Of l► ,�1 3. Strict or er. i n p e tat� ion and e rcemen t'he specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance u ,ld depri e the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. p 4. Granting the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district. i,( z /-C 2j n',6, I t 9-Q� Q Q ✓(..6. Cc gJr (!il4 0 3n_efre, 5. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. I hereby certify that all the information contained in the supplement is to my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. July 30, 1986 Sincerely, e, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk Dear Ms. Needman: 13777 FRUITVALE (408) 867 -3438 Ms. Janet Needman 13917 Camino Barco Saratoga, Caifornia 95070 cc: Planning Department AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson We have received your appeal application dated July 30, 1986, regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of variance to allow impervious coverage to exceed 40% on a lot at 13917 Camino Barco in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. We have received your check #237 in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal and public noticing. The public hearing on this matter has been set for September 3, 1986. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. Please submit eight (8) 17" by 11 1/2" exhibits for this hearing. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: Decision Being Appealed: a a ‘.1(3.✓ an (>9._ Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): APPEAL APPLICATION Date Received: Hearing Date: AA) 4 i�Pt ;`\)5 M4&) (q 4teu e). zc) 744 42 1 7 cAtkk.cm PDMRCO teW1v1i:S CrW+ L Fee CITY USE ONI pellant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. arag -1-1. far vo.. ics■..". mu $11 0111 AlliglitinCrallt vr imgratoltemummerikiallalliat 111.#11111111 IOW, t 4vv° 1w Rot reoivi p rfal Pry row Arstditmel ‘40 II OM ff-le PIT Vans 1 k 1-4)11P'‘ MARSHALI, LANE SCHOOL Planning Commission Minutes 7/23/86 9. V -739 Needman, request for variance approval to allow impervious coverage to exceed 40% on a lot at 13917 Camino Baron in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia stated that the issues are: 1) No extraordinary physical circumstances apply to the subject property. 2) There are alternatives available which would allow the proposed development to onform to code. Staff recommends denial of the variance having been unable to make the mandatory findings. Site visit was made by Commissioner Harris. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M. Mrs. Janet Neectnan, Applicant, stated that she is seeking a variance of 12% over the 40% maximum impervious coverage allowed on a one acre lot in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. She stated that improvements have been made on the property such as a driveway. Granting the variance would be following precedent in the neighbozhood. She submitted a petition signed by the neighbors stating that they have no objection to the proposed application. The half acre set aside for the tennis court is totally flat and would not be visible from the street; pictures of the property were submitted. Corrections on the Technical Information and Staff Analysis are: On size of structure, House, to read 3,436 sq. ft. On Staff Analysis, to read, "(12 exceeds the ordinance" Mrs. Need man stated that her measurements of the concrete around the horse disagree with those of the staff: her findings indicate that their existing impervious coverage is 26% rather than 34 the total then is 44% which exceeds the maximum by only 4 She asked that the Commission grant the variance. ITEM 9 (Continued) PITIES /GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 4 -0, Commissioner Siegfried absent. Commissioner Pines questioned the percentage of impervious coverage and asked the reason for putting the driveway which now results in a request for a variance. The applicant stated that when the driveway was put in there were no questions regarding impervious coverage. The Commissioner requested confirmation on the figures for impervious coverage stating that he would be favorable toward approval of this variance if the impervious coverage was a 4% excess. Commissioner Harris concurred; however, a 12% difference is too much to make an appropriate finding for a Variance. iiIS /GUCH MOVED TO DENY V -739 PER STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 23, 1986. Passed 4-0, Commissioner Siegfried absent. MAAS E A AND SUZANNE C 13948 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 95070 397/01/062 NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set WEDNESDAY, the 3rd day of September, 1986, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO EXCEED 40% ON A LOT AT 13917 CAMINO BARCO IN THE R -1- 40,000 ZONING DISTRICT (APPELLANT /APPLICANT, J. NEEDMAN) (V -739) The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. Public hearings will begin when that item is reached on the agenda, but no later than 8 :00 p.m. