Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-1986 City Council Agenda PacketS• AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 7 -23 -86 (8 -6 -86) DEPT.: Engineering SUBJECT FRUITVALE AVENUE BIKE PATH /PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AT SARATOGA AVENUE Spry: On December 18, 1985,the City Council approved, in concept, the separated path /walkway at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue using TDA funds. Application was submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and approved earlier this year for allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 1986 -87. The engineer's estimate for this work is $6,000.00 (TDA allocation is $7,000, which includes engineering and inspection costs). Two proposals were received on this project as follows: 1. Cushman Construction. Co. $5,835.00 2. Calhoun Brothers $8,825.00 Fiscal Impacts: Not to exceed $7,000,00 (including engineering and inspection) of which 100, will be. reimbursed by Transportation Development Act, Article 3. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Construction Plan of Project 2. Proposals Recommended Action: Authorize Cushman. Construction to construct the Fruitvale Avenue Bike Path /Pedestrian. Walkway at Saratoga Avenue for quoted price of $5,835.00. Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL R ConfE•-utE a /O 3::31t�t• =4: f,': T .n L N j i�tti� �'a3, e+ Y^- x 6. re•/be� Le ..";•74.214 =P .ee 3' S c 11.4.4.2....) e°^�'nef h 96 a•- 'II,/ a,if nsr J �'�'u ta,K weed.4;�t +end �.aeeef 7 1/ P MN S[.T() we d f be Ln tnsl r..., fo y/ ei Atplt /f m�.�Kle SEC IOl TN A•A (rrv.) Nor ro SCALE^• r 41 SCALE: REDUCED C/ TY OF SARATOGA FRIJ/7VALE4VEMJ5. PATHWAY TDA -1986 SARATO.GA DES /GNED 8Y: E 7-' Gt.,JGy ORAN'N B Y/ y CHECKED BY= 4C' APPROVED e CITY ENG //VEER P.C,E. /4893 'DATE dO1S LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE tae FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND 00 /00 Payment to be made as follows: IN FULL UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica- tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. ,rreptanre of f rnpnBal —The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance. Attn: Erman Dorsey PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO CITY OF SARATOGA STREET 13777 Fruitvale Avenue CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE Saratoga, Ca. 95070: ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS tipmia CUSHMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Contractor License 172=50C 421639 2200 Blossom Crest Way San Jose, California 95124 Home (408) 356 -3443 'Office: -9120 PHONE 867 -3438 JOB LOCATION Fruitvale Avenue pathway 2 1991 COMMt!P'JTY r n EL0P;1rn,lr DATE July 22, 1986 JOB NAME Job 2311A JOB PHONE We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: _To, grade approximately,3,600 sq ft., weed treat dirt asphalt, (1/4 inch mix) and seal with SS1 -H. penitrate 'and pave with three inches Bid .price fclude, any..fees, bonds, soils testing or_layout.. Bid good ..for.,.sixty days,. then eabject to..increase based on any material /labor cost incraases. Propose hereby. to furnish material and labor complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: Authorized Signature FORM 1 19 -1 crwypinHT 15511- Avnilnhln frnm ;Inn (:.norm Moca n1Asn Page No. Note. his ..i. ay be withdrawn by us if not accepted within dollars 5, of Pages Signature Signature days j �I ■ale 0 LICtI 328325 GRADING AND PAVING July 1, 1986 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Bid Proposal for Fruitvale Avenue Pedestrian Pathway. Attn: Erman Dorsey (Project Coordinator Includes: Excludes: `Joh'n J Cal oun CALHOUN'BR HERS PAVING Site Mobilization Excavate and Compact For New Pathway Subgrade Pathway Install Weed- Killer /SC -70 Primer Oil Pathway Install 3 Asphalt Paving (AII Size) To Grade Backfill Walkway To Provide Safe Edge Apply Oil Sealer Coat New Pathway Site Clean Up Upon Completion Layout /Engineering. (Staking) Striping (R R) Soil Testing Existing Utilities (R R) Exportation of Dirt (To Be Used As Backfill) *Proposal Void If Not Accepted Within 60 Days. Bid Total: 8,825.00 400 Reed Street, S #202 Santa Clara, California 95050 (408) 727 -4895 1986 (flMAAlIr� T r nrwri nP1,8ry AGENDA BILL NO /O. DATE: 7 -24 -86 (8 -6 -86) DEPT.: Engineering Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1370 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT FINAL MAP APPROVAL, SDR -1370, FRED IRANY /JAMES DAY, MT. EDEN ROAD (1 LOT) CITY MGR. APPROVAL Summary: 1. SDR -1370 is ready for Final Map Approval. 2. All requirements for the City and other agencies have ,been met. 3. All fees and Agreement have been submitted to the City. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.. 1370-02 attached, approving Final Map for SDR- 137.0, and authorize execution of Contract 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 t meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 1370 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF FRED IRANY The 1..681. acre lot. shown as Parcel "A" on the Final Parcel Map prepared. by Edward J. Hahamian and sub- mitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. CITY CLERK MAYOR CITY OF SARATOGA STAFF REPORT Exhibit "A" EPTEMBER 8, 1978 *Rev. March 20, 1980 *Amended September 13, 1S SDR -1370 George Day Construction Co., Mt. Eden Road, Building Site Approval -1 Lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting tentative building site approva for a single parcel of 1.6 acres on Mt. Eden Road in the HC -RD zoning district. The average slope of the lot is 18%. It is adjacent to Calabazas Creek and has scattered oak trees. A residence with a swimming -pool, recreational court and accessory structure have been placed on the site, 100' back from the centerline of Mt. Eden Road. However, the pool and a portion of the court area are now within the proposed Santa Clara Valley Water District right -of -way. Two large oak frees of 16" and 36" are located in the Mt. Eden right -of -way of the parcel, which Public Works expects to be able to save. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Pla and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. A Categorical Exemption 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: May 26, 1978. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1370 (Exhibit "B -2" filed September 13, 1978, 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 Parce Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as establi- shed by Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative 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 Saratoaa'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 or. Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Construct driveway approach 16 feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch base rock. Construct valley gutter across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of Public Works. C. Dedicate and improve Mt. Eden Road to provide for a 25 foot half- street with a Deferred Improvement Agreement on Parcel B. D. Provide adequate siaht-distance and remove obstructions of view as required. E. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard, or prevent flow. F. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the Director of Public Works. G. Engineered improvement plans required for street and storm sewer con- struction. H. Bond and inspection fee (as determined from engineered plans) to be posted and paid. SDR -1370 Page 2 III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS BUILDING DEPARTMENT A. Soil and Foundation investigation required prior to issuance of building permits. Report should provide recommendations for design of foundations and retaining walls, site preparation, grading and drainage. B. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site, pool, grad- ing, drainage and foundation plans for the site and provide a written statement to the City certifying he has done such a review, and that the plans in question are consistent with the recommendations of his report. Building permits will not be issued until this statement is received. C. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits. (It is suggested this plan be prepared by a licensed engineer or architect). This plan is to be accurate to within +0.5 foot and be of such scale and contain detail as to allow :accurate determination of slopes, cut anf fill quantities and limits of grading /excavation. Cross sections and calculations shall be sub mitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accordance with City grading ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report. D. All slopes either stripped during or created by construction shall be treated adequately for erosion control. The grading plan shall con- tain details of how this is to be accomplished. This work shall be completed prior to final inspection /certificate of occupancy. E. All engineering structures /components, foundations and retaining walls over 3- -feet in face height shall be designed by a registered civil engineer. F: All structural fills shall be keyed into side slopes, placed on stable existing ground stripped of all organic /deleterious material, and compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction. Non- structural fills shall be likewise placed except to a minimum 85% relative compaction. G. A, drainage plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit. H. Erosion in Calabazas Creek through property and in triburary adjacent and contiguous to property is to be evaluated and appropriate mitiga- tion measures undertaken. I. Structures shal -1 include security and fire detection equipment as specified by City. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewers to be, provided in accordance with requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated May 9, 1978. V SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 121/2% without adhering to the following: Driveways having slopes between 121/2% to 15% shall be surfaced using 21/2" of A. C. on 6 -inch aggregate base. SDR -1370 Page 3 Driveways having slopes between 15% to 171/2% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. D.. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. E. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for 2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. F. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HFALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existina trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage, to Santa Clara Valley Water District, as described in Santa Clara Valley Water Distric letters dated June 1,1976 and May 26, 1978 and per attached marked map. B All grading adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District 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 Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and permit issuance prior to construction. C. Applicant shall, prior to final map approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval. D. If required, one storm outfall into the creek could be allowed to serve the general area. Details of the outfall would require Santa Clara Valley Water District approval and permit. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required prior to issuance of permits. This includes: 1. Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in height. 2. Landscaping for graded areas, with slopes of 3:1 or flatter and exceeding 20 ft. in height (toe to top) or with slopes steeper than 3:1 and exceeding 10 ft. in height (toe to top). 3. Treatment of pedestrian /equestiran easement. SDR -1370 Page 4 A. Any modifications to the 'Site Development Plan shall be subject to Land Development Committee approval. C. The Parcel Map for the adjoining residual parcel (to be included with APN 503- 13 -68) shall be corrected to reflect'the offer of dedication called for in PM -78.1 at the same time as the map for this application. D. All cut anf fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully support landscaping. E. