HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1985 City Council Agenda packetAGENDA BILL NO. (510
DATE: 10 7 85 (10 16 85)
DEPARTMENT:
SUBJDCP:
Issue SuTinary
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
Exhibits /Attachments
Council Action
Community Development
NONE
CITY OF SARATOGA
1. Resolution 1581 -02
2. Staff Report to the Planning('Commission
3.' Location Map
4. Status Report
10/16: Approved.
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
1.. The SDR -1581 is an 50% expansion to existing single family.
2. All fees have been paid.
3. All requirements for City and other agencies have been met.
Final Building Site Approval for SDR -1581 Park Drive, WILBUR FISHER.
(50% expansion)
Adopt Resolution 1581 -02 attached, approving the building site for
SDR 1581 and authorize execution of Deferred Improvement Agreement.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
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:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Wilbur Fisher
The 0.51 acre parcel shown as Parcel #4 on the Tract Map No. 1, Glen
Una Ranch is recorded in Book "P" of Maps, pages 34 and 35 and submitted
to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga be approved as one individual
building site.
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO.
1581 -02
MAYOR
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION:
City of Saratoga
'APPROVED BY: X
C' �i S
DATE: I
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED:
Building Permits.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Jcocei
*Revised 1 -9 -85
DATE: 10 -18 -84
Commission Meeting: 10 -24 -84
SUBJECT: SDR -1581, A -1014, Wilbur and Gayle Fisher, 15069 Park Drive
Final Building Site Approval and
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of: 1) Tentative Building Site for an over
50% expansion.
2) Design Review for thA conversion of an
existing single -story dwelling to a two-
story dwelling in excess of 4800 sq. ft.
ZONING: R -1- 20,000
GENERAL PLAN: Residential -Low Density Single Family
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: 18,563 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Large oak on eastern side of property.
Redwood, walnut and magnolia trees. No large trees will be removed
due to construction.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.46% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3.46%
BUILDING SITE ISSUES: The major building site issue associated with
this site is the need to extend sewer service to accommodate the
proposed expansion. This requirement could cost the applicant about
$86,000. The applicant is currently working with the Sanitation
District to find funding for this sewer extension and is working
with neighboring property owners to create a joint financing
arrangement. In a conversation with staff on October 17, 1984 the
applicant indicated that, in general, conditions requiring sewer
hookup as part of the Tentative Building Site Approval were acceptable.
Report to the Planni Commission
SDR -1581, A -1014, Wilbur Gayle Fisher
C
10/18/84
Page 2
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of
the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the
County of Santa Clara Recorders' Office relative to the
environmental impact of this project, if approved under this
application. Said determination date: September 17, 1984
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1581 (Exhibit "B" filed August 28, 1984) subject to the
following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordiance 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 the time of final
approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department regulations 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, sumit three (3) to-
scale prints).
C. Improve Park Drive to City Standards, including the
following: D.I.A.
1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between
centerline and flowline. D.I.A.
'Report to the Planni
Commission
SDR -1581, A -1014, Wil r Gayle Fisher
C
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (R -36). D.I.A.
D. 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.
E. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe
culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of
Community Development.
10/18/84
Page 3
F. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions
of view as required at driveway and access road inter-
sections.
G. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow.
H. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community
Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings
of City Street.
I. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the re-
quired improvements marked "D.I.A."
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections,
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.
C. Bond required for $400.00 septic tank backfill.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. Satisfactory compliance can be accomplished to the applicable
codes and ordinances.
Report to the Planni( Commission
SDR -1581, A -1014, Wi—ar Gayle Fisher
10 -18 -84
Page 4
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
The County Health Department has indicated that there is insufficient
expansion area for an additional drainfield for the septic tank
and that major additions of this type have historically created
frequent overloading of the septic tank and drainfield. Because
of these factors, the Health Department does not recommend approval
of this application unless the property is hooked up to sanitary
sewer. The Health Department indicates that economic hardship to
the applicant is not sufficient reason to vary from this requirement.
The applicant's only other recourse is to build a less than 50%
expansion.
If the applicant wishes to proceed with this project he must comply
with the following condition:
A. Applicant shall hook up to sanitary sewer prior to issuance
of building permits. A bond for sewer extension construction
shall be submitted prior to Final Building Site Approval.
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 Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and
certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design.Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits.
B. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable
City Ordinances.
Report to the Planninr\ Commission
SDR -1581, A -1014, Wi( r and Gayle Fisher
DESIGN REVIEW A -1014
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
SETBACKS: Front 75 Ft. Rear 43.5 Ft. (measured to
second floor)
Left 19 Ft. Right Side 22 Ft.
HEIGHT: 30 Ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 43% (45% maximum allowed)
SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage):
Per Applicant Per Staff
FINDINGS
First Floor:
Second Floor:
2000 sq. ft.
2500 sq. ft.
10/18/84
Page 5
2834 sq. ft.
2931 sq. ft.
4500 sq. ft. 5765 sq. ft.
(NOTE: 4800 sq. ft. is the allowable floor are in the R -1- 20,000
without a Public Hearing Design Review)
COMPLIANCE: The project complies with ordinance height, and coverage
requirements but exceeds the allowable floor area guideline by 965 sq.
ft.. This variation can be allowed through the Design Review process
(public hearing) if the Planning Commission makes certain findings.
The proposed structure also violates the rear setback requirement by
about 18" due to a portion of the second 'floor cantilever. This
cantilever into the rear yard must be eliminated.
1 Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy: In examination of
the site the proposed structure will not unreasonably interfere with
the views of adjacent properties. The proposed second floor windows
and deck could have an adverse impact on adjacent properties particular1
on the rear yard of the property to the north. These impacts can be
mitigated by eliminating the deck, by installation of evergreen
landscaping, and use of smaller windows. Some impervious surfaces
may have to be eliminated to accommodate necessary screening landscaping.
2 Preservation of the Natural Landscape: No significant amount of
grading or removal of vegetation will be required to accommodate
the project so the natural landscape of this site, as it currently
exists, will be substantially preserved.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk: The large front yard and existing
vegetation will minimize the perceived bulk of the structure as
seen from the street. However, there is a potential visual impact
on the property to the rear which is lower in elevation. This can
be mitigated by reducing the size of the second story and by landscaping.
Report to the Planni( Commission
SDR -1581, A -1014, Wi -ar and Gayle Fisher
4. Compatible Bulk Height: There are two -story structures across
the street to the south of the site. However, this structure would
be larger than most of the structures in the vicinity. A recent
Design Review Approval granted by the Commission for a lot two lots
to the west of the subject property was for a 5000 sq. ft. structure
on a 30,000 sq. ft. lot. Since this lot is below the minimum 20,000
sq. ft. standard the size of the structure should not exceed the
4800 sq. ft. guideline limit. The project should not have an
adverse impact on the light, air, or solar access of adjacent pro-
perties.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated
October 18, 1984, Exhibits "B" and "C subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit the following revised
plans for staff•review and approval:
A. E4. -im.aat4.oa- o-f- ,a- po-r•t4.ea- second- finer- eantide ver- se
that- a- ria�t- -t rear argil -3s- maintained (d e 1 e t e d
B. Red• set4.ea 4.e tie s i. ze e f t streett2re -te-a -maxim m of- 4.8.& sq.
(deleted)
C. Ea4m4Rat4e•n- e-€- t1•ie- preposed- se-e e story- deif- and r edtteed
w4edew- •area -eers- aeeessing- tine- prepesed- eleek- •siiaii- b•e
elim4Reted. (deleted)
E. Any modications to the site plan or elevations.
2. A- pertiea -et- the- eeaerete- sterase- area- aieng- tire western- property
•14ee- shall- be- e4Amiaated --te- aiiew -e'er- tine instaii•at•ion- of- i andsoaping
(deleted)
APPROVED
D. Landscaping plans showing how the privacy of adjacent properties
will be preserved. Landscaping shall be installed prior to
final inspection /occupancy.