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. All interested persons may appear and be If you challenge the subject projects only those issues you or someone else described in_ _this notice, or in City Council Committee at, or prior to heard at the above time and place. in court, you may be limited to raising raised at the public hearing written correspondence delivered _to- the_._ the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before August 28. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cor Deputy City Clerk f/d-e a V -739 Needman FINDINGS: 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship The alternatives suggested by the Planning Commission and Staff are not feasible. A grass court would present a practical difficulty requiring a full time groundskeeper. A "clay" court'' is "impervious" by the defination (15- 06.370) in the Zoning Regulations. Also, it has been reccommended that the driveway on Allendale be ripped out and replaced by "interlocking paving stones" I feel that this reccor' rn- dation would pose a financial and safety hardship. The dif ference in tracking surfaces from my driveway on to Allendale would causes cars to swerve out of control. The driveway in question, was legally installed with the proper perm ?nd would comprise only 1,500 sq. ft. which would still put the impervious coverage over by 8h. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances The exceptional circumstance is that I am a second owner. t� a house that was built before March 1983 which is when the impervious coverage regulation became effective. Our property is one of eight one acre lots on a cul -de -sac. The house is on a corner lot on which the previous owner postioned the front door on Allendale with the access to to the garages on Camino Barco. The house has two entrances and requires access to them. I feel that we made. the _best of the s{tuation and have greatly improved the appearance of the corner. The site location is level and would not require grading. 3. Common Privilege My house and the other seven were built in 1979, before the impervious coverage regulation became effective. The previous owner never landscaped the back yard. The other neighbors built their houses,antl installed swimming pools and tennis courts. My house is the smallest one by 1200 sq. ft. Consequently, there are no variances on record on Camino Barco because the other yards were coinpleted by March of 1983. Granting this variance would accord us common privilege enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. 4. Special Privilege The granting of variance would not constitue a grant of special privilege but instead make my property constistent with the neighborhood. Of the seven houses, four have tennis courts and swimming pools and the sq. footage of the homes are all larger. I would like to be able to develop my property according to the privileges of my neighbors. 5. Public Health. Safety. or Welfare Granting the variane will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or mentally injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity since the pro' posed tennis court will be fenced in and screened by veg- etation. 4.-sEA,H e..-SCLANUM KAN TCt.NE r+: P'NE I.ED NANA ,;■.;Ntt PER E. DARLE 'mEDI P'NK' F-01pUS vEST SPPUCE •kA•.;_riFLop.a "REV ROEAA IA \DIA PURPLE GLA`JEA AL SER TIAN* K- cCR NIGH T LILT L- NANA PR,CCUMR E 'VS fit -4•01„P Cr.: A.; -NI PE R N.-sEQuOIA -.:EMPERVIRENS REcwGc0 0-PFItiNuS A PIE A P.JNSENI DRAPING SPRU3E PAPH. CLEF'S t4 C.,HINEN '11S A A. 5-dLuE C.HP JJNIPFR I ZON T -NET:h.+ 'E 'E m rNC1.3 SCUL ANG, A NA 'sAuc ER POCCCARPUS ROPHYLLU S L.( IITIN3 A-JAPANESE 3L ACK PINE Y 4 ,N7AN A T RA N.1 MON TE /WENS Tav „„;NIPER cE AZALEA cm_ DE NDRC% ■•••"1%!:5,.., mtpLE "r)JEEN ANN' -l4 1,1 ,•,,,;',ATiVE DESIGN:, •••y E +.1"N TE 1 L, `-.,,r^ +.1,-; A T. F1117 i:EE -*.k.;;E- DRAIN ROGK v EG. GARD T E I G o' X /,2 i RAISED. eL,..A TERS 1 r• r E 7,1 l —A D COVER 71W b. 20 t for r t AN T 1 HOUSE pt. A NT iNG5 ti LAWN PLAINT ER ESTIr.3 Jjtt 12 *Yr ALL ENDALE --t„:"”; I N PL NT ER WALK IS T•N,, 7 SAC 0 Cs- N E X 1S N Ci O RI V E 1 0 A. CAMINO E ARCO PETITION JULY 1986 We support the construction of a tennis court at 13917 Camino Barco. The property belongs to Janet and Barry Needman. Property Owner "2. +U.,a 5k SQ QP0-L -OaLQ 3. 4. c 5. Ci__YAXIX,ta- 1. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. -(0A, Acci 15. )Z 16. 7n 17. 18. 19 .7?) >2 20. 21. 22. Address 39 29 e -a- 1-o e C f c> -moo l bo\pk;h Moo, L NV L 3Q4' c urra) 3 y fl a�. Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: APPEAL APPLICATION 1�q 11- C{A putty al btu 1 b izP-Y ik),1 ba./0 7c1 19q t CAN til PDA 6-6 i/ y I a fie+ Decision Being Appealed: a vGt✓cGl�eQ Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): pellant's Signature Date Received Hearing Date: 7/ -Va6 Fee S CITY USE ONLY *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WIT(-HIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. AGENDA BILL NO. P f 0 9 DATE: 8/26/86 (9/3/86) DEPT.: Planning Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: Council Action .Granted appeal. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM g8 6. Plans CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT V -737, Seid Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of variance for identification sign at 20444 Prospect Rd. Suumary: 1. Applicant operates a dental office at 20444 Prospect Rd. and requested approval of a freestanding identification sign per the attached plans. The request required a variance from City Code. 2. On July 23, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the request at a public hearing and unanimously denied the request. 3. Applicant is appealing the decision per the letter dated 7/31/86. 1. Staff report to.'City Council 2. Staff report to Planning Commission, 7/23/86 3. Variance Findings 4. Appeal application and letter 5. Minutes of Planning Commission dated 7/23/86 Recommended Action: Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ISSUE: Applicant requested v pp t a variance from the City Code to allow a freestanding identification sign at an existing dental office. The Planning Commission was unable to make the findings required and denied the request. BACKGROUND: Y uek Hsia Planning Director UMW ©2 0 Li) 0 DATE: 8/26/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/3/86 V -737, Robert Seid Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of variance for identification sign at 20444 Prospect Road The existing office building is located in the Professional and Administrative Office zone district. City ordinances limit signage in this zone to the face of the building unless the Planning Commission approves a variance to the Code. On July 23, 1986, Robert Seid, applicant, requested approval of a freestanding, wooden sign approximately 3' x 3 -1/2' in size, six feet in height in the front of the existing office building at 20444 Prospect Road. The Planning Commission could not find that there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that required the variance. The building could accomodate the sign on the face of it. In addition, since the Commission had been strict in not allowing monument signs, granting of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. Finally, since the proposed location would be to the left of the building rather than centrally located, the Commission felt it would "create confusion as to what the sign is identifying" and be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The Commission denied the variance, 5 -0. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Cindy Lashbrook, Planner DATE: July 23, 1986 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V- 737; 20444 Prospect Rd. APPLICANT: Robert Seid APN: 386 -01 -008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting to construct a':10.22;sq. ft. free standing identification sign'for dental offices in a CV.zon ing district. The sign is proposed to Jae 6 ft. in height. ISSUES: None 0E27' cD2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends epproval.of Resolution V -737 -1 and the findings of E.,hibit A -1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution U -737 -1 2. Findings, Exhibit A -1 3. Technical Information, Staff 4. Location.M'ap CL /dsc AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Variance File ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. V -737 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1. Any modifications to the sign elevation or the sign location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning staff... Chairman, Planning Commission WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for variance approval of a 10.22 sq. ft. free standing identification sign for dental offices at 20444 Prospect Road; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Robert Seid 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 23rd day of July 19 86 by the following roll call vote: 20444 Prospect Rd. V -737 EXHIBIT A -1 FINDINGS: 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship A strict or literal interpretation of the ordinance would create a practical difficulty. The residential appearance of the structure and its setback from Prospect prevents clear identification of the dental offices. The proposed sign would provide clear and visible identification of the structure and it is not contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances Exceptional circumstances exist because of the location of the structure and its residential appearance. The structure is located 47 ft. from Prospect Rd. and looks like a single family dwelling. The proposed identification sign would make it easier for patients to find the dental offices. Also, the design of the building and the vegetation on the front of it prevents an identification sign to be attached to the building. 