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face height (existing not included). F. Applicant shall comply with the following Mitigation Measures: 1. Limit construction to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 2. Require the subdividers to contribute land and /or money in propor- tion to the size of each subdivision towards the expense of provid- ing a new fire station. 3. In order to reduce erosion and consequent siltation of the creeks, all grading should be done during the May September dry period. Revegetation of the site should be initiated as soon as possible following grading on any portion of the site but in no case should unveaetated graded areas be left exposed to the winter rains. The steeper surfaces should'be hvdromulched, and all revegetation should be watered regularly. A landscape architect should be retained to plan and supervise all revegetation. An inspection of the site by the landscape architect should be made at periodic intervals up to one year following grading to determine if the revegetation is successful and to report to the City on same. The developer should be required to post a bond with the City to ensure that the above recommendations are carried out. A detailed plan for this should be completed prior to beginning construction. 4. Erosion control measures should be provided along the creek channel: -where active scour of the channel and banks is occurring. 5. Halt all construction activity within a radius of 35 feet if gradinc reveals prehistoric.artifacts, burned rocks, or human interments; and. within 17_feet if grading reveals any historic resources such as bottles, trash piles, filled basements. A qualified archaeolo- gist should be retained to evaluate.any such find and recommend any needed mitigation. 6. As a condition to approval require the developer to join any such district if. it should be found to be necessary. 7. Require the developers to participate on a pro -rata basis in the capital cost of required major traffic, flood control or fire improvements (including Pierce Road improvements, a new fire station, drainage improvements for Calabazas Creek, water and sewer improvements). 8. Require subdividers to contribute a proportional share of the cost of making the recommended improvements at the Pierce Road/ Route 85 intersection. G. Prior to issuance of building permits comply with criteria for the keeping of horses (to be established by the Planning Commission prior to final approval. IX. COMIIENTS KK /clh A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinance A o Rattly Kerdus, Assistant Planner CITY OF SARATOGA STAFF REPORT Exhibit "A" EPTEMBER 8, 1978 *Rev. March 20, 1980 *Amended September 13, 19 SDR -1370 George Day Construction Co., Mt. Eden Road, Building Site Approval -1 Lot, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting tentative building site approve for a single parcel of 1.6 acres on Mt. Eden Road in the HC -RD zoning district. The average slope of the lot is 18 It is adjacent to Calabazas Creek and has scattered oak trees. A residence with a swimming pool, recreational court and accessory structure have been placed on the site, 100' back from the centerline_of Mt. Eden Road. However, the pool and a portion of the court area are now within the proposed Santa Clara Valley Water District right -of -way. Two large oak frees of 16" and 36" are located in the Mt. Eden right -of -way of the parcel, which Public Works expects to be able to save. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Pla and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. A Categorical Exemption 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: May 26, 1978. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1370 (Exhibit "B -2" filed September 13, 1978, 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 Parce Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as establi- shed by Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative 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 or. Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Construct driveway approach 16 feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch base rock. B. Construct valley gutter across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of Public Works. C. Dedicate and improve Mt. Eden Road to provide for a 25 foot half- street li with a Deferred Improvement Agreement on Parcel B. D. Provide adequate sight- distance and remove obstructions of view as required. E. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard, or prevent flow. F. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse .as approved by the Director of Public Works. G. Engineered improvement plans required for street and storm sewer con- struction. H. Bond and inspection fee (as determined from engineered plans) to be posted and paid. SDR -1370 Page 2 III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS BUILDING DEPARTMENT D. All slopes either stripped during or created by construction shall be treated adequately for erosion control. The gradina plan shall con- tain details of how this is to be accomplished. This work shall be completed prior to final inspection /certificate of occupancy. A. Soil and Foundation investigation required prior to issuance of building permits. Report should provide recommendations for design of foundations and retaining walls, site preparation, grading and drainage. B. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site, pool, grad- ing, drainage and foundation plans for the site and provide a written statement to the City certifying he has done such a review, and that the plans in question are consistent with the recommendations of his report. Building permits will not be issued until this statement is received. C. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits. (It is suggested this plan be prepared by a licensed engineer or architect). This plan is to be accurate to within +0.5 foot and be of such scale and contain detail as to allow accurate determination of slopes, cut anf fill quantities and limits of grading /excavation. Cross sections and calculations shall be sub- mitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accordance with City grading ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report. E. All engineering structures /components, foundations and retaining walls over 3 feet in face height shall be designed by a registered civil engineer. F. All structural fills shall be keyed into side slopes, placed on stable existing ground stripped of all organic /deleterious material, and compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction. Non- structural fills shall be likewise placed except to a minimum 85% relative compaction. G. A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit. H. Erosion in Calabazas Creek through property and in triburary adjacent and contiguous to property is to be evaluated and appropriate mitiga- tion measures undertaken. I. Structures shal-1 include security and fire detection equipment as specified by City. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewers to be, provided in accordance with requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated May 9, 1978. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on_the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one-foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 121/2% without adhering to the following: Driveways having slopes between 121% to 15% shall be surfaced using 21/2" of A. C. on 6 -inch aggregate base. SDR -1370 Page 3 Driveways having slopes between 15% to 171% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. D Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. E. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of .delivering 1000 gallons per minute for 2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. F. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HFALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. bomestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage, to Santa Clara Valley Water District, as described in Santa Clara Valley Water Distric letters dated June 1, 1976 and May 26, 1978 and per attached marked map. B. All grading adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District 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 Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and permit issuance prior to construction. C. Applicant shall, prior to final map approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval.. D. If required, one storm outfall into the creek could be allowed to serve the general area. Details of the outfall would require Santa Clara Valley Water District approval and permit. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required prior to issuance of permits. This includes: 1. Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in height. 2. Landscaping for graded areas, with slopes of 3:1 or flatter and exceeding 20 ft. in height (toe to top) or with slopes steeper thar. 3:1 and exceeding 10 ft. in height (toe to top). 3. Treatment of pedestrian /equestiran easement. SDR -1370 Page 4 KK /clh A. Any modifications to the 'Site Development Plan shall be subject to Lan Development Committee approval. C. The Parcel Map for the adjoining residual parcel (to be included with APN 503- 13 -68) shall be corrected to reflect the offer of dedication called for in PM -78.1 at the same time as the map .for this application. D. All cut anf fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully support landscaping. E. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face height (existing not included). F. Applicant shall comply with the following Mitigation Measures: 1. Limit construction to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 2. Require the subdividers to contribute land and /or money in propor- tion to the size of each subdivision towards the expense of provid- ing a new fire station. IX. CONIIIENTS 3. In order to reduce erosion and consequent siltation of the creeks, all grading should be done during the May- September dry period. Revegetation of the site should be initiated as soon as possible following grading on any portion of the site but in no case should unveaetated graded areas be left exposed to the winter rains. The steeper surfaces should be hv_dromulched, and all revegetation should be watered regularly. A landscape architect should be retained to plan and supervise all revegetation. An inspection of the site by the landscape architect should be made at periodic intervals up to one year following grading to determine if the revegetation is successful and to report to the City on same. The developer should be required to post a bond with the City to ensure that the above recommendations are carried out. A detailed plan for this should be completed prior to beginning construction. 4. Erosion control measures should be provided along the creek channel where active scour of the channel and banks is occurring. 5. Halt all construction activity within a radius of 35 feet if gradin, reveals prehistoric artifacts, burned rocks, or human interments; and within 17 feet if grading reveals any historic resources such as bottles, trash piles, filled basements. A qualified archaeolo- gist should be retained to evaluate any such find and recommend any needed mitigation. 6. As a condition to approval require the developer to join any such district if it should be found to be necessary. 7. Require the developers to participate on a pro -rata basis in the capital cost of required major traffic, flood control or fire improvements (including Pierce Road improvements, a new fire station, drainage improvements for Calabazas Creek, water and sewer improvements). 