MF /bjc
P.C. Agenda 10/24/84
4
Michael Flores
Associate Planner
10/18/84
Page 6
.4JP 1581, A-101g
ri614-0,g
..NE1MO RAN DUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1581 Wilbur Fisher
(have) waymaxiot4 been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 1 -9 -85
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N/A Date Submitted
Record of Survey or Parcel Map N/A Date Submitted
Storm Drainage Fee N/A Date Submitted Receipt
All Required Improvement Bonds N/A Date Submitted Receipt#
All Required Inspection Fees 200.00 Date Submitted 10 -8 -85 Receipt# RSnR
Building Site Approval Agreement /A Date Signed
Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date Submitted Receipt#
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(mditi (Final) Building Site Approval for Wilbur Fisher
SDR- 1581 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Conditions) Reason for Non Compliance
Ro ert St9
Director of Community Development
AGENDA BILL NO. ?3 7
ATE: 10 -7 -85 '(10- 16 -85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Issue Summary
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
QConditional Map Approval for Tract 7794 and 7795 Congress Spring School/
J. Lohr Properties (18 lots and 10 lots)
None
Exhibits /Attachments
Council Action
10/16: Approved.
1. Resolution No. 1584 -02
2. Report to Planning
3. Location Map
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Bd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
1. The Tract 7794 and 7795 are ready for conditional approval.
2. All fees,: agreements and -cash .bonds: have been submitted to the City
except security bond of $162,000.00 and $67,500.00 for improvement
of streets for above tracts.
3. Requirement for City and other agencies have been met.
Adopt Resolution No. 1584 -02, approving Final Map for Tract 7794 and 7795;
authorize execution of contracts for improvement agreement
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 7794 and Tract 7795
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed,
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
'i 1 ov bo a •f
of tre for
RESOLUTION NO. 1584 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING /FINAL MAP OF
CONDITIONAL
Tract 7794 and Tract 7795
$16
having heretofore been filed with this City
0
0
a
ent
e tracts.
7,500
prov
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of 19 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
City o`
APPROVED B
REPORT TOE
1N1T ALS:
APN: 391 -4 -11
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1584, Northwest Corner of Glen Brae Dr.
Via Escuela Dr.
APPLICANT: J. Lohr Properties OWNER: Saratoga Union School District
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Map Approval for a 28 lot subdivision.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Map Approval, Design Review and
Building Permits required. FEIR must be approved prior to Tentative Map
Approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A :Draft EIR for this project has been prepared
and will eventually be certified by the Commission.
ZONING: R -1- 12,500 GENERAL. PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium
Density Single Family
(M -12,5)
EXISTING LAND USE: Surplus school site.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential to east, south and :_west; S.P.R.R.
tracks and P.G.& E. easement and substation to the north. Congress
Springs Park is just northeast of the site.
PARCEL SIZE: 10.3 Acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3%
NG COMMISSION
*Revised: 7/10/85
Date: 8/18/85
Commission Meeting: 6/26/85
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The site has been modified by previous
grading. Unit #1 is about 5 ft. higher in elevation than Unit #2. A
substantial number of mature trees, including pine, redwood and eucalyptus
are located on site.
PROJECT HISTORY: In 1982, the City Council changed the General Plan and
Zoning Designations of the subject property to allow R- 1- 12,500 single
family residential development.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into
28 lots two units. Unit #1 consists of Lots #1 through #10 on the
cul -de -sac opening onto Via Escuela Drive. Unit 42 consists of Lots #il
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1584, J. Lohr, Glen Brae Via Escuela
6/12/85
Page 2
through #28 which will access onto Glen Brae Drive via a double bulb cul-
de -sac.
Lot sizes range from 12,500 sq. ft. (the minimum allowed) to 20,400 sq. ft.
(Lot 25). All corner rots are a minimum of 14,000 sq. ft. as required by
the zoning ordinance. Each lot complies with ordinance standards for
required lot depth, width and frontage.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The proposed project would not substantially affect the present levels of
service for the major intersections near the project as indicated in the
DEIR. The cul -de -sac for Unit #1 of the subdivision complies with
Subdivision Ordinance Standards. The cul -de -sac serving Unit #2 is longer,
by about.10 ft., than the 500 ft. length unit called for in the General
Plan and 110 ft. over the 400 ft. limit in the Subdivision Ordinance. The
Commission can grant an exception to these requirements if certain findings
are made (Article 15).
Section 13.3 -12 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires streets entering on
opposite sides of another street to be directly across from one another or
be at least 250 ft. apart. The centerline of Via Real Drive is separated
from the centerline of the Unit #2 cul -de -sac by about 202 ft. or 48 ft.
less than the ordinance standard. However, the Commission can grant an
exception from this standard if it determines that this is the only
economical or practical method of developing the property. The proposed
alignment, in staff's view, provides a large enough separation to avoid
potential safety problems.
GRADING /DRAINAGE
The overall slope of the site is gentle but Unit #1 is from 3 to 7 ft.'
higher in elevation than Unit i#2 with a steep change in topography
separating both units between the paved playground area arid the existing
school buildings. Topographic changes due to grading should be minor but
some grading will be necessary to ensure property drainage. The DEIR
indicated that project drainage can be handled without substantial damage
to the environment.
Some of the existing residents with property just to the north of Unit #1
have expressed concern about the drainage in that area and how this project
will affect that drainage. It is staff's understanding that the applicant
is working with the residents in this area to minimize potential adverse
effects. The Director of Community Development will also review and
approve the drainage plan prior to installation of any drainage system.
The pad elevations for the proposed building sites of the subdivision will
be reviewed to determine potential privacy impacts on' adjacent residences.
The lots of greatest concern in this regard are Lots #1 through #6, Lot
#24, and Lot #25 all of which have common property lines with the school
site. Lots #1 through #4 are slightly lower or at the same elevation as
the existing properties to the west. Pad elevations for these lots should
1 c c c
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1584, J. Lohr, Glen Brae Via Escuela
not be a problem in terms of privacy. Building height will have more of an
impact on privacy. Lots #24 and #25 are approximately the same elevation
as adjacent properties and would have the same impacts as Lots #1 through
#4.
Lots #5 and #6 are from 3.5 to 5 ft. higher than the adjacent properties to
the north. This difference in elevation may have to remain to allow
proper drainage. Privacy can be maintained by limiting the height of the
structures on these lots and by increasing setbacks.
OPEN SPACE
One of the issues of this project is the loss of open space due to
development of the school site. This loss is not significant in that
adequate park facilities are currently provided by Congress Springs Park.
Also, in lieu park fees will be paid by the developer to improve existing
parks.
DESIGN IMPACTS
VEGETATION
6/18/85
Page 3
One of the major concerns of residents in the area will be the location and
height of new two -story structures in the subdivision. There are only two
(2) two -story dwellings immediately adjacent to, or across the street from,
the subdivision. One is located at the southeastern corner of Via Real
Drive and Glen Brae Drive and the other is located at the northeastern
corner of La Vista Drive and Via Escuela Drive. There are also other two
story dwellings (at least four) within 500 ft. of the subdivision and
scattered through other nearby neighborhoods. Many of the existing two
story structures are located on larger corner lots.