3. Common privilege The offices are set back 47 ft. from Prospect Rd. and the structure has a residential appearance making it difficult to identify. Denial of the variance would be a denial of common privilege for patients to easily locate the dental offices. 4. Special Privilege 5. Public health. safety or welfare Granting ther variance for the proposed identification sign would not be a grant of special privilege since exceptional circumstances exist concerning the location and appearance of the offices. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The sign has been setback 10 ft. from Prospect so visibility for cars exiting from Atrium Dr. will not be impacted. 6. The granting of the variance will not detract from the natural beauty of the city or the appearance of the surrounding area in that the sign is not excessively large and its colors will be earthtone. 7. The granting of the variance will not introduce an inharmonious visual element in the zoning district in that the sign will not be illuminated. Also, the sign will be redwood with gold letters on dark brown background. V -737 20444 Prospect Rd. 8. The granting of the variance will not create a hazard to public safety in that the sign has been set back from Prospect Road to eliminate visibility impacts on cars exiting from Atrium Dr. V -737 20444 Prospect Rd. EXISTING LAND USE: Dental Offices PARCEL SIZE: 18,590 sq. ft. HEIGHT: 6 ft. SIZE OF SIGN: 10.22 sq. ft. TECHNICAL INFORMATION DATE:, 7/14/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 7 /23/86 APN: 386 -01 -008 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V- 7371 20444 Prospect Rd. ACTION REQUESTED: Variance approval for a free standing identification sign for dental offices. APPLICANT:I Robert Seid PROPERTY OWNER: Don Smith, Trustee ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically exempt ZONING: C -V GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial-Planned Development SURROUNDING LAND USES: There is a bank to the west, residences to the east and commercial uses across Prospect to the north. NAJURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: landscaping. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat SIGNAGE: PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 10 ft. Rear: 100+ ft. Left Side: 3 ft. Right Side: 100 ft. The site is developed with mature ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet al,l the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that a free standing identification sign for dental offices in a commercial district requires variance approval. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: The sign will be redwood with gold letters on a dark brown background. V -737 20444 Prospect Rd. STAFF ANALYSIS The structure is residential in appearance and the proposed sign will provide clear identification to vehicles traveling on Prospect. Also the design of the structure and the vegetation on the front of it would prevent an attached identification sign to be visible. A better location for the sign would be further west along Prospect; however, the remainder of the area in front of the offices completely paved and is used for parking. A in in this location could obstruct the backup area for the cars. 5 1 TI 4 •1 t V 13 E 1411.10.5 Zoning Regulations S15- 70.060 than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the variance. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. S15- 70.060 Findings required for granting of variance The approving authority may grant a variance as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the approving authority makes all of the following findings: (a) That strict or .literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Chapter. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. (d) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. (e) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (f) If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to signs, the Planning Commission shall make the following additional findings: (1) That the granting of the variance will not detract from the natural beauty of the City or the appearance of the surrounding area. (2) That the granting of the variance will not introduce an inharmonious visual element in the zoning district in which the sign would be located. (3) That the granting of the variance will not create a hazard to public safety. (g) If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to off street parking or loading facilities, the Planning Commission shall make the following additional findings: Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: APPEAL APPLICATION Robert G. Seid 20444 Prospect Road, Saratoga 95070 (408) 252 8200 Robert G. Seid v -737 20444 Prospect Road Identification Sign Decision Being Appealed: Variance approval for identification sign Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Please see accompanying letter -Appellant 'sS ignature Date Received: 4 Hearing Date:9 Fee CITY USE ONI 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 DArh OF THE DECISION. Telephone: (408) 252 -8200 RGS /t Enclos. 4 ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L SEID, D.D.S. July 31, 1986 RE: V -737 y yo Robert G. Seid, D.D.S. 20444 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Saratoga City Council Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council Members: We want to thank the planning staff for their positive recommendation for approval of our identification sign in the parking lot. All the data in the technical information prepared by the staff is correct except the height. It should be 3 ft. 9 in. instead of 6 feet. To paraphrase the staff findings, the offices are set back 47 feet from Prospect Road and the structure has a residential appearance making it difficult to identify. The design of the structure and the vegetation on the front of it would prevent an attached identification sign to be visible. If the sign is placed on the mound of the vegetation, the parked cars would obstruct it's view. The front of the offices is completely paved and is used for parking. A sign in this location could obstruct the backup area for the cars. Therefore, the most logical location for the sign would be near Atrium Drive, and the sign would not cause any confusion in identification of our offices because there is no other building adjacent to it. Furthermore, because the sign will be setback 10 feet from Prospect and .is only 3 ft. 9 in. tall, visibility for cars exiting from Atrium Drive will not be obstructed. Denial of the variance would be a denial of common privilege for patients to locate the dental offices easily. A large percentage of our new patients wasted considerable amount of time trying to find our offices. It is even more difficult to locate our offices when it is dark, since we do open late in the evenings. Our proposed identification sign is small and earthtone, very compatible with the residential appearance of our office. However, there are many very 'large and bright free standing signs on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road between Prospect and Seagull Way, about two blocks from our offices. Those signs are as tall as 13 feet and as wide as 15 feet, and some are illuminated. Those are signs of small business, such as pet clinic,paiinters, landscape services, walk -in clinic, movers, upholstery, drama group, cabinet makers, etc. The pictures of some of those signs are enclosed. We shall appreciate your granting the variance for the proposed identification sign. Telephone: (408) 2528200 SIGHS 4 ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L. SEID, D.D.S. OERAS 7 252 seaeTOCe SU 4oA 11PHOLSTERY4^o If1TERIOR5 AUTO '.^°FURf1ITURE F ,ic /osur, 1 of 1L V -737 20444 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA. CAUFORNIA 95070 ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L. SEID, D.D.S. Enclosure 2 oC 1 `V- 737 20444 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 Telephone: (408) 252 -8200 I3 R1 I3IIT L \N\i I (l \lUt/ \oUIIp+UI l II 1:, ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L. SEID, D.D.S. 204.44 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Enclosure 3 of 4 V -737 �AJBLIC HEARINGS: 2. V -737 Robert G. Seid, request for variance approval for a free standing identification sign for dental offices at 20444 Prospect Rd. in the C -V zoning district. Planning Director Hsia stated that the proposed sign would be 6 feet in height; Staff have no issues and recommend approval of this application per the Resolution and the Findings in Exhibit A -1. Commission Guch reported on the Site Visit. Commissioner Harris COuaaented that the proposed placement of the sign is in a landscaped median strip to the left of the building; this placement will create confusion as to what the sign is identifying. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Robert Seid, Applicant, clarified the placement of the sign and stated that additional landscaping is being done by the property owners. He stated that the sign will not be an obstruction to traffic nor is the sign objectionable in appearance. HARRIS /PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHMAPING. Paste 5-0. Commissioner Harris concurred with Commissioner Guch that placement of a sign in the proposed location might cause confusion. The Commissioner disagreed with Staff assessnent that the design of the building and the landscaping would prevent placement of a sign attached to the building itself; an attached sign is more desirable than a monument sign. The commission has been strict in not allowing monument signs; instances where monument signs were permitted do not apply to this situation. Due to the nature of this business, people will have prior appointments and will be seeking a' specific address. Granting this application would be a privilege. special Commissioner Guch suggested that the landscaped strip along the front of sign building excessive suitable place for a sign; however, a 6 foot type of business. Chairwoman Eger concurred regarding the height of the proposed sign. Cozmni.ssioner. Seigfried concurred that individuals will be looking a sign for this business a visible address for a s and th e information that this is a dental office. C nniss ions P nag but the cautioned that putting the sign in front of the building agreed, are require no plantings at present may ui the applicant to pl tan the area in q ues tion questioned the statement in staff report that there were no issues Planner Calkins stated that the Variance prohibition against free standing signs in this z results from the zoning district. I RIS /GUCH MOVED TO DENY V -737. Passed 5 -0. OZ Z Z 203ERT r D J10S0 9 iflkC0 A E L 3 -J 3 0 CA 0 D JO JOSO 9 2 L GIB D` DI )3 0 0 0 9 he° 9 IMES ?A TTE :31AS° SON 5/Z.u" HEIGHT 3 ft. 9 in. SIZE OF SIGN 10.22 sq. ft. August 1, 1986 13777 FRUITVALE (408) 867 -3438 Mr. Robert G. Seid 20444 Prospect Road Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Seid: Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Department AVENUE n& SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson We have received your appeal application dated August 1, 1986, regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of variance for an identification sign at 20444 Prospect Road (V- 737). We have received your check #347 in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal and public noticing. The public hearing on this matter has been set for September 3, 1986. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless df whether the Planning Commission approved the application. Please submit eight (8) 17" by 11 1/2" exhibits for this hearing. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: Decision Being Appealed: APPEAL APPLICATION Robert G. Seid 20444 Prospect Road, Saratoga 95070 (408) 252 -8200 Robert G. Seid V -737 20444 Prospect Road Identification Sign Variance approval for identification sign Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Please see accompanying letter rawIl Appe lant's Signature Date Received: Hearing Date:f 16 Fee $.5 0,0 0 CITY USE ONLY *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 APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED tVITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. Telephone (408) 252-8200 Saratoga City Council Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RGS /t Enclos. 4 ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L SEID, D.D.S. July 31, 1986 RE: V -737 20444 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA,.CALIFORNIA 95070 Dear City Council Members: We want to thank the planning staff for their positive recommendation for approval of our identification sign in the parking lot. All the data in the technical information prepared by the staff is correct except the height. It should be 3 ft. 9 in. instead of 6 feet. To paraphrase the staff findings, the offices are set back 47 feet from Prospect Road and the structure has a residential appearance making it difficult to identify. The design of the structure and the vegetation on the front of it would prevent an attached identification sign to be visible. If the sign is placed on the mound of the vegetation, the parked cars would obstruct it's view. The front of the offices is completely paved and is used for parking. A sign in this location could obstruct the backup area for the cars. Therefore, the most logical location for the sign would be near Atrium Drive, and the sign would not cause any confusion in identification of our offices because there is no other building adjacent to it. Furthermore, because the sign will be setback 10 feet from Prospect and ,1S 3 ft. 9 in. tall, visibility for cars exiting from Atrium Drive will not be obstructed. Denial of the variance would be a denial of common privilege for patients