8. Require subdividers to contribute a proportional share of the cost of making the recommended improvements at the Pierce Road/ Route 85 intersection. G. Prior to issuance of building permits comply with criteria for the keeping of horses (to be established by the Planning Commission prior to final approval. A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinance: o Rathy Kerdus, Assistant Planner r Z 0 o ran 0 W r V) OG 0 X\ 4 41 AI M q O 4 AGENDA BILL NO. 1/0) DATE: 7 -24 -86 (8 -6 -86) DEPT.: Engineering SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL, SDR 1541 CARSON HEIL, FARWELL ROAD (1 LOT) Sumary: 1. SDR -1541 is ready for final.. 2. All requirements for the City and other agencies have ,been met. 3. All fees and Agreement have been submitted to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1541 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 1541 -02 attached, approving Final Map for SDR-1541. Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF CARSON HEIL The 1.96 acre lot. shown as Parcel A. on the Final Parcel Map prepared by Kier Wright, civil engineer, and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular a meeting held on the day of, 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 1541 -02 MAYOR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED BY DATE: 8/30/83 Commission Meeting: 9/14/83 SDR -1541 Carson Heil, 14781 Farwell Ave., Tentative Building SUBJECT: Site Approval 1 Lot (Over 50% Expansion) REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval in order to expand an existing 1,690 sq. ft. home by over 50% OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: For the addition, a variance or condition to remove the "mid- lot line" would be required since the 50 ft. setback cannot be met. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 2.0+ Acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential, Very Low Density Single Family SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES:. Residential SITE SLOPE: 17.4% NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Significant oaks and evergreen trees, riparian area, adjacent to creek and numerous ornamental planting. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: The site contains two lots of record, one of which is smaller and essen- tially unbuildable. The applicant hopes to acquire another adjacent small parcel and achieve appropriate setbacks to place a garage across the creek from the ex- isting home. No garage is located on the site at this time and the staff'condi- tions require that one be built or a variance received for no covered parking. The applicant has recently completed improvements to the creek area, approved by both Santa Clara Valley Water District and the State Dept. of Fish and Game. The Sanitation District No. 4 has completed improvements of a sewer main to within approximately 270 ft. of the site with the completion of the nearby SDR -1499, DeVoss. Report to Planning Commis:...., SDR -1541 Carson Heil, Farwell Ave. SETBACKS: 28 ft. from existing rear property line where 50 ft. is required and 20 ft. from the side property line. HEIGHT: Single story to match existing SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing: 1,954 sq. ft. Proposed: 1,982 sq. ft. Total: 3,936 sq. ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:, Structures 5% Existing Driveway 5% COLORS MATERIALS: To Match Existing PRIVACY IMPACTS:. The proposed addition would not impact adjacent neighbors since it would be only slightly visible to one neighbor. DRIVEWAY &CIRCULATION: The existing driveway does not meet the requirements of the Saratoga Fire District. Chief Kraule has met with the applicant on site and the applicant has agreed to meet the Fire Chief's conditionsas shown on the Staff Report. GEOLOGY: See letter from Bill Cotton dated June 16,1983:which recommends approval with conditions. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The Sanitation District conditions and additional' comments are included in your packet for review. 'The.Subdi.vision Ordinance requires that all Map Approvals condition hook -up of -a residence to a sewer main unless the Planning Commission finds "that there are special. circumstances .or conditions affecting said property, or that the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the.petitioner, and in either event that the granting of the exception will. not be materially detrimental to the public safety or welfare or. injurious to other property in the territory said sub division is located. In granting such exceptions, the commission may designate such conditions' in connection therewith as will, in itsopinion, secure the objectives'of the .regulations to the exceptions are. granted." .The Sanitation District believes that it .can construct the sewer in an environmentally sound way and'would:use the services of a recognized arborist to protect the existing trees.' The rear setback of 28 ft. can be revised to 62 ft. with the removal of the lot line adjoining the two properties through reversion to acreage, as it is so conditioned for the site approval. A modification to the site development plan was approved by the Planning Commission on 8/24/83 in order to begin construction of less than 50% prior to receiving Tentative Map Approval. 8/30/83 Page 2 Report to Planning Commis SDR 1541 Carson Heil, Farw'e rr Ave. 3/30/83 Page 3 BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: 6/1/83. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1541 (Exhibit "B" filed May 13, 1983) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and require- ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses- compliance with.Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition 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 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A.. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in, effect at the time of, obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to the City.for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit.three (3) to- scale.prints). Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication'.' to provide for a 25 ft. half street on Farwell Ave.. 'D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide:easement as required. E. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement-to improve Farwell Ave. to City including the following: 1) Designed structural section 18 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2) P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (v -24). 3) Undergrounding existing overhead 'utilities.... Enter into a'Deferred Improvement Agreement to construct storm drainage 'system as shown on'the "Master Drainage;Plan asdirected by the Director of Community Development, 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. Report to Planning Commis :.....uk SDR -1541 Carson Heil, Farwell Ave. 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 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 driveway and access road intersections. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. K. Obtain encroachment permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. L. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement to submit engineered improvement plans for: 1) Street Improvements 2) Storm Drain Construction M. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement to pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. III. .SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1) Geology 2) Soils 3) Foundation Plans to be reviewed by;geotechnical consultant prior .to building permit being issued. 8/30/83 Page 4 C. Detailed on -site improvement plans, showing: 1) Grading (limits.of cuts, fills; slopes, cross -sect ions, existing and proposed: elevations ,..earthworkcquantiti.es.). .2). :Drainage details (conduit type, slope; outfall, location, etc.) 3) Retaining structures including design.by A.I.A. or•R.C.E. for walls .3-feet or higher. 4). All existing structures, with notes as. to remain or be removed. 5) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using.record data, location map, north arrow; sheet nos., owner's'name, etc. D. Bonds required for $400.00 for septic tank removal and backfill. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANITATION DIST'. NO. .4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees..paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation Dist. No. 4 as outlined in letters dated 6/8/83 and 6/9/83. Report to Planning Commis SDR -1541 Carson Heil, Farw'e`n Ave. 8/30/83 Page 5 V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from. public street or access road to proposed dwelling or as approved by the Fire Chief. Slope of driveway shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: 1) Driveways having slopes between 12% to 15% shall be surfaced using 22 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. B. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 ft. M C. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. D. w Provide 15 ft. clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or. obstacles. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the 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 VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage and ingress /egress easement over driveway for access. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Commission Approval. B. Remove existing lot line with new parcel map: C. Provide 20' x garage on site within appropriate setbacks or receive variance for no. covered parking prior to Final Map Approval. Approved: KK /dsc P.C. Agenda: 7 /13/83 /G Ve Kathy Kerdus Planner planning mom St* I.= II PM awl k e.•,* 0 ga Iltailarau dAt- 4%*,k, A 1 wl= row iss 0870 ems miti immobliams AO wel INF" --11 ,4 Illi ai r PM 1 4 I '70 Mil iii 1402 0 =Fair o 01 Will IIIVIWP AGENDA BILL NO. //00-s DATE: 7 -28 -86 (8 -6 -86) DEPT.: Engineering SUBJECT FINAL MAP APPROVAL SDR- 1616, PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, SARATOGA AVENUE (1 LOT) Summary: 1. SDR -1616 is ready for Final. Map Approval. 2. All requirements for the City and other agencies have ,been met. 3. All fees and bond have been submitted to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1616 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4 I1/1 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 1616 -02 attached, approving Final Map for SDR -1616. Council Action Approved. SECTION 1: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 1616-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 30 acre parcel shown as Parcel "B" on record of survey recorded in Book 117 of Maps at Page 25 in the County of Santa Clara and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: CITY CLERK MAYOR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APN: 386 -14 -11 EXISTING LAND USE: Church City of Saratoga APPROVED BY: i 1 INITt:LS: OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit PARCEL SIZE: 12 sq. ft. (3 acres) *Revised: 2/26/86 DATE: 2/20/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 1/28/86 APPLICANT: Robert Varrelmann OWNER: Prince of Peace Lutheran Church APPLICATION NO. 8, LOCATION: UP -590 Modification, SDR -1816, and A -1160, 12770 Saratoga Ave. ACTION REQUESTED: Use Permit Modification and Design Review approval for a new .two -story sanctuary building and Building Site Approval for 50% expansion of the existing facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Deceleration has been prepared. ZONING: A (Agricultural) GENERAL PLAN Quasi Public Facilities DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Them is a church and then condominiums north of the site and the Saratoga Office Center is being constructed to the south. Offices lie east of the site and to the west are single family residences. Report to Planning Commission UP -590 Mod., SDR -1616, A -1160 NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: There is lawn area surrounding the existing structures with various trees scattered on the site. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 2% GRADING REQUIRED: None required EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. Rear: 77 ft. Left Side: 24 ft. 8 in. Right Side: 219 ft. HEIGHT: 39 ft. (30 ft. allowed) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 43.3% STRUCTURE COVERAGE: 13.8% SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor Second Floor: TOTAL: Existing Structures: TOTAL: ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the structure is proposed to be 39 ft. in height where 30 ft. is allowed and 114 parking spaces will be provided where 147 are required. MATERIALS COLORS: The structure will be finished with a light tan split face concrete block. PARKING: 114 existing (147 required) ANALYSIS CONCERNS: 8277 sq. ft. 1471 sq. ft. 9748 sq. ft. 8268 sq. ft. 17372 sq. ft. Date :2/20/86 Page (20% allowed) UP -590 Modification The applicant is requesting Use Permit Modification, Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval for a new two story sanctuary building, 39 ft. in height. Currently four structures exist on the site. The fello- wship building, now being used for the worship service, and three other structures containing offices, a library, a nursery and classrooms. The applicant has indicated that all structures will remain on the site. As originally submitted, the structure was proposed to be 9104 sq. ft. Staff calculated the total floor area to be 10,161 sq.ft. The discrepancy was due to the applicant not including the mechanical areas in the second floor The structure maintained e 20 ft. side yard setback along Saratoga Ave. because of the interpretation made by the applicant that the front of the site would be along Cox Ave. Report to Planning Commission Date: 2/20/86 UP -590 Mod., SDR -1616, A -1160 Page 3 On January 29, 1986 the Commission reviewed the proposal at the Committee of the Whole meeting and recommended that the sanctuary be set back 2 to 3 feet further from Saratoga Ave. The Commission also requested that the portion of the parking area that extended outside the southerly property line be eliminated. The applicant submitted revisions indicating a 24 ft. 8 in. setback from Saratoga Ave. and reduced the size of the structure by approximately 400 sq. ft. The parking area was also revised to reflect the recommended change. There are currently 114 off street parking spaces provided on the site. The Ordinance currently requires "one space for each four seats or one space for each 40 sq. ft. of floor area useable for seating if seats are not fixed, and one space for each two employees" for churches and other places of public assembly. One space for each employee is required for the classrooms and one space for each 250 sq. ft. is required for the office space. With the proposed additions, a total of 147 parking spaces are required by Ordinance. The proposed revisions include the addition of 3 more off street parking spaces for a total of 117 off- street parking spaces. 30% of these (35) are compact spaces. The Ordinance does not allow compact spaces in the A Zoning District, however the Commission can modify parking requirements through the use permit procedure. Not more than 25 of the number of required off street parking spaces in the C, P -A, M or R -M zoning districts may consist of compact parking spaces. Staff recommends that the number of compact spaces be reduced to 25% of the total number of spaces. At the Committee of the Whole meeting, the applicant indicated that the Saratoga Office Center parking area located south of the church site could be used for any overflow parking. If the Commission finds that an addtional parking area for overflow is necessary, Staff recommends that the applicant ,submit a written agreement from the Owens Co. for the use of their parking lot UP -590 Modification Findings: 1. The proposed location of the sanctuary is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed location of the sanctuary and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed sanctuary complies with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance and the General Plan. Report to Planning Commission Date: 2/20/86 UP -590 Mod., SDR -1616, A -1160 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends aproval of the Use Permit per the Staff Report dated 2/20/86 and Exhibits "B and C subject to the following conditions: 1. No on- street parking is permitted. 2. Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval are required. if 3. Compact spaces shall not exceed 25% of the parking spaces provided. SDR -1616 ANALYSIS AND CONCERNS: The current Subdivision Ordinance states that an early warning fire alarm system may be imposed as a condition of the Building Site Approval for the sanctuary. However, the Central Fire District has not required this as a condition of approval but rather required that a fire hydrant be installed on Saratoga Avenue and that an automatic fire extinguishing system be installed inside the proposed structure. An additional condition is for the applicant to provide a sidewalk along Saratoga and Cox to match the existing adjacent sidewalk on Saratoga Ave. 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. 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: January 26, 1986. I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvements plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulation, and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for futher particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Building and Zoning 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 Chapter 14 of the City Code. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1616 (Exhibit "8" filed 2/10/86 subject to the following conditions: Report to Planning Commission Date: 2/20/86 UP -590 Mod., SDR -1616, A -1160 Page 5 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 and recordation fees) (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Improve Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue to City Standards, including the following: 1. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C) D. Underground existing overhead utilities. E. Construct standard driveway approaches F. Provide adequate site distance and remove obstructions of views as required at driveway. G. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. H. Engineered improvement plans required for: 1. Street Improvements I. Pay Plan Check. and Inspection fees as determined from Improvement Plans. J. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one(1) year of receiving Final Approval. K. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. III. 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 as outlined in letter dated February 10, 1986. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed an connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure conpletion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. A -1160 ANALYSIS AND CONCERNS: V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT A. The developer shall install one new fire hydrant on Saratoga Ave. in the area of the south side of the driveway that meets the Central Fire District specifications. The fire hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to the issuance of any building permit. Fire hydrant shall flow 1500 gallon per minute. Contact with the San Jose Water Co. should be made as soon as possible. B. The building will require the installation of an approved automatic fire extinguishing system or similar method as approved by the Central Fire District VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. Wells to be sealed in .accordance with district standards. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval required on the project prior to issuance of permits. B. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. In reviewing design review applications for structures other than single family dwellings, the Commission is to be guided by certain criteria out- lined in the Ordinance. The applicable criteria include: 1. Landscaping shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. Colors of wall_ and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. 3 Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. 4. The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area. Staff's main concern is with the perception of bulk of the structure from Saratoga Ave. The size of the structure and its proximity to Saratoga Ave. will increase the perception of height. The Saratoga Office Center located south of the site was required to maintain a 50 ft. setback from Saratoga 1 Report to Planning Commission Date: 2/20/86 UP -590 Mod., SDR -1616, A -1160 Page 7 Ave. St. Andrew Episcopal Church, located further south on Saratoga Ave. is 58 ft. in height, however it maintains a 49 ft. setback from Saratoga Ave. Staff recommends that the structure maintain a minimum of 25 ft. from Saratoga Ave. The Commission may waive the 30 ft. height requirement to allow the 39 ft. height of the structure through modification of the Use Permit. A landscape plan was submitted indicating three new Coast Redwood trees to be planted to the right of the sanctuary and raised planters in front of the structure. Additional landscaping should be provided in the open areas along Saratoga Ave. to soften the appearance of the structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project per the Staff Report dated 2/20/86 and Exhibits "B and C subject to the following conditions: 1. The sanctuary shall maintain a minimum of 24 ft., 4 in. setback. from Saratoga AVe. 2. Additional landscaping is to be provided along Saratoga Ave. in front and along the sides of the sanctuary for screening. Landscape plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Obtain final Building Site Approval prior to issuance of building permits 4. Any modifications to proposed site development plans or elevations shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. APPROVED indy Lashbrook, Planner 11. QUITO Asit i4 M I1■■■ 11r 1 I li 44` v UII11!/r ga iprAstrit.mpo;P 1 11ii111111IU �1li111 2 ■r 40naarar yro as ;Nor ows 7104:1 1 �I Annum anumm: .4 oilumg asaItairmi •IIII/IIIIIi Ng noy RN/ ai Is .74. ,tti% 4.44Erilniso R -M 3,000:f R -M 4000 AGENDA BILL NO. /0T DATE: 7 -28 -86 (8 -6 -86) DEPT.: Engineering Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1603 -02 2. Report to Planning Commi -ssion 3. Location Map CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4N CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL TRACT 7811., ST. CHARLES STREET INVESTORS., ST. CHARLES STREET (4 condos) Sumary: 1. Tract 7811 is ready for Final Map Approval. 2. All requirements for the City and other departments s hade been completed. 3. All fees and bonds have been submitted to the City of Saratoga. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution. No. 1603 -02 attached, approving the Final Map for Tract 7811. Authorize execution of Contract for Improvement Agreement. Council Action Approved.. RESOLUTION NO. 1603 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 7811 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 7811 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 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: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final map 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 ATTEST: 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: CITY CLERK MAYOR APN: 397 -8 -31 APPLICATION NO. EXISTING LAND USE: Two, single family dwellings H _H T +29'8" 8" =r;+..i COUS CO(JERAGE: 5i( uali7 cDo '2S' o REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Revised: 8/14/85 City of Saratoga Revision Date: 8/7/8 PP QVED Date: 7/1/85 Commission Meeting: 7/10/8 LOCATION: SDR -1603, V -700, A- 1099;' 20703 St. Charles Street APPLICANT: St. Charles Street Investors PROPERTY OWNER: Same ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site Approval, Variance and Design Review (Including Grading Permit) Approvals for a four (4) unit, two and three story condominium project. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval, Building Permits. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. ZONING: R -M -3,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Multi- Family y/cPs'' SURROUNDING LAND USES: North Commercial; South and West Single Family East Multi family Residential Residential PARCEL SIZE: 16,974 sq. ft.; 15,174 sq. ft. excluding corridor NATURAL FEATURES 6, VEGETATION: Moderately steep site with mature pine, oak.,' cedar and eucalyptus trees. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 13% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 15 GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 350 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 5 Ft. Fill: 350 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 5 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: CS Ft. *Rear: 21 Ft, to deck, 25'to structure *Left Side: 14 Ft. Right Side: 10 Ft. 8:30 a.m. Registration and Coffee 9:00 a.m. The Legal Basis for Design Review (Curtin) Pages 1 -3 and Pages 100 -101 9:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:30 a.m. BREAK IMPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Design Review as Seen from: The Public Sector (Kautz) The Private Sector (Hollander) Due Process and Design Review: Hearings and Notices pages 129 -132 Findings pages 118 -122 Permit Streamlining Act pages 147 -149 Exhaustion Doctrine pages 150 -151 10:45 a.m. Organizing the Design Review Process: Alternatives (Kautz) NOON LUNCH 1:15 p.m. Developing Design Guidelines (Hollander) 2:30 p.m. Conflicts -of- Interest and the Brown Act (Curtin) pages 136 -147 2:45 p.m. BREAK 3:00 p.m. Workshop: How to Read, Understand, and Critique Development Plans (Hollander) 4:00 p.m. END OF COURSE Page reference to California Land Use and Planning Law Manual January, 1985, Daniel J. Curtin, Jr., Published by Solano Press, Berkeley, California 94707 Report to Planning Commission 7/1/85 SDR -1603, V -700, A -1099; St. Charles St. Investors Page 2 SIZE OF STRUCTURES: Plan A (Both Units): First Floor: 1-380 cq. ft. 1,323.2 sq. ft. Second Floor: 2,05E sq. ft. 2,072 sq. ft. Third Floor: 2,053 sq. ft. 1,942.4 sq. ft. TOTAL: 5,337.6 sq. ft. Plan B (Both Units): First Floor: 2,818 sq. ft. 2,450.6 sq. ft. Second Floor: -27-7-45--sq. ft- 2,361.6 sq. ft. TOTAL: 5,603-- sq7-+4- 4,812.2 sq. ft. GRAND TOTAL: 11,092 sq. ft. *10,149.8 sq. ft. *The square footage has been reduced from 11,092 sq. ft. to 10,149 sq. ft. Staff is concerned since these square footages are measured by the applicant, and we will check them at the time of building permit. We are recommending that the Commission, if they grant the approval, condition the square footage of each unit. For the applicants information, gross floor area includes living areas, garages, areas open to the level below with a greater .than 6' clearance, stairways on each level, fireplaces and bay windows. Also, the height will be measured vertically from high point of roof to pad or natural grade, whichever is lower. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project now complies with all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the Plan B structure would maintain a 21 ft. rear yard (measured from the edge of the deck) where 25 ft. is required, except that a deck under 3' in height may extend 4 into a rear yard. The project still does not provide a minimum 5 ft. wide landscaping strip between the westernmost parking area and the property line, but the applicant indicates he will comply with this condition rather than request a variance. The third level deck of the Plan A structure no longer encroaches 2 ft. in the required 25 ft. front yard. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior Materials: Stucco Grey /Beige; wood trim(including windows) stained or painted dark brown Roof Materials:_ Terra Cotta Tile PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ISSUES: The applicant proposed the construction of four (4) condominium units on a 15,174 sq. ft. (net) lot. The maximum density allowed in the zoning ordinance would be 5 units (1/300 sq. ft. net site area). The project is an infill project which will not require the significant extension of urban services. The Saratoga Fire District has required that the existing corridor to the site be improved to provide an emergency access to the site. This will require the applicant to modify the proposed plans. Variances are no longer required to accomodate the proposed layout of the units. Design Review issues are covered in separate sections of this report. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1603, V -700, A -i099, St. Charles St. Investors Two existing homes on -site would have to be removed to accomodate the project. These homes are probably rented at a low to moderate cost level. Approval of thiI replace these lower cost homes with much higher cost condominiums. PROJECT STATUS: Said project comp -e.s. w -i-t -h all _objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning (if the proposed conditions are followed) 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: 6/25/85. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1603 (Exhibit "B" filed 5/28/85) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS 7/1/85 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 "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 20 ft. half- street on St. Charles Street. D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. Report to Planning Commission 7/1/85 SDR -1603, V -700, A -1099; St. Charles Street Investors Page 4 E. Improve St. Charles St. to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2. Asphalt Concrete Berm. 3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. 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. G. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done within State Right -of -Way. L. Engineered Improvements required for: 1. Storm Drain Construction 2. Street Improvements M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. N. 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. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional. 1. Geology per Cotton's letter Report to Planning Commission C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 7/1/85 SDR -1603, V -700, A -1099, St. Chas. St. Investors Page 5 B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued. 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slpes, 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 constrol measures. D. Bonds required for removal of structures on site. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service is available for this project in Big Basin Way. Developer shall cooperate with the district in facilitating the connection of adjacent properties to sewer service if possible. A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double ,seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 12 -1/2% to 15% shall. be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of A.C. on 6" aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17 -1/27, shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. B. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 21 feet. C. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. Report to Planning Commission 7/1/85 SDR -1603, V -700, A -1099, St. Chas. St. Investors Page 6 I. Class A or B roof required. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. D. Provide a 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. E. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. F. Install an early warning smoke and heat detection system with a digital alarm communicator connected to the Saratoga Fire District's Digital Alarm Receiver. G. The applicant shall improve the corridor connecting the site to Big Basin Way to District driveway standards as an emergency access to be reviewed and approved by the District. The proposed parking area south of the proposed corridor access gate shall be deleted. A knox box locking device shall be used for this gate. H. A sprinkler system off of the domestic water system shall be provided in the garages of the proposed units. One (1) sprinkler head shall be provided for each car stall. Sprinkler system plan shall be submitted for District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration. Wells not to be used shall be sealed to District specifications. 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 accessiblity. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and Report to Planning Commission 7/1/85 SDR -1803, V -700, A -1099; St. Chas. St. Investors Page 7 approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improvements. D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenence Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right of -way and on site. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be responsibile for maintaining the landscaped areas. E. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all landscaped areas. The C.C.& R.'s of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to final approval. F. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Replacement trees shall be installed for all trees over 12" in diameter which are to be removed. These trees are in addition to any street trees required in the subdivision ordinance. G. Developer shall comply with the conditions of the City Geologist's letter dated June 13, 1985 which is incorporated herein by reference. H. Tree house located in the large oak tree adjacent to St. Charles Street shall be removed prior to issuance of building permits. I. C.C. &R's shall not be amended unless approved by both the City of 'Saratoga and the Homeowner's Association. J. Solar stub outs shall be provided for each unit to allow eventual retrofit of solar panels for domestic water heating. Report to Planning Commission V -700, SDR -1603, A -1099; St. Chas. St. Investors 700 VARIANCE ANALYSIS: *Delete 7/1/85 Page 8 The •pplicant requests variances to allow for a 14 ft. rear yard (measured from the second story deck of the Plan 13 units) and to waive the 5 ft. landscaping requirement for the parking area proposed on the western side of the s te. In the case of the rear yard encroachment, the second story decks proj:ct about 6 ft. from the exterior walls of the Plan 8 units which maintain a Pi ft. setback. It should be noted the southern decks of the third level o the Plan A units encroach 2 ft. into the required front yard but no varian for this encroachment was applied for. Therefore, these decks must be re.esigned to provide the proper setback. The site complies w.th or exceeds zoning ordinance standards for lot width, depth, frontage and ze used in the R -M -3,000 district. Although the site is moderately steep, this is not a sufficient constraint to warrant a variance. With prope engineering and size reductions, the units can be properly located on the s.te. The size of the units proposed by the applicant (2,700 2,800 sq. ft.) are nearly as large as the minim site area required for each dwelling unit. If the sizes of these units were reduced and the deck designs modified, the proposed rear yard variance woul• not be necessary. Staff would recommend that no unit be over 2,000 sq. ft in size. In the case of the proposed waiver of the 5 ft. landscaping strip next to the parking area, staff has determine• that landscaping in this area will be necessary to protect the privacy of a. scent residences to the west and should be maintained even in the event tha parking spaces in this area are eliminated by the emergency access required by the Fire District. The parking area proposed is in addition to the arking requirements of the R- M -3,000 district. FINDINGS 1. Practical Difficult or Unnecessar Ph sical Har Denial of this variance would not create a pract al difficulty or unnecessary physical hardhsip inconsistent with the .objectives of the zoning ordinance since there are no physical constr nts associated with the site in terms of its shape, size, topography location or surroundings which warrant a rear yard encroachment or t'- elimination of the required 5 ft. strip of landscaping. There :re options available to the applicant, particularly reduction of unit ze, which would allow reasonable development of the property without a variance. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Although the topography of the site is unusual for sites in the R 3,000, with proper engineering and reduction in unit sizes topograp 3. Common Privileq 4. Special Privilege 5. Public Health, Saf/ty and Welfare C port to Planning Commission 7/2/85 0, SDR -1603, A -1099; St. Chas. 5t. Investors Page 9 doe not act as a`significant constraint. It should be n• ed that the depth of the site is 31% larger than the minimum require in the R -M- 3,000 trict. This circumstance should make it easi= to comply with ordinance equirements. Thus, there are no except .nal circumstances associated •th the site which warrant a variance. Denial of this variance would not deprive he applicant of privileges enjoyed by other prope ty owners in the me zoning district since the applicant can reasonab develop th= property without the proposed variances. The granting of this vari ce would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent wit- the limit =tions on other properties in the same zoning district n that there re no special circumstances associated with the si "e which would warr t these variances. The granting of this variance will not be detrim-ntal to the public health, saf ty or welfare, or materially injuriou to properties or improveme s in the vicinity. RECOMMEND' ION: Staff recommends denial of this variance re est having been un.•le to make findings #1, 2, 3 and 4. If the Commissio wishes to approv• the project, the Commission must make the necessary find gs and appr•ve Exhibits B and C. ote: The applicant has prepared findings as part of the application whi are attached to the end of the this report. Report to Planning Commission A -1099, V -700, SDR -1603; St. Chas. St. Investors ("Nz tEr 13 us i. v P1pprrnrdi a7 a arrrrot ts s uirrErSa t'ha as bin prrLtviacrsly o ardt. Del ete DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes construction of a three -story (2 -unit) structure under 30 ft. in height in the southern half of the site. The General Plan permits three story structures in the Village area where this site is located. Due to the 14 ft. grade change between the edge of St. Charles Street and the garage floor, the structure will have a two -story appearance when viewed from St. Charles Street. The site is also lower in elevation than the adjacent site to the east which contains a three story apartment building. The lower structure will be a two -story structure about 28 ft. in height and would screen a major portion of the Plan A structure when viewed from the north. The exterior materials proposed are compatible with other structures in the vicinity. Staff's primary concern with both the Plan A and Plan B structures is the appearance of bulk due to the size of the units relative to the size of the lot. Privacy: Grading: C 7/1/89 Page 10 The three story structure (Plan A) will not create any adverse privacy impacts on adjacent properties with the exception that the western second and third level decks could impact the privacy of existing single family homes on the adjacent western site. These decks should be removed, particularly the third level deck, or screened with a combination of lattice work (or similar constructed screening) and landscaping. Similar privacy problems could be created by the second level master bedroom window and rear deck on the western side of the Plan B structure. Privacy mitigation measures would be similar for these areas. The applicant proposes balanced grading of..350 cu. yds. of cut and fill. applicant also proposes a 2 to 5.ft. cut within the front or southern portion of the site. A portion of this cut is located underneath a 40" oak. The proposed retaining wall and cut should be located outside of the dripline of this oak or 10 f t.. away fry► the. trunk, whichever distance is greater, to prevent damage to this tree. Report to Planning Commission A -1099, SDR -1603, V -700; St. Chas. St. Investors Solar Portions of the proposed roof for both structures are oriented to the south which could be used for solar panels to provide some domestic water heating. Site topography limits the .potential for the utilization of passive solar heating. Lands- capinq /Trees: 7/1/85 Page 11 A large "triple" pine', a 12" eucalyptus and a 12" cedar are proposed for removal to accomodate the project. A smaller 8" pine will also be removed. Staff believes that the 12" cedar can be preserved if units sizes are reduced and proper protection is provided during construction. The other trees can be replaced by new trees. The applicant's site plan shows that some deciduous and evergreen trees will be planted along with a variety of shrubs and ground covers. These plans show new landscaping underneath the large mature oaks on site. Staff would recommend that no landscaping be allowed beneath these oaks to avoid damage from overwatering. The outside or guest parking areas would utilize turfstone to limit impervious surface on site. Crushed gravel is also used in some areas but these areas are not clearly shown on the plans. Refuse, Fences and Lighting: No details of these items are shown on the plans. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this Design Review Application since the pr'opus�J JC�i�rr r- emtatr -em-- Pariarrc-e-s-mtri- cfr3taf-I ra s- urratri-e- --ft; vrata the f f-or- "arre}• -the -bulk of the proposed structures is too great for the size of the site. However, if the Commission wishes to approve this application per Exhibits "B -1, C -1, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit the following items for Planning Division review and approval: A. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans showing evergreen trees along the western side of the site or proposed structures to protect the privacy of the existing residences to the west. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection /occupancy. B. Revised grading plans showing all retaining walls, and cut or fill areas outside of the dripline, or 10 ft. from the trunk, of any trees over 12" in diameter not approved for removal. These plans shall also eliminate the fill area beneath the Plan B structure. Report to Planning Commission A -1099, SDR -1603, V -700; St. Chas. St. Investors 7/1/85 Page 12 C. Retri3cd s- rte �reHoi kr?•recesew�d�$e� desk- -0 -tk3e 4- irte (Deleted D. Details on the treatment of the emergency access gate and driveway. E. Plans for the placement and screening of gas meters, mechanical appurtenances, and other similar items showing how these will be screened from public view. F. Any modifications to the site plan or elevations. G. Plans showing the removal of the second and third level decks on the western side of the Plan A structure and the second level deck on the western side of the Plan B structure. Constructed screening and landscaping may be used in lieu of deck removal if the applicant can adequately demonstrate how the privacy of the adjacent residences to the west can be preserved. H. Detailed drainage plans. I. Square footage and height to be as stated on the approved plans and measured per the City of Saratoga policies. J. A 5' landscaping area adjacent to the parking areas(not driveways). 2. Detailed fencing, lighting and refuse container location and screening plans to be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. 3. 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 shall be allowed closer than 8 -10 ft. from an existing tree. 4. No landscaping shall be installed within the dripline of any existing oak tree. *5. A 3' landscaping strip is required west of the driveway and emergency access road wi APPROVED: P.G. Agenda: 7/10/85 8/14/85 KK /dsc Kat Kerdus Planner G AGENDA BILL NO. 0 DATE: 7/30/86 (8-6 -86) DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL pb SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY Suamary The City owns a Troxler Moisture Density. Gauge, which is no longer in use. This gauge has a radioactive source, and as such the City has to be licensed for its use. Because the City has not had a Public Works Director for the last several years, the gauge has not been used. Therefore, maintaining the license and this equipment, which is no longer the state of the art, is not appropriate. We have located a Salt Lake City firm who is willing to purchase the gauage for $250.00 and pay the shipping. charges. Fiscal Impacts: Receipt of $250.00 revenue for this surplus property Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution declaring surplus property and authorizing City Manager to dispose of same. Recommended Action: Approve resolution declaring surplus property Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM AGENDA BILL NO. JQ DATE: 7/30/86 (8/6/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: N/A Denied appeal. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL V -735 Suit, Appeal of Planning Commission condition to remove a portion of a hobby room addition to garage- 18915 Devon ..Avenue Summary: 1. Detached "garage was destroyed by tree felled by storm." (See variance application) 2. Owner reconstructed and enlarged garage to include a hobby room, without permits and was "red- tagged." 3. Owner applied for building permit and variance was required. 4. Planning Commission approved variance with a condition that a portion of the hobby room extension to the west be removed._ Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor and City Council 6. Plans 2. Resolution V -735 -1 Findings 3. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 6/11/86 4. Appeal Letter 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/11 6/17/86 Recommended Action: If the Council agrees with the condition, it should affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. The condition is aimed at allowing the applicant to retain his structure built in violation of City Code and protect the neighbor to the west. Rather than follow the recommendation of the staff to deny the variance, the Planning Commission tried to reach a compromise between the applicant and neighbor. Council Action REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: OgIDT 0 4 0 hN o C� DATE: 7/31/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/6/86 V -735 Suit, Appeal of Planning Commission condition to remove a portion of a hobby room addition to garage 18915 Devon Avenue ISSUE: The appellant is requesting that he be allowed to retain the total 1120 sq. ft. detached garage /hobby room as built, 15'6" in height where 10' is allowed and 6' from the side property line where 10', is required. The Planning Commission conditioned the variance to remove a portion of the hobby room extending towards the west and landscape around the addition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION JUSTIFICATION: Staff recommends that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to remove the hobby room extension towards the west. Eliminating 240 sq. ft. of the hobby room would lessen the impact on the adjacent property owner and still allow the appellant to have a 480 sq. ft. hobby room at the rear of the 400 sq. ft. garage. The condition supports the finding that "granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public...welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." (Sec. 15- 70.060) BACKGROUND: According to the application, the original garage was destroyed by a tree which fell in a storm. The applicant rebuilt the garage and added a hobby room without permits and was issued a stop work order until the proper permits were obtained. The new structure, almost as large as the home, was located 6' from the side lot line rather than 10' as required and was 15'6" in height rather than 10'. A variance would be required. At the public hearing, the neighbor to the west complained that the noise from the hobby room activities would disturb his family and the location of the hobby room was only 25 feet from his bedroom. Staff recommended denial because the garage could Report to Mayor and City Council 7/31/86 Re: Suit Appeal, V -735, 18915 Devon Ave. be redesigned and located on the site to meet the setbacks and height limitations of the code. On June 17, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the variance, subject to removal of that portion of the hobby room towards the west at the rear of the garage. As stated in the minutes, the Commissioners would not approve the variance if the garage /hobby room was not already constructed but approved the variance in an attempt to compromise between the applicant and complaintant. et/(AP; of/A4../ uek Hsia nning Director /kc /dsc 2 ATTEST: Secrets VARIANCE FILE NO. V -735 RESOLUTION NO. V -735 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS. the City of Saratoga Planning. Commission has received the application of Thomas Suit, 18915 Devon Lane for a variance to construct a detached garage to within 6' of the side property lines and 6' from rear property line and height of 15'6" where 10' is allowed, per as built plans dated 4/9/86_ labeled exhibit B. WHEREAS_ the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NOW..._ THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps -facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the o.arage be, and the same is hereby granted sub1ect to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall remove that portion of the hobby room extending to the west side beyond the wall of the garage as it previously existed. 