The major areas of concern are the lots on the perimeter of the subdivision
(Lots #1 through 6, 10 through 17 and Lots 24, 25 and 28). Lots 2 through
6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 24 and 25 should be single story structures since
they are adjacent primarily to existing single -story structures. Lots #1,
10, 14, 17 and 28 could be considered for two -story structures since they
are larger corner lots. Most existing single -story structures in the
vicinity are probably less than 18 ft. in height and most two -story
structures appear to be 25 ft. or less in height.
There are many mature pine and other trees on this site. Only four (4)
trees over 12" in diameter (as shown on the Tentative Map) would have to be
removed since they are within the proposed right -of -way of the cul -de -sacs.
The remaining ordinance size trees should be protected during construction
so that they may be preserved. The EIR for this project indicated that the
site's existing trees are a valuable wildlife habitat.
GEOLOGY
One of the major concerns of this project is the location of the Monte
Vista Fault relative to the subdivision. The applicant's geotechnical
FINDINGS
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1584, J. Lohr, Glen Brae Via Escuela
5/16/35
Page 4
consultant has indicated that this fault cannot be located on the site and
has indicated that the fault is probably located within the S.P.R.R. and
P.G.& E. easements northeasterly from the site. If this is demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the City Geologist, this information will be
incorporated into the EfR and the project can proceed.
Prior to approval of this project, the Planning Commission must make one of
the three findings below to comply with CEQA:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Z. Such changes or alterations are within the responsiblity and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can
and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final
EIR.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make Finding #1 since the
mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR will. be made conditions of
approval for this subdivision.
The Commission must also make the findings listed below to approve the
longer cul -de -sac length and shorter separation between streets
intersecting on opposite sides of the same street:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property,
or the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the subdivider; and
2. The granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the
vicinity of the subdivider's land.
Staff recommends that these findings be made since: 1) The cul -de -sac
length is only 10 ft. longer than normally allowed, does not adversely
impact traffic safety, and some variation in cul -de -sac length is necessary
to reasonably develop the property; and, 2) There is sufficient separation
between Via Real Drive and the Unit #2 cul -de -sac to preserve traffic
safety and allow reasonable development of the property (literal compliance
with ordinance standards could result in the loss of one or two lots and
would create a much longer cul -de -sac than necessary).
PROJECT STATUS Said project complies with all objectives of the General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the
City of Saratoga.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1584, J. Lohr, Glen Brae Via Escuela
6/18/85
Page 5
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
'against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1584
(Exhibit "B" filed 11/26/84) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated April 11, 1977.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Subdivision Map" to City for checking and recordation
(Pay required checking and recordation fees).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft.
Half- Street on Via Escuela Dr. Glen Brae Dr. and 20 ft. half
street on interior streets.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements,
as required.
E. Improve interior streets to City Standards, including the
following:
1. Designed Structural Section 15 ft. between centerline and
flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb end gutter (V -24).
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
4. Overlay Via Escuela and Glen Brae Drives with 1 inch of A.C.
for their width along the subdivision frontage.
F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey'
storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including
the following:
1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
C C
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1584, J. Lohr, Glen Brae Via Escuela
6/18/85
Page 6
H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
I. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
J. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve-
ment Plans.
K. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to
be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
L. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
for:
1. Soils
2. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
2. 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. The existing sanitary sewer easement can be abandoned after the
tract map is recorded, and should be so indicated on the map.
B. Building sewers will have to be extended to the residence, side of
any P.S.E's, and should be located outside of curb cuts and
driveways.
C. The profile of the existing sewers in Via Escuela Drive should be
reviewed so that a conflict will not arise when extending
building sewers over or under the 33 RCP storm line.
D. The sanitary sewer to be abandoned will have to be plugged at:
1. The manhole at the northwesterly corner of Lot 24 and at the
manhole in the 8 -inch line within Glen Brae Drive.
r
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1584, J. Lohr, Glen Brae Via Escuela
The covers and rings removed from the two abandoned manholes
in Glen Brae Dr. and they will have to be filled.
3. Also the section of sanitary sewer to be abandoned will have
to be filled with sand.
E. Pay any fees due for existing sewers as determined by the
District.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
6/18/85
Page 7
A. The existing water system shall be extended to the site; contact
San Jose Water Company.
B. The developer shall install two (2) hydrants to meet Central Fire
Protection District's specifications.
C. All fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to
issuance of any building permits. Contact should be made with
the water company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering
delays.
D. Minimum fire flow for this facility shall be 1,000 gpm.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection is required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Company.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Plans for any work within 15 ft. of the 66 inch pressurized water
line to the northeast of the site shall be submitted for district
review and approval.
B. 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. Applicant
shall supply written confirmation regarding the existence of any
wells and their proposed disposition.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
B. 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 a solar shade study to assist
staff in this review. The developer shall provide, to the extent
Report to Planning Commission
SO-1584, J. Lohr, Vlerl Brae Fr Via Escuela
6/18/85
0_ 0
aye
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities Grli i1I the subdivision/building site.
n_.1 those tom... 4...,.... 't4 the
F. F t4__ 1_a..__
v.
Only 1. IOSC trees shown within 1. 15 right-of-way 141 way GI 6110 cul-de-sacs
00140
and those trees ,rider 12 in diameter measured two feet above
natural grade may be removed. Those trees Over 12 in- diameter that are removed shall be replaced in addition t11 the street
trees required to be planted per the tree schedule in the
Subdivision Ordinance.
n o landscaping 1 the l t size d kind F street
II tanual. aping plan showing h� I5 placement, site and r.in GI sI,1 See t
trees, and replacement trees mentioned in Condition Viii.C.
0
shall be subi•litted for staff review and approval prior to Final
These trees s h 1 1 L• 1 1 1 •_I lot 1� lot t t o final
lla�l. 111500 1.1 CGJ 0hall 140 installed 1144 by 1141 pr 1114 1.14 11,131
inspection/occupancy Of the dwelling of that lot.
E. Applicant shall bond for the purchase and installation of the
trees shown in the landscaping plan prior to Final ,'lap Approval.
F Applicant shall submit a tree preservation and protection plan
showing how the existing trees not shown for removal will be
maintained and rotected for the review and approval b' staff .t
p Np y s al i and
the cit tree specialist prior t0 Final Ma Approval. O'val. A^ l t
r p p p pP Applicant
shall pay any required fees covering the cost of the city tree
specialist's review of such plans.
6. All building pad elevations for Lots 1 through 4 and Lots 144 and
25 shall be the same level or lower than adjacent residential
building s. The building ads for Louts 5 and u may be higher
4J p g p j
than existing adjacent building pads but only to ensure that
proper drainage for these lots and the subdivision is created.
H. in general, no impervious surface shall be allowed closer than 8-
10 ft. from an existing tree.
1. The applicant shall establish CC8,R 3, tO be 401'141ded with and on
the Final Map, covering the following:
1 Lots 5 C '7 ".1A d '7C h 1 1 b 7 story 1 LG 1 O 14 I L all LJ shall 5 0111y15 s 114ry 01.1 UIJ ul es no
higher than 18 ft.
i.. Lots 4, 11-13, 15, 16 shall be single story structures no
higher than 20 ft. in height.
Lots 1 '10, 1 A 17 and 28 be two-story 1 t ure F
Ora I 1�.,, 14, 1 r 3410 �u may be 1.wO`sL14ry structures it
when reviewed On a Case by case basis, the Planning
Commission determines that such a structure is compatible
with existing dwellings, in no case; she any structures on
these tots be higher than 25 ft`
4. These CC R's cannot 't Cit l
be amended wi4h11iit prior 141�y approval in
writing and are enforceable by the City.