to locate the dental offices easily. A large percentage of our new patients wasted considerable amount of time trying to find our offices. It is even more difficult to locate our offices when it is dark, since we do open late in the evenings. Our proposed identification sign is small and earthtone, very compatible with the residential appearance of our office. However, there are many very 'large and bright free standing signs on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road between Prospect and Seagull Way, about two blocks from our offices. Those signs are as tall as 13 feet and as wide as 15 feet, and some are illuminated. Those are signs of small business, such as pet clinic,paiinters, landscape services, walk -in clinic, movers, upholstery, drama group, cabinet makers, etc. The pictures of some of those signs are enclosed. We shall appreciate your granting the variance for the proposed identification sign. Robert G. Seid, D.D.S. 1 Telephone: (408) 252 -8200 ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L. SEID, D.D.S. Enclosure I of it V-737 jgoos »rTs.: r HANSENS MOVING ••Olc aor MD LANDSCAPE S i "rrr SARATOGA DRAMA GROUP 252-1712 f OERAS 12277 SARATOGA 5UlfYVALE QOAD UPHOLSTERY". If1TERIOR5 AUTOA^DFURf1ITURE 20444 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L. SEID, D.D.S. Telephone: (408) 252-8200 20444 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 En c l os a re 2 'V -737 Telephone (408) 252 -8200 ROBERT G. SEID, D.D.S., INC. MICHAEL W. SEID, D.D.S. GARY L. SEID, D.D.S. 20444 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 Enclosure 3 of V-737 5 [11 zz z RO3ERT G. SKID, D.D.S., InCo ME AEL W. SEM D.D.S. GA DY L SED, D.D.S. 'GRE OM( L. SAWYER, D.D.S., Er. JA MES H. :FETE D SEGN, D.D.S. HEIGHT 3 ft. 9 in. SIZE OF SIGN 10.22 sq. ft. —.1!ea 516NA oia ciAa 7)),teetuet 6 /4-4;,t Dear Members o-r +he; Sare i-oja. e 1'fy Coupc%I We. -Hie undersi6ned s+ron31y urje y g rant varranc.e, a pfrovai -1 7 Robert Set c1 -Pew. a.. 2 re- -54-aidin9 I a?f,14ica f yon s at 2c114-14.4. Pros,pec't IZoad 3 9 5 i ake 3o f< X9W !9'3o, ,wu'''9 lAte /9S 7 r3 (lac gy75 a-eckc,:i--)24( 2e `g,c) 0.41 A-.,z (9- 4,- 20 Ce s 3 to y Sa2�� IL 9 b 3 M .0 a_c. a-4-7u c o 6 3' .,emu C,"rz.wxi, c)07 /c, i cam c": o 7 /y' ch L 1 q 7 ceieow)lcifel,e(4,/ 7ro Y 6 4.)ealdga c -7 GUa.t. e ci&.,7 y -cog 9 s 7 'Z v i_- C2)a- a-(11.wra� S c 37 a vi' W004, 4, o re/ Li' Gr.-4i LA c 7v x -0 '73 F Ct e_o 7sa Gil a C 1-,7))--(4 ADDRESS 95 9s J 70 70 1`1-'o 4'5 G(.('.t 7so7o go 76 9 3 0 7 vcJ `Yr4tF-. /q 2-6 TA- gro /783,Q J9pM 1. 6,/9 _/7 C,9 6 //aa4y4 �5 Cam- o ?;.r e7 V Dear ►lewibers of Sara-toga, C Co unci I We 'the und.ers191)ed s+rang/y ury'e you .'o `rant Variance approval -4-o D r. Poke rV Se i d -(or a Tree sfand,n td +i -e/ Cer ion sign a± Zog4 4L Prospect Road. S! &NATUP a A Dr) gE5S r 5 t2A �Cw1� 1� Kul Ca °jS 7d 2_ 'sin° ///v 4 Cz.4./* q 6 a7P v a 9 1 a- eec., pA6 crio4J /¢eJ& S4744, z 7a 201f 2c) 7 44-1-14,e LJ n .S d rdr�cC j C 9J2 l ?/33- Gaz/ Cr- 5,e- t,3r C/ ?5 J 7roc4 4 ai° 9 y a� ©dW Ve 'I nEfa £n qs-- Yate..bbn- Avk /94436) a:Ra V?11L 2095 cle L i1. 2-l0 37 4ofie /4 r l� 26-(27t 6* 9.5 5'J -6 7d J 76 SaraiVa of qg� e7L 2 i k" 1/5.6a v/s7 4 L✓l ICIO4d 6\itkut-Ai 0-6-69-7 Cpvc e lse 2 9 9sv70 7 ec 3v7c rztct-? l �r17r Dear t ?ern her of Me Sand-op, C em ri 1�1 z -f- e_ urn d.er siin ed 5+ra ng !y a r7e yo u 9 rant va r i a n c e. approver-1 Dr. Ro bert e_i d -Po r Prue- S and �'n i d e n -fir -Pi cetfior► si at 2.044* Prospect goad 9 AATuga ADD S Aveleviav J 3 7. 3 ?4 :a /3515 Tow in pc ,Q./-47`0 ,55. 95o7a 2'7 /!3 t (\4\01,2_ ico„ o-) 1, 04-63 3tL R ci- 132DI POxOJrviur. 4.1=t,fk, G [Ca130 i')Q l' ft ct. s l 4467 131CLC k. CC/(( e3 o 3 a in Ob2 air&4 c( q 17 2a3/ Obildc. Dr sT-r& ?cs h940 �r s� /4-41q ��,�ori;,� W°-` �,�6 4S►7c) tieo J eco 90,W fii 6r 7_5() 2-0 7 '6 b p-h .24/ RLe_ Sctictrt gra-z DJp'Uie C./l ib K6 t? 1 1", a h iCk c7 /'164,4, ,4o. 'r d phd c156)f cr i S ifoSc, Cb &4746.- Imo, 2.6 s L ko...., P...� A :2_0z/ ziotA. /9396 gwe (/6 y 2 ios-7 Vc ,I SQL t, X20 Lc bD C Sf S `257--6 &LrJO7C( q 50 %ozp 7S 9-5" a rs--eve) 6't GA)A rueE CIA./ 7n co,r,_ g/6-//' kzek `GIA�s�1�'o is /4.d czke Dear Temb.ers o=ff (he .541-.44-0 CT-7 Co,nCi/ IA) e -t-he waders/gind sfronlly urge jou +0 grant. VtXr►aiice approval ?r- gobert Se►d r --gee-- S+andin rder+ clecf<oi S isn et ZO t Lf Prospect 1 f-- i 3 (4 69 Musa G3 3G9 MUCa A D2IZE 5 6aa cL ld�t�f ...Z�i- .��e►u.W ,fie Crain /or /3 hi. 2-6o6s- 1)Lc 2o7S8 ,,1 4./A la V v C1) s .4'0 c- '77 C rr, Sax 77-4/ /d i vtw a'. >os Volk c tr 4, -A Te- /377 z/ titt R� �c- �a�i a7e3 7y /77// X 7 4 u v -f J t 4 Q-- 4, wai _,,Ci)-,`Z'mT5` 3 17 5 y�Td7d /3?24 Gic 9e-02e LW", Arica. .c eitg276 Anon MM DW OAK LS/Ile/gib 4/1 1 7o &/.02%-laievid _j 7 7)-A ,2� 1 a- s-s �o 76 9so 7d s a c