APPROVED:
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1584, J. Lohr, Glen Brae Glen Una
1. Lot 1 Eastern property line
Lot 10 Western property lime
3. Lot 14 Southern property line
4. Lot 17 Eastern property line
5. Lot 18 Western property line
P.C. Agenda: 6/26/85
6/18/85
Page 9
5. All individual lot owners shall be required to maintain all
landscaped areas within the public right -of -way in front of
and /or to•the side of their lots.
6. No structure shall be higher than 26 ft. in height.
J The CC &R's listed above shall be recorded on the deed for each
lot and each homeowner shall be informed of these CC &R's prior to
any purchase. These CC &R's shall be reviewed and approved by
staff prior to Final Map Approval.
K. Detailed grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by staff
prior to issuance of buildng or grading permits.
L. The developer shall, subject to staff review and approval, comply
with the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "0 These
mitigation measures shall be recorded with the CC &R's.
M. Design Review required for all permanent fencing for the
subdivision prior to installation by the developer.
N. All fencing on the south side of Lots 1 and 10 shall be located
on the north side of the existing pine trees.
0. Developer shall comply with all conditions of the City Geologist
regarding development of this site.
P. All the conditions of this staff report shall be recorded on
the face of the Final Subdivision Map for this project.
Q. For the purposes of determining setbacks, the following property
lines shall be used to determine front yards:
6. Lot 25 Southern property lire and that portion of the lot
fronting on the cul -de -sac bulb.
7. Lot 27 Southern property line
8 Lot 28 Southern property line
R. The perimeter of the site shall be fenced during constriction to
provide site security and safety.
14-5. Pad elevations for each lot shall be as shown on Exhibit 0
Michael Flores
Planner
EXHIBIT "D" SD -1584
MITIGATION MEASURES
Page 10
1. Mitigation measures identified in 'the Vegetation and Wildlife and
Noise sections shall be adopted to enhance project consistency with
applicable General Plan policies.
The sponsor shall select materials available locally for use in
construction to reduce the energy costs of transporting materials to
the site.
3. Where more than one construction materials is available for the same
purpose, the sponsor shall select the material requiring the least
energy for its manufacture.
4. The sponsor could design structures for passive solar heating by
locating most of their glazed area on the southern exposure and by
locating few windows or doors on the northern exposures. The sponsor
could enhance passive solar heating by incorporating thermal mass
materials (concrete, brick, plaster, adobe) in the interior of
structures where the mass can absorb solar heat entering windows on
the southern exposure.
5. The sponsor could redesign the subdivision layout to orient a larger
portion of project structures with their long axes in an east -west
direction.
6. The sponsor could design all pitched roofs with at least 651 of their
areas sloped in a southerly direction, for future addition of solar
panels.
7. Plumbing and HVAC systems shall be designed to allow retrofitting with
solar heating units.
8. The sponsor shall design structures with large windows and insulated
skylights to allow natural lighting of interior spaces, but provide
eaves, overhangs, and vertical partitions, and deciduous trees on the
south sides of structures, to avoid excessive solar heating of
interior space during the warm season. This measure could reduce
electricity demand for lighting and air conditioning.
9. The sponsor could use light colored finish materials for roofs and
exterior walls to reflect heat from structures, thereby reducing
cooling requirements.
10. The sponsor shall design the project structures for natural gas
ranges, furnaces, stoves, and clothes dryers, rather than for electric
appliances. Where installed electric appliances are necessary, they
should be selected on the basis of energy efficiency. This measure
Would reduce unnecessary use of high-quality electrical energy for end
uses that could be served by low- quality thermal energy.
SD -1584, Exhibit "D cont'd. Page 11
11. The sponsor shall limit construction activities to between 7:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (Saturday, with specific approval
from the Planning Commission), to reduce disturbance to nearby
residents.
12. The sponsor shall certify that power construction equipment to be used
on the project site was furnished with state -of- the -art noise
shielding and muffling devices.
13. The City could require the project sponsor to construct six to eight
foot masonry walls along the northern boundary and along the northern
portion of the eastern boundary of the project site to shield project
residences from traffic noise on the Route 85 Freeway, on the
assumption that the freeway were constructed at- grade. This measure
could reduce noise on the site from the Route 85 Freeway by eight to
10 dBA. Were the freeway to be elevated relative to adjacent
development, however, such noise barriers would be ineffective and,
were the freeway to be constructed more than eight feet below grade,
they would be unnecessary. Comprehensive noise mitigation measures
designed and implemented by Caltrans in conjunction with construction
of the Route 85 Freeway would be more effective in protecting project
residents from excessive freeway noise, and would eliminate the need
for on -site noise mitigation. Caltrans is preparing an EIR on the
Route 85 Freeway that should address noise mitigation for adjacent
residential areas.
14. During project construction, sprinkle unpaved construction areas with
water as often as needed to keep soil moist. This measure would
reduce dust emissions .by about 50
15. Trees and otehr ve9etation used for landscaping shall be selected,
conjunction with a qualified professional biologist, on the basis of
their value to wildlife.
16. The sponsor shall replace trees on the site at a ratio of 1:1, rather
than meeting the minimum requirement imposed by the Subdivision
Ordinance.
1.7. The sponsor shall minimize removal of trees and the sponsor shall
protect trees during construction as recommended by the City's staff
arborist.
18. The project sponsor shall revegetate all Phase 2 lots immediately
after grading; this would reduce erosion during the period between
grading and development of this phase.
19. The project sponsor shall use flexible materials and connections for
pipes, utility lines and conduits to reduce potential damage from
settlement and from earthquakes.
20. The project sponsor shall install and label manual shut -off valves for
gas lines to reduce potential hazards from earthquakes.
potential runoff from the site.
SD -1564, Exhibit "D cont'd. Page 12
21. The project sponsor shall securely anchor light fixtures, structural
ornaments (if any), water heaters, and other fixtures to walls and
ceilings to prevent them from failing in an earthquake.
22. The project sponsor shall maximize landscaping on the lots to reduce
Loc Artav IA A I P'
cT 77 7795
AGENDA BILL NO. q3
DATE: 10/7/85 (10/16/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
S B ECT; SDR -1606, V -703 Smilja Maynard, 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Appeal by Applicant
of Condition of Subdivision Approval and Appeal by Donald and Sally Lucas of Subdivision
and_lfaridUCe.aaaWcats.
ISSUE SUMMARY In 1980, a Variance for a 128 ft. wide lot for proposed Parcel B (150 ft.
minimum width required) was denied by the Planning Commission, and this decision was later
upheld by the City Council on appeal. The applicant recently reapplied for the variance for
the substandard lot width and has, in addition, requested approval for the related two -lot
subdivision. The Planning Commission was able to make the required findings and approved
both Variance and Subdivision requests. In an effort :to mitigate the impacts of the develop-
ment of Parcel B on the Lucas property to the west, the Commission placed a condition on
the Subdivision Approval that would limit the height of any future structure on Parcel B
to 22 feet. The applicant, Mrs. Maynard, is appealing this height restriction condition.
Donald and Sally Lucas are appealing the Variance and Subdivision Approvals.
RECOMMENDATION
FISCAL IMPACTS None
EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. SDR 1606 -1
Resolution No. V -703 -1
2. Staff Report dated 8/6/85
COUNCIL ACTION
10/16: Granted Lucas appeal; Maynard appeal moot.
Initial
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
4-
C. Mgr. 4 1 6/A 6)
1. Determine the merits of the appeals and uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's
decision and Subdivision Approval Condition.
2. Staff recommended approval of Subdivision SDR -1606 and Variance V -703.
3. Appeal Letters
4. Minutes dated 9/11/85 8/14/85
5. Exhibits
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of C,ilifornia and un-
der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Sa for tenta-
tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 2 lots,
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -16 0 6 of this
City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im-
provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision
and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen-
eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer-
ence to the approved Staff Report dated August 6, 1985 (amended)
being hereby made for futher particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
fix xEl pt (AFC) (Negative Declaration) prepared for
this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions
of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect
to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in
accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for
the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the
20th day of June 1985, and is marked Exhibit "B"
in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby
conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as
more particularly set forth on Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adop-
ted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the
11th day of September 1985 at which a quorum
was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, J. Harris, Peterson and Pines
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried
ABSTAIN: Commissioner B. Harris
ATTEST: ADVISO.
C
Secretary Planning Commission
OLUPION NO. SDR- 1606 -1
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
SMILJA MAYNARD
By:
Chairman
1
VARIANCE
WIIEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of SMILJA MAYNARD
one (1) lot to have a width of less than 150' at 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos
Road
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) 0XxXXXX4 met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for the Variance be, and the same is here-
by (granted) (kmxkk subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report dated August 6, 1985
and Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached hereto
be approved and adopted) (XXXXRXXXXiXNXENXXXXXgXXXXX X0XX XXXXXAX X
40nX60(ixtxgXargIckrxmo, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to
notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City. of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this llth day of September 19 85, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners. Burger, J. Harris, Peterson and Pines
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried
ABSTAIN: Commissioner B. Harris
ATTEST:
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SecroLaiy
RESOLUTION NO. V 703
for a
FILE NO: V 703
Variance for
Chairman, Planning Commission
UMW' cD2 11'
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
APN: 510 -06 -06
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE: Lot A: 6.45%
Lot 8: 13.82%
Entire Parcel:
*Revised: 9/11/85
Date: 8/6/85
Commission Meeting: 8/14/85
City of Sarato
APPROVED BY: VC%
DATE:
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1606, V -703; 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
APPLICANT: Smilja Maynard OWNER: Same
ACTION REQUESTED: Grant Variance Approval for a 127' lot width where 150'
is required and Subdivision Approval for two (2) lots.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final Subdivision Approval, Design Review
Approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration (April 30, 1980)
ZONING: R- 1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family
Residential Very Low
Density
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: Lot A: 1.56 Acres (Gross) 1.47 Acres (Net)
Lot B: 1.75 Acres
12.32%
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Gently sloping hillside topography to
riparian area with significant oak trees.
GRADING PROPOSED: 25 Cu. Yds. of Cut for driveway
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and
standards of the zoning ordinance in that the proposed Lot B has a width of
127' versus the required 150' and the pool house will have a 20' rear yard
setback and 15' sideyard setback.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a variance for lot width
at 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road in order to then request and receive
approval of a lot split. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the width of a
er
Report to Planning Commission
8/6/85
V -703, SDR -1606, Maynard, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page 2
lot in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district be 150'. The existing residence
would remain on the front parcel, with a site area of 1.56 acres and the
appropriate width and depth. The pool house on this parcel, which does not
appear to have a buliding permit from the City of Saratoga, would need to
be relocated or receive a Use Permit to continue in its current location
(with side setbacks of 15' and rear setbacks of 20'). The proposed lot to
the rear would only have a width of 127', but the resulting parcel would be
1.75 acres (gross) with a slope of 13.82% and depth of 556 feet (150 feet
required). If a portion of the long narrow southerly portion of the
proposed parcel were dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District or
in some fashion deleted, the parcel would be able to conform with the width
requirements.
The access to the new parcel is proposed to be from Bainter Ave. with a
bridge across San Tomas Aquino Creek. The access has been in question and
the engineers are reviewing it. Any approval would be conditional on
verification of the legal right of access from Bainter. Several trees,
including a bay, would have to be removed toaccomodate the bridge and
the driveway to the new residence would require some grading in order to
get to the gentle building site.
V -703 VARIANCE
PROJECT BACKGROUND: The applicant applied for and was denied a similar
variance in 1980. Attached for your review are copies of the Staff Report
and minutes from both the Planning Commission and City Council. The
proposed lot split has only been slightly modified from the original
application.
FINDINGS
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship
The length of the site combined with its tapering shape indicate that
there would be no way to create Lot B without a variance. If the lower
third of the lot could be deleted, a lot complying with ordinance
requirements could be crated by adjusting the dividing line. However,
the southern third of the lot cannot be deleted and is required for lot
access. These factors indicate that there are practical difficulties
or unnecessary physical hardships associated with the property. There
is sufficient space within Lot B as proposed,-for a reasonable building
site and it would be consistent with the intent of the objectives of
the zoning ordinance.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
As indicated above, the length and shape of the 3.05 acre parcel
prevents the creation of a second lot without a variance. These
constraints of shape and length are not generally associated with lots
in the R -1- 40,000 district, therefore, it can be determined that there
are exceptional circumstances associated with the property.
Report to Planning Commission
8/6/85
U -703, SDR -1606, Maynard, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page 3
3, Common Privilge.
4. Special Privilege
Denial of this variance would deny the applicant the right to subdivide
the property which can clearly accomodate two building sites as
indicated in the Staff Analysis. Other properties in the R- 1- 40,000
district are not hindered by the constraints of this property is
subject to, and would be able to subdivide given the same acreage and
slope conditions.
The granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special
privilege since there are exceptinal, circumstances associated with the
property, not associated with other lots in the R- 1- 40,000 district,
which warrant a variance.
S. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance per Exhibit "B
filed 6/20/85 since we can make the required findings.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1606, V -703, Maynard, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
SDR -1606
8/6/85
Page 4
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the
City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
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:
April 30, 1980.
The Staff Report recommends conceptual approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1606 (Exhibit "B" filed 6/20/85) which would become a formal approval
subject to receipt of documentation by October 14, 1985, which proves to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney that legal access
from Bainter Ave. exists for Lot B, 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 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).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 65 ft.
half street on Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. (State Rt. #9).
Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as
required.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1606, V -703, Maynard, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
8/6/85
Page 5
D. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse.
E. 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 Bainter Ave. to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
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 de-
signed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use
of culverts and roadside ditches.
F. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate
base within -100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
G. 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 in. Aggregate Base.
H. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the Director of Community Development.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
K. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
L. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done
within State Right -of -Way.
M. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community
Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City
Street.
N. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Access Road Construction
2. Bridge over San Tomas Creek.
0. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve-
ment Plans.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1606, V -703, Maynard, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page 6
P. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to
be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
R. Comply with all street improvements as required by Santa Clara
County on Bainter Avenue including conditions for the bridge over
San Tome Creek.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
for:
1. Soils
2. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for walls 3 ft. or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
8/6/85
6. 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 for Parcels A and B and fees paid
in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4
as outlined in letter dated July 16, 1985.
V. 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 Sanitation Dist. No. 4. 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 8/6/85
SDR -1606, V -703, Maynard, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page 7
C. There shall be no connection between domestic water and existing
well.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage, in fee or
easement, to Santa Clara Valley Water District, as shown on plan
with letter dated July 18, 1985. Bridge to be built in
accordance with the requirements of this plan.
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 the existing well or
wells to the SCVWD for review and certification.
D. The site's drainage is to be incorporated into an existing storm
drainage system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is
necessary, it whould be designed to serve the general area to
minimize the number of future outfalls needed and in accordance
with Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. Sheets 8 -12'.
E. Improvement plans for any work in vicinity of District right -of-
way should be sent for SCVWD review and issuance of a permit
prior to start of site construction.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION
B. Encroachment permit required for work done in State right -of -way
prior to Final Map Approval.
A. Detailed plans for grading and drainage to be reviewed and
approved by Dept. of Transportation prior to Final Map Approval.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits. The residence shall not exceed 22 ft. in height
measured in accordance with Section 14.8.
B. Pool house to be relocated to required setbacks or receive Use
Permit approval prior to Final Map Approval.
C. Any ,modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject
to Planning Commission approval.
D. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structure shall
be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the potential
IX. COMMENTS
APPROVED:
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 8/14/86
Report to Planning Commission 8/6/86
SOR -1606, V -703, Maynard, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page 8
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.
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
i194dreo
Kathy Kerdus
Planner
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
IlCvProject Descriptio
V,(44
Decision Being App
*Please do not
City offices.
appeal please
n:
711 OUSQ sr /5
is) house 5
REC VED
0 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Alto -/'66 iLlt. V -16)
/g3 3c C2 r c r t o 5a isos c s
Z' v `"y' /G� GCI L11 4l ]�/�LZQL
J 6 ciwf
a1ed: llc; kei 7 1 t
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
(o docre 3o e %w
o
obs ur( -z5 6tu.1/ 4 s v; e +ts�
a/ vim e-q"
5 i -►�a e-yc 11.7
Date Received:/-
Hearing Date:/)7
Fee 0 0
/9330 Sccrcrt�cw_�o C� �`os Scq c
35t- (:7
Pc-1- Sc? r2 f-o
CITY USE ONLY
Appellant is Signature
sign this application until it is presented at the
If you wish specific people to be notified of this
list them on a separate sheet.
/CGr�G
I 9 es
SUrc o set, L,G,%���
ei ther S(CJ TofQ y oL scut- e_q/
�y ttrC--vt /y i 1/ /Fee tite'rte' i wa,
A r Fpe n�e
e.t o _t y
e'er ctr`o'HS 1/ r Gc i5 he-3-i fr 6 Per-
vE zt �cite-2 7; L /oek c -720/ eae 'Maj T. ct �v
Vv k.cierf2k /H. 5 et c/ z f 1heesv, f t is vet-L/ ufsle ±h
Pr ct 1 S •J u Y r s c/ i O f <o w to a ks-L a ,i y. c,
G 1 /f/ i 7 0 3o ft',
6 cal i c Gr i s Yt
5 1e r ticQ.
It) he, 1 5 cc- res
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
i 6°C
Planning Commission Page 3
Minutes Meeting 9/11/85
A -1132
to the Commission in advance of the ordinance. He explained the
ordinance which is being considered later on the agenda. He commented
that the Commission has the option to waive the requirement or defer
action on this matter until after the ordinance becomes effective, and
then it would be mandatory. He explained that the fact that this lot is
in the Central Fire District doesn't really matter; the system sends the
signal to Saratoga, which is then transmitted back to Central, and it
will be Central responding to the call. He further explained to Mr.
Kirkham that the ordinances and codes that either the Saratoga District
or the Central District applies are the codes of the City,and the codes
which the City adopts are applicable throughout the City. Therefore,
while the City may be serviced by two separate districts, the laws and
regulations applicable to the City are the same. Mr. Kirkham stated
that he is only a mile from the fire house.
There was a consensus to waive the requirement since the ordinance is
not in effect at this time. Commissioner Burger moved to close the
public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1132, per the Staff Report dated
September 4, 1985 and Exhibits B, C, D and E, deleting the last two
sentences of Condition 3. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. A -1116 Hashem and Nasrin Farr, Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a two -story residence which
exceeds the allowable floor area standard at 15146
Sperry Lane, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; con-
tinued from August 14, 1985
Staff gave the history of the project. They stated that the Commission
had reviewed this matter at the last study session and instructed the
applicant to submit information relative to the discussions at that
meeting. They commented that that information was not received until
this week and Staff has not had time to review it. Therefore, they
recommended that this matter be continued to the next meeting. It was
directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985.
4a. Negative Declaration SDR -1606 Smilja Maynard
4b. SDR -1606 Smilja Maynard, Request for Tentative Subdivision
4c. V -703 Approval for two (2) lots and Variance Approval for
one (1) lot to have a width of less than 150' at
19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district; continued from August 14, 1985
Commissioner B. Harris abstained from the discussion and voting on this
matter. Staff explained the application and gave the history of the
project. They noted that they are able to make the findings and
recommend approval of the Variance and also the granting of Tentative
Building Site Approval. They added that they feel it should be the
burden of the applicant to prove that there is acces to Bainter.
The public hearing was opened at 8:18 p.m.
Mrs. Maynard, the applicant asked that the requirement be deleted that
requires the removal of the pool house. It was explained to her that
the condition is to either remove the pool house or obtain a use permit.
Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, spoke in opposition to the lot
split. Mr. Lucas gave the history of the project and described the
area. He commented that the previous Commission had expressed concern
that the approval of this variance would set undesirable precedence in
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes Meeting 9/11/85
SDR -1606 and V -703
terms of creating nonconforming lots with unusual geometry.
Sally Lucas commented that all of the trees have leaves now, but they
will change drastically during the winter months.
Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Staff commented, regarding Mr. Lucas' comments regarding precedence
setting, that it appears that Mr. Lucas' property would be the only
property left that might be subdivided in the area. He described the
other properties in the area.
There was a consensus that the height should be limited in order to
minimize impact to Mr. Lucas' lot, and careful attention paid to design
review of the home on this lot.
Chairman Peterson gave a report on the on -site visit, stating that there
was a consensus that a house down there would not have an impact on Mr.
Lucas. He commented that, while a variance was denied previously, he
feels that the Commission can make the findings and not feel they are
setting a precedence. He noted the fact that the lot is 1.7 acres.
Commissioner Burger added that she does not feel that any vote that is
taken sets a precedence. She explained that it does not automatically
mean that because she votes in favor of or against something, that she
is going to vote the same way on every other similar application. She
added that she feels that each Commissioner carefully looks at each
parcel that comes before the Commission, and the situation and all the
surrounding information.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR
1606. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -0,
with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR -1606, per the Staff Report
dated August 6, 1985, with Condition VIII -A amended to read that "Design
Review Approval required on the project prior to issuance of permits,
with a height limit of 22 ft." Commissioner J. Harris seconded the
motion, which was carried 4 -0, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve V -703, per the Staff Report dated
August 6, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was
carried 4 -0, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining. The appeal period
was noted. It was noted that there seems to be consensus to look
favorably upon a use permit for the pool house.
5a. Negative Declaration SDR -1602 Tom and Ann Copenhagen
5b. SDR -1602 Tom and Ann Copenhagen, Request for Tentative
5c. A -1107 Building Site Approval for a two (2) lot subdivi-
sion of a 14 acre site with an average slope of
31 and Request for Design Review Approval for a
new, two story, single family residence on lot B
in the NHR zoning district at 14440 Pike Road; con-
tinued from August 28, 1985
It was directed that this matter be continued to October 9, 1985.
6. A -1122 John Page, Request for Design Review Approval to
construct a two -story residence which exceeds the
6200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard on Lot
8, Tract 6665, Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR
zoning district; continued from August 28, 1985
(to be continued to September 25, 1985)
It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985.
4
Planning Commission Page 9
Minutes Meeting 8/14/85
A -1116
c)CS co 0
The architect stated that if the house is moved further down the hill
the swimming pool will have to be moved.
There was a consensus by the Commission that this matter should be
agendized for a study session to resolve some of the concerns, and the
applicant agreed. It was pointed out to the applicant that the concerns
are excessive height, excessive size and location on the lot relative to
view impact, and these should be addressed at the study session. It was
directed that this matter be continued to a study session on September
3, 1985 and the regular meeting of September 11, 1985. Mr. Henson was
asked to get the definition of calculation of square footage from Staff.
10a. A -1117 Rolston Johnson, Request for Design Review Approval
10b. A -1118 for the construction of a two -story single family
residence on Parcel B and Parcel C at the southwest
corner,of Quito and Sobey Roads (14229 and 14269
Quito Road), Site Modification for the proposed
driveway on Parcel B, and approval of the grading
permit to move more than 10000 cubic yards of dirt
on each site
Staff explained the applications, recommending approval, with the
condition that the structures be reduced in height, and the applicant
has submitted revised plans. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use
Committee report, stating that the concern by Staff regarding the
driveway slope was noted and the applicant is going to address that
concern, as well as the height. She discussed the access and the
screening on the lot
The public hearing was opened at 11:40 p.m.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer, explained the changes made to the plan to
meet the 30 ft. height. He stated that he feels it is an important
feature of the house to have the circular driveway because of the large
setback from Quito Road. He addressed the trees on site.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve A -1117 and A -1118, per the Staff
Report dated August 8, 1985 and Exhibits B -1 through E -1. Commissioner
Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
lla. Negative Declaration SDR -1606 Smilja Maynard
11b. SDR -1606 Smilja Maynard, Request for Tentative Subdivision
llc. V -703 Approval for two (2) lots and Variance Approval for
one (1) lot to have a width of less than 150' at
19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district
Staff explained the application, recommending approval of the Variance
and Building Site Approval. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use
Committee report, stating that it was difficult to walk the land from
Bainter. She commented that she feels that access will be difficult
because a bridge will have to be built, but she thinks that the end
result would be a very secluded entrance to a lot that would hardly be
visible. The public hearing was opened at 11:47 p.m.
Mrs. Maynard appeared, asking that the Commission approve the
application.
Donald Lucas, resident of the parcel that is contiguous to the Maynard
property. He discussed the previous variance application and described
the area. He stated that he felt that one of the reasons the previous
SDR -1606 and V -703 (cont.)
Planning Commission Page 10
Minutes Meeting 8/14/85
application was denied was because the Commission did not feel that one
landowner should be allowed to disrupt this very serene and peaceful
area to build on a nonconforming lot. He described the lot, asking that
the Commission deny the variance request.
Commissioner Burger clarified that the Land Use Committee could not
access the property off of Bainter, and she thinks that the reason was
that there is no bridge currently. Mr. Lucas stated that they could
give the Committee access off of Highway 9, and then they could really
see how a home at the bottom of that large area really would disrupt the
open space.
Mrs. Maynard explained that she does not need that much property and
wants to sell Lot B because it is not feasible for her to keep it. She
described the site.
Frederick Door, owner of the property on Bainter, across the creek,
expressed the concern that Bainter would not be left open for the public
to use. He explained that Mrs. Maynard's property goes to the center of
Bainter Avenue and she has erected posts there now which block the
public.
Staff explained that the center line of the creek is the City limit
line, and the portion to the south is within the County. They referred
to Condition II -R that indicates that the applicant is to comply with
all street improvements required by the County, and conditions relative
to the bridge over the creek which is partially in the County. They
stated that undoubtedly the County will require a dedication and
improvements to Bainter Avenue that would preclude the cut -off of access
to Bainter.
Mrs. Maynard stated that the barrier had been put up by the County a
long time ago.
Miles Rankin addressed Condition VIII -B relative to relocation of the
pool house. He asked if it would be possible to have the engineer
change the line so that the pool house will be further away than 20 ft.
Mr. Rankin stated that the engineer could probably make the setback
larger without changing the area of either lot.
Staff noted that changing the angle of the back property line could very
well affect the computation of the width. They stated that if the
Commission is inclined to agree to that suggestion, they would suggest
that this matter be continued, in order to have an exhibit submitted for
the determination of the width.
Commissioner Burger commented that she really feels that the Land Use
Committee has not completed its job relative to this site, and she would
like to go back and walk this land well and take access from the
applicant's property by the existing house. It was suggested that this
visit be done on a weekend, so that more Commissioners could attend.
Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J.
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that one consideration that had come up was
that if part of the front of the lot that faces toward Bainter were
taken off or donated to the City, etc., then it could be refigured where
the middle of the lot was, and the required footages could be met.
There was a consensus to have an on -site visit, the date of which will
be determined. It was directed that the matter be continued to the
regular meeting of September 11, 1985.
12. V -705 Patrick and Barret Moore, Request for Variance Approv
al to allow an addition to maintain a 13 ft. side yard
setback and a 45 ft. rear yard setback where 20 ft. and
50 ft. are required respectively, at 14133 Sobey Road,
in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
10
d
c
c
\--,c)S
Cam• c� 9-� uQ .L`�.��... �a
C-ACD C1\^
C-A
Fwv),NQ flvU
CrVD
'mss'
`-`r1F0 T`
AGENDA BILL NO. q6 2
DATE: 10 -7 -85 (10= 16 -85)
DII'
Issue Summary
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
NONE
Exhibits/Attachments
Council Action
10/16: Approved.
Community Develobanent
1. Resolution No. 1596 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
CITY OF SARATOGA
Final Map Approval for Tract 7798 C.W. Associates
Montpere Way (8 lots)
Initial:
Dept. Bd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
1. The Tract 7798 is ready for Final Approval
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City
3. Requirements for City and other agencies have been met
Adopt Resolution No. 1596 -02 attached, approving the final map for
Tract 7798 and authorize execution of contracts for improvement agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 1596 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 7798
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of
Tract 7798
having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor complete
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliant,
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of tl
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The'form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of 19 by the following vote:
APN: 403 -24 -5, 6 7
PARCEL SIZE: 4.27 Acres
MT 0 0 °�oC
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised: 7/17/85 City Council Meeting
qty o Laratogo
*Revised: 5 /29 /85:PPROvED BY: �f C
Date: 5 /16 /B5A1E:
Commission Meeting:
5 /22 /8 &ITIALS `',k//"
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SD. -1596, 13744 Quito Road
APPLICANT: John Chu OWNER: The Sumitomo Bank of California
ACTION REQUESTED: Grant Tentative Map Approval for a 10 lot subdivision.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Map Approval, Design Review and
Building Permits required. Reversion to acreage of previously approved map.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration,has been prepared for
this project.
ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium
Density Single Family
(M -10)
EXISTING LAND USE: One single family dwelling and accessory structures
(vacant).
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential to the south and west;
P.G.& E. easement and S.P.R.R. to the northeast.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Gentle AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.423%
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The site is bordered by Wildcat Creek along
the western edge of the property. Oak, maple and fruit and nut trees on
site.
PROJECT HISTORY: The City Council granted-Final Map Approval (SDR -1342) for
a three (3) lot subdivison on the site at its meeting of November 22, 1978.
The owner of the site at that time never pursued the project and has since
sold it. This existing map must be reverted to acreage prior to
recordation of any new final map.
.At- the -time of that previous map recordation, the easements for Santa Clara
Valley Water District (S.C.V.W.D.) were established on the site.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Rd.
SUBDIVISION ISSUES:
5/16/85
Page
The lots proposed in this subdivsion meet minimum standards for lot width,
depth and size. Five of these lots (lots 5 through 9) will be
substantially constrained in development by existing and proposed
S.C.V.W.D. easements.
According to S.C.U.W.D., 75% of Lot 5 is covered by their easement which is
not correctly shown on the map. Unless this easement is changed, Lot 5
will not be a buildable site and will have to be deleted from the map.
S.C.V.W.D. has also required that the proposed cul -de -sac be located
entirely outside of the easement along Wildcat Creel:.. The cul -de -sac will
have to be shortened and this will affect the access to Lots 4 and 5. This
problem could be dealt with by having these lots share a common access and
driveway.
Total cul -de -sac length is over 690 ft. (measured to centerline of
Ravenwood Drive) 50 an emergency or secondary access is required. The
applicant proposes an emergency access using the S.C.V.W.D. and Sanitation
District easement to connect the end of the cul -de -sac to Quito Road
through Lot 5.
S.C.V.W.D. has proposed a potential requirement th'at the 30 ft, wide high
pressure pipeline easement running through Lots 6 through 10 be expanded to
prevent excessive loads on this pipeline. This could make Lot 8 difficult
to develop since it is a very narrow building site. However, even with
this easement expansion, an over 3,000 sq. ft. single story structure could
be built on the site. Lot 6 has an unusual shape and will probably require
an equally unusual building design.
A large almond and a large walnut tree will have to be removed to
accomodate the proposed cul -de -sac. Since the cul -de -sac must be shortened
to stay out of the S.C.V.W.D. easement, a 20' oak originally in the bulb of
the proposed cul -de -sac can be preserved. The remaining trees on the site
can be preserved. The 18" oak. on Lot 5 can be preserved if Lots 4 and 5
share a common driveway and the emergency access road also uses this
driveway.
Lots 1, 2 and 10 have the potential to create the greatest impact on the
adjacent residents t.o the south. Staff has recommended restrictions on pad
elevations and structure heights to prevent adverse impacts.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the
City•of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A-.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo.Bank), Quito Rd.
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:
5/8/85.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1596
(Exhibit "B" filed 4/8/85) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
5/16/85
Page 3
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 "Tract Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay
required checking:& recordation fees).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft.
Half- Street on Montpere Way.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements,
as required.
E. Improve Montpere Way to City Standards including the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 15 ft. between centerline and
flowline.
P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
F. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 50 ft.
Half- Street on Quito Road.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank.), Quito Rd.
DIA 2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter -24).
1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
5/16/85
Page 4
DIA 6. Improve Quito Road to City Standards, including the following:
DIA 1. Designed structural section 40 ft. between centerline and
flowiine.'
H. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including
the following:
2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes.
I. 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 Quito Road to Montpere Way.
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 de-
signed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use
of. culverts and roadside ditches.
J. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
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. No direct access allowed on Quito Road from lots.
N. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
D. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Rd.
5/16/85
Page 5
P. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve-
ment Plans.
Q. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to
be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
R. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements marked "DIA
S. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
for:
1. Soils
2. Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to build-
ing permit.being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork. quantities)
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.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. 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 County Sanitation Dist. No. 4 as outlined in
letter dated 4/25/85.
B. Improvement plans to be submitted to the district for review and
approval.
Report to Planning Commission
Su-1596; CnuiSumitomoi, Quito Road
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
5/I6/8S
rage 6
A. A fire hydrant,shali be installed and accepted prior to issuance
of any building permit. Contact should be made with the water
company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering delays.
6. Provide overhead clearance of i5 ft. over the road or driveway.
Ali tree limbs, wires, etc., shall be removed.
C. Emergency access road shall be provided because cut -de -sac is
longer than 400 f t
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ri. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Company.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. The proposed cut -de -sac shall not encroach into any portion of
any district right -of -way.
B. No structures, pools, fences, gates, or major landscaping shall
be contained in the S.C.V.W.D. 30 ft. easement along the northern
portion of the site. Minor landscaping may be permitted if
approved by the district..through its permit process.
C. The exact location of the 64 inch high pressure west pipeline
centerline shall be ibcated in the field and _shown on the
Tentative Map.
D.1. The structures on Lots adjacent to Santa Clara Valley Water
Dist. easement shall be setback from 7 to 16 feet from the SCVWD
easement line as shown on the plan attached to the district's
letter dated May 8, 1585.. An easement covering this area shall
be transferred to the district.
OR
Deep building foundations shall be designed so that no loads are
transferred to the 64 inch pipe and no damage would occur to the
buildings if the pipe is repaired for those portions of the
structure within the additional easement in D.i. above.
Foundation plans must be submitted for SCVWD review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
c.- The tentative and final map shall note that an 84 inch high
pressure pipeline is located in the easement and that no
structures of any kind, fences, gates or any other blockage can
Report to Planning Commission
SD -15Sb; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Road
5/15/85
Page 7
be allowed in this easement. This information shah also be
recorded on deeds So that future owners are aware of these
requirements.
Viii. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
B. Prior to issuance_of building permits, individual structures
shah be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the
potential for solar accessibility. The developer shah pro-
vide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision/build-
ing site.
C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances. The existing healthy pepper trees located near the
southern boundary line of the subdivision shah be preserved.
D. Applicant shah file a reversion to acreage for the existing
three (3) lot subdivision prior to Final Map Approval.
E. The finished pad elevations for lots adjacent to the subdivision
to the south shah be at the same level or lower than those
exisiing finished pads.
F. All trees that will remain on site shall be protected during
construction. Tree protection methodology shall be reviewed and
approved by the .City tree specialist prior to issuance of
building permits. In general, no impervious surface shah be
allowed closer than 8 -10 ft. from an existing tree.
6 tots 4 and 5 theii ate a common driveway io preserve the -i-5= oar:
on Loi 5
H. An emergency access road shah connect the cul -de -sac to Quito
Road acing ine eatemeni on Eot 5 end common driveway Tor Lots 4
and 5 Treatment of the emergency access road and gates shah be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to Final
Map Approval.
i. The existing S.C.V.w.D. easement on Lot 4 (previously Lot 5 on
Exhibit "8 shah be altered as shown on the Tentative Map prior
to Final Map Approval. Failing this, the applicant must remove
Lot 4 from the map with map alterations subject to Planning
Commission review and approval. Adequate access to, and building
area for, Lot 4 must be proven prior to Final Map Approval.
J. The applicant shah establish CC &R's, to be recorded with the
Final Map, covering the following:
Report to Planning Commission
SD-1596; Chu(Sumitomo Sank), Quito Rd.
M.
APPROVED:
MFi dsc
P.C. Agenda: 5/22/85
E /1B /85
Page 8
I. No structures, pools, fences, gates or major landscaping
shalt be placed within the Santa Clara Valley District
(S.C.V.W.D easements particularly on Lots 5 (Lot 6, Exhibit
"8 through 8.
L. All landscaping plans for the areas within S.C.V.W.D.
easements shall be reviewed and approved by S.C.V.W.D. prior
to installation or issuance of a S.C.V.W.D. permit.
3. All lots fronting on the .existing Montpere subdivision shall
be limited to single story structures no highere than 18 ft.
4. Structures on Lots 5 (Lot 6, Exhibit "8 through 8 (Lot 10,
Exhibit "o shall comply with Condition vii.u. of this staff
report.
cots 3 and 4 eheii be single story or single story in
appearance when viewed Troll the rear rsoain7-
K. The CC &R's listed above shall be recorded on the deed for each
lot and each homeowner shall be informed of these CC &R's prior to
any purchase. These CC &R's shall be reviewed and approved by
Staff prior to Final Map Approval.
L. Replacement trees, in addition to the street trees required by
the Subdivision Ordinance, shall be instaiied to replace those
trees over 12" in diameter that will be removed as a result of
construction. Landscaping plans showing these trees and the
street trees shall be submitted for Staff review and approval
prior to issuance.of any building permits. Landscaping shall be
instaiied prior to final inspection /occupancy.
Lots 5 through 9 as shown on Exhibit "E-I" shall be reduced to
four (4) lots for a total of 8 lots in the subdivision (per
original street layout Configuration A). Map revisions showing
this shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to
Final Map Approval.
Michel Flores
Planner
LOCATION MAP
TRACT 7798