2. Landscaping to be installed along the northwesterly corner of the structure (where the structure is removed and around the corner) to sheild the neighbor. Plan,to be submitted to staff and approved prior to issuance of the permit and installed prior to final inspection or Certification of Occupancy_. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report of findings attached hereto be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parites affected by this decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 17th day of June, 1986, by the following roll call vote: AYES: ...Commissioners Guch, Harris, Peterson, Siegfried, Burger NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pines a,3LbrD Plannino Co mission 1 Chair, Plannino Commission V -735 Suit EXHIBIT fl -1 FINDINGS 1. The lot is odd shaped and the house is located on the lot so that a garage could not be placed elsewhere. 2. 80 -90% of the structure was on site previously. 3. The,structure backs up to a commercial, lot which is-not_impacted,by_the addition to the ca_rage.- 4., _There..is.a- similar structure that is situated on the property line two lots away. ISSUES: KC /dsc OEL2I7 ©2 PATE: 6/11/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V -735; 18915 Devon Ave. APPLICANT: Thomas Suit APN: 389- 012 -014 r REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance request :to allow construction of detached garage to within 6 ft. of the side property line and 6 ft. 'from the rear property line and a height of 15'6" where 10' is allowed. 1. The structure was built without permits and is nonconforming. The accessory structure must be 25' from the rear property line, 10' from the side property line, and 8' -10' in height. 2: Findings cannot be made to support the variance. The garage can be redesigned and located on the site to meet the setbacks and height limitations of the code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A -1, Findings for denial 2. Technical information and staff analysis 3. Exhibit B, variance findings supplied by applicant STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request per the findings of Exhibit A -1 and direct the structure be removed immediately. V -735, Suit EXHIBIT "A -1" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The lot is similar in size and shape to the others in the area. The garage can be reduced in size to accomodate -two- cars and eliminate the hobby room. The 2 car garage can be attached to the home or otherwise relocated so as not to require a variance from City Code. 2. The strict interpretation and enforcement of, the height limit and setback would not deprive the applicant of the privilege enjoyed by owners of other properties in the zoning district. The garage can still be built by redesigning and relocating the structure. 3. The granting of the variance would be a grant of special privilege since other similar small propenties HA-1 -.the neighborhood have constructed within the height and setback_ requirements. V -735, Suit TECHNICAL INFORMATION COMMISSION MEETING: 6/11/86 fPN: 389 -012 -014 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V -735; 18915 Devon Ave. HEIGHT: 15'6" IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 59% (4,720 sq. ft.) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Proposed garage: Residence: Total: 1,120 sq. ft. 1,350 sq. ft. 2,470 sq. ft. ACTION REQUESTED: Variance from side yard and height limit to construct detached garage. APPLICANT: T. Suit PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium density EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: North Saratoga Office Center South Devon Ave. East West Single family homes PARCEL SIZE: 8,000 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Typical landscaping in rear yard. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: None PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft. Rear: 6 ft. Left Side: 10 ft. Right Side: 6 ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. Garage can be relocated to comply with setbacks and height limits. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Earthtone and off -white exterior; brown earthtone composition shingles on roof. V -735, Suit DISCUSSION OF ISSUES: The garage and hobby room were reconstructed without permits. Therefore, the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the variance after -the- fact. If the applicant submitted the plans prior to construction, staff would have suggested the following: 1. Move the proposed structure 25' from the rear property line as required by code. 2. Move the proposed garage 10' from the side property line as required by code. No posts and "awnings" are allowed at the easterly side of the garage. 3. Eliminating the "hobby room" from the plans would reduce the depth of the structure to allow the 25' rear yard setback. 4. Reduce the height of the structure to 8' -10' and apply for a use permit from the Site Review Committee if the garage is still located in the rear yard. (Sec. 15- 80.030 d -1) Since many options are available to allow the applicant to have the garage and meet the regulations of the City Code, staff is unable to make the required findings for approval and recommends denial of the requested variances. Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: APPEAL APPLICATION r V 73 .5' Sal11 9DD/7/ 70 -'9,q =1 c,E, Decision Being Appealed: /50- 70 4/FR Date Received: Hearing Date: 0 Fee �C CITY USE ON Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): ;Paco,s,Ez> PRoJ,'c s Aiht Mffc. poi,c 2•_ OWNER H /RFD CA,'Psy7E2 To R•EP4 STORM. S /Ncr .EX /S /NC S(7s4cKJ WE'RE NAT c1/4/4,.. p ,t ?p,e /Ticq S Td t/494 L/ /X/S /I_ o F OX/1/C. R YA,C D OVA/r/2 cc IT" CT .c /Ty OR Z7es <A /ER .3, PRo Oo S C omPcETEG B[ d ck Y /.E14, of ADD/ T7 0/y, 2.31 /RRE'44. L or a/ c TA TF'S ADD/T a C 7/0/V. *Please do not City offices. appeal please /0 Nor Appellant's 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. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. Planning Commission Minutes 6/11/86 Page 8 recommendations eliminating condition #2. Condition #4 is amended to read "landscaping per plan dated 5/4/86," submitted to the Planning Commission at the June llth meeting. Passed 5 -1 with Ommistioner Harris orn»sed be' use there is not enough landscaping at the rear. 9. V -735 Suit, request for variance from required side and rear yard to construct detached garageto within 6 ft. of the side property line where 10 ft. is required and 6 ft. from rear property line where °25 ft. is required and variance from height limitation to allow 15 ft.6 in. garage where 10 ft. is allowed at 18915 Devon Avenue in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented staff report, and the public hearing was opened at 9:50PM. Mr. Bill Ey represented the applicant, Thomas Suit, and explained the building was destroyed by a falling tree and the owner though he could just rebuild. The structure is only 1 ft. higher than the old structure. He further stated the current ordinance would allow existing setback with a flat roof but would be less attractive than what is there now. Mr. Kusum Vidajage, 18955 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga, stated he was surprised the building was almost complete without permits. He lives right in back of the garage and stated the hobby room disturbed his family with power saws etc.. He further stated his bedroom is only 25 ft. away from the hobby room. Mr. Gerald Chang, 18901 Devon, stated he lives immediately next door to Mr. Suit on the right. He stated his kitchen is less than 10 ft. from the structure and he has no problem with the hobby room or noise from it. He stated he did not hear a sound and that he goes to bed at 8:30 P.M. Tom Clark, 18887 Devon Avenue, stated the depth of the building was the same but the width has been changed. He stated the applicant has added to the beauty of the building. Commissioner Siegfried would like to get a better feel of neighbors' living area adjacent to the structure. Commissioner Peterson stated the 1120 sq. ft.unit is almost as big as the house. COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral by Commission Respectfully submitted, r Planning Commission t. Chair Burger stated it was the consensus of the Commission to get more detailed information, especi- ally regarding how it impacts the neighbors. Commissioner Peterson suggested a site visit before the study session. Consensus to adjourn the regular meeting to 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, June 26th at the Community Center meeting room to make a decision at that time. 1. Letter from Callandar Assoc. re joint study session Villa Montalvo Master Plan, June 16th, 1986. Due to a conflict in schedules, the Commissioners could not attend and agreed that the July 1, Committee-of-the Whole meeting would be an appropriate date. Staff to contact Callander Assoc. Yuchuek Hsia Secretary of the Planning Commission YH:mj Minutes 6/11/86 Page 9 Planning Commission adjourned at 10:40 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 17, to make a decision on V -735, following a site visit. MINUTES CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Tuesday, June 17, 1986 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Senior Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Peterson, Siegfried, Chairman Burger Absent: Commissioner Pines 1. U -735 Suit, requesting variance from side and rear yard and height limitation to construct detached garage at 18915 Devon Rue. Public hearing continued 7:32 p.m. Mr. Ey, designer for the project, 420 Union, Campbell, reviewed his comments from the meeting of June 11, 1906. He stated that the new construction is only adding one (1) foot of height to the original garage, the shape of the lot justified the additional height and the location backing up to a commercial center justified the setback. Mr. Ey stated that he drew the plans after the job had been stopped by the City and the garage was already constructed. PETERSON /HARRIS MOUED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HERRING. The public hearing was closed at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Harris expressed concern with the process that the variance was required prior to receiving a permit and the Planning Commission was being asked to approve the variance after the -fact. She felt that the garage impacted the neighbor to the rear. She could not have made the required findings before construction and could not now make them. Commissioner Peterson stated that the similar situation had been before the Planning Commission a number of times. The Commission needed to apply the "fairness doctrine." The neighbor's home is far away and Owens commercial project was not impacted. The new garage, however, is a very large structure and the Planning Commission is being aked to make a decision after the -fact. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the garage was there previously. The lot was odd shaped and he had no problem with the expansion to the rear. The neighbors see more 1 U -735, cont. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Adjourned Meeting 6/1 7.86 P age 2 roofline, basically because of the side expansion. The new garage can be effectively landscaped; however, he would never have granted it if it was requested now. His concern was not with the rear extension, but the extension towards the side. Commissioner- Guch would not have a problem if the old garage was reconstructed; however, the rear structure, a "lean -to shed" was not part of the permanent structure. The hobby room is a definite expansion to the rear and side. fllthough not an impact on the Owens property, the Planning Commission needs to take a hardline on building and then coming in for approval. She could not have granted the request if it was made prior to building the structure. Chairman Burger summarized the concensus that the rear addi- tion is okay and is similar to the structure two lots down. The expansion to the side is a problem because the roofline impacts the neighbor to the west. Commissioner Harris reminded the Commission that the struc- ture could accomodate two <2) cars without the hobbyroom. Chairman Burger stated that if the side expansion was elimi- nated, the hobby room could still be in the rear. 7 :50 p.m. public hearing reopened upon concensus of the Commission. Mr. Uidanage, the neighbor to the west, expressed concern with the excessive noise that would result if the hobby room was allowed. The city attorney stated that noise was not the subject of the variance and not to be addressed with this hearing. The public hearing was closed at 7 :52 p.m. SIEGFRIED /HARRIS MOUED TO HPPROUE the variance, subject to the following conditions: Motion carried 5 -0. 1. The applicant shall remove that portion of the hobby room extending to the west side beyond the wall of the garage as it preciously existed. 2. Landscaping to be installed along the northwesterly corner of the structure to shield the neighbor. Plan to be submitted to staff prior to issuance of a permit and installed prior to final inspection or occupancy. The Planning Commission would allow the extension to the rear. 2 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Adjourned Meeting 6/17/86 Page 3 U -735, cont. The findings to support the uariance are: YH /kc /dsc 1. The lot is odd shaped and the house is located on the lot so that a garage could not be placed elsewhere. 2. A significant portion of the structure was there preuiously. 3. The structure backs up to a commercial lot which is not impacted. 4. There is a similar structure that sits on the line two (2) lots away. Chairman Burger stated that the decision could be within 10 calendar days. ADJOURNMENT HARRIS /PETERSON MOOED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Passed 5 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 7 :55 p.m. Respectfully submitted. 3 huek Hsia retary property appealed August 7, 1986 Mr. Thomas L. Suit 18915 Devon Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Suit: This is your official notification that your appeal concerning variance application V -735 was denied by the Saratoga City Council at its meeting of August 6, 1986. Sincerely, e. Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk umw of Inge 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson AGENDA BILL NO. /0 DATE: 7/30/86 (8/6/86) SUBJECT: DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL Summary: 1. On June 25, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a 5 lot residential subdivision of 3.25 acres developed with a single family home and apricot orchard at 13500 Saratoga Ave. The Commission determined that since the homes to the rear are single story and the proposed lots are large: enough to accomodate single story construction, that all five lots should be single story. 2. Appellant requests elimination of the condition so that the decision regarding single vs. two -story construction can be deferred to the design review state of development. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Council Action Denied appeal. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM g LJ SDR -1622 Hobbs, Appeal of Planning Commission Condition #29,, "Homes on all lots to be single story." Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor City Council 6. 'Tentative Map 2. Resolution SDR- 1622 -1 7. Letter to City Council from 3. Staff Report to Planning Commission Sunblad dated 7/28/86 dated 6/25/86 4. Appeal letter dated 6/30/86 5. Minutes dated 6/25/86 Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing and if the Council agrees with the condition-of the Planning Commission, it should affirm the decision by minute motion. DOS REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: BACKGROUND SDR -1622 Hobbs, Appeal of Planning Commission Condition #29, "Homes on all lots to be single story." On June 25, 1986, the Planning Commission considered subdivision of 3+ acres of property northeast of the intersection of Fruitvale Ave. at 13500 Saratoga Ave. During the discussion, the Planning Commission confirmed that they had the option of conditioning the project to construct a single story home on each of the five lots rather than only lot #1 and #4 as proposed by the applicant. During the public hearing, several neighbors from the Ronnie Way area spoke in favor of single story homes for the lots. Following the public hearing, the Commission stated that the homes to the rear are single story and the proposed lots are large enough to accomodate single story construction. They added Condition #29, "Homes on all lots to be single story." Essentially, the Commission was instructing the developer to design the homes so as not to exceed 22 ft. in height. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. The action can be by minute motion. 41A4 �k uek Hsia ning Director kc /dsc v K ©ff 0 'V 1 DATE: 7/30/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/6/86 ATTEST: 1 LL ti4Ld9I ?JI IPi Secretaiy, Plannin. Commission RESOLUTION NO, SDR- 1622.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Brian Kelly Development APN- 389 -34 -002 a AYES: Guch, Pines, Siegfried, Burger NOES: None WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of Ca1ioxnia and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; for" tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of: 5 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR =1622' o 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 Staff Report dated 6/25/86 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (Ctegari`'a1 Exemp- r -f''� n) (FTR)_ (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 approved should be 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 23rd day of May 1986 and is marked Exhibit the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby con- ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 25 day of June 19 86 at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: ISORY AGENCY ABSENT: Harris, Peterson By: 641. tac,L Chairman, Planning issi�n SDR -1622 EXHIBIT 'A' 1. Height of structure on Lots 1 and 4 shall not exceed 22 feet. 2. No tree identified on the tentative map shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 3. Applicant shall obtain design review approval prior to construction. 4. All requirements of the building department shall be met, including demolition permit for existing structures. 5. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. 6. Submit tract map to City for checking and recordation, including fees. 7. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide 40' right of way for cul -de -sac except as-shown on the tentative map approved by the Planning Commission. 8. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a minimum 60 ft. half street on Saratoga Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide 10' PSE along the streets as shown on the tentative map. 10. Improve cul -de -sac and Saratoga Avenue to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed structural section 15 ft. between centerline and flowline on cul -de -sac. 2. Designed structural section widened from existing edge of pavement to provide 40 ft. between centerline and flowline on Saratoga Avenue. City Engineer needs to determine final right of way configuration. 3. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (U -724) on both streets. 4. Underground existing overhead utilities on Saratoga Avenue. 11. 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. SDR -1622 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 12. Construct standard driveway approaches. 13. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 14. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 15. No direct access allowed on Saratoga Avenue from lots. 16. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 17. Engineered improvement plans required for: 1. Street improvements. 2. Storm drain construction 3. Access road construction 18. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 19. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 20. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required, improvements. 21. Meet requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4. Requirements including connection to sanitary sewer, payment of fees and submittal of engineered improvements plans. 22. Abandon existing well No 08S1W06602 on the property to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 23. Provide bus stop and sidewalk on Saratoga Avenue north of the new street to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. 24. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled in accordance with the County Environmental Health standards. 25. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company. 26. Meet all requirements of the Saratoga Fire District including submittal of plans showing location of water mains and fire hydrants and installation of one new hydrant. 27. Maintain 15 foot vertical clearance over the road and driveways to building sites. SDR -1622 28. Submit plan to install landscaping in the area between property line and the new public street immediately south Saratoga Avenue. Plan to include 1S gallon street trees, approved by the City Parks Superintendant and design reyiew board and installed prior to issuance of the Certificate. of Occupancy for the first residence. 29. Homes on all lots to be single story. 30. Applicant shall submit a traffic circulation plan showing prohibition of any left turn into the subdivision from': Saratoga Avenue and such plans shall be subject ,to approval by the City Engineer. >r, C FROM: Kathryn Caldwell DATE: 6/25/86 APPLICATION NO LOCATION: SDR -1622, 13500 Saratoga Avenue APPLICANT: Brian Kelly Development APN: 389 -34 -002 OMEW' ©2 0 'V 01 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of tentative map for 5 lot residential subdivision. ISSUES: None. There are no adverse environmental effects. All the required findings can be made per Exhibit A -1. Adjacent property owners request that homes be limited to single story structures, consistent with the neighborhood. The issue of height of each home will be addressed at the time of design review when privacy, compatibility and bulk issues are considered.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the negative declaration. Approve the subdivision pe Resolution SDR 1622.1. and findings of Exhibit A -1. ATTACHMENTS 1. Negative Declaration 2. Resolution SDR- 1622.1 3 Exhibit A -1 findings 4. Letter from Wrights, dated June 16, 1986 5. Letter from Sunblad, dated June 13, 1986 6. Letter from Brian Kelly dated June18, 1986 7. Exhibit D schematic of development of Kerwin property SDR 1622 EXHIBIT A -1 FINDINGS Consistency with General Plan The General' Plan describes Saratoga Avenue as a local road that can qualify as an urban scenic road (p. 3 -20) with improvements such as "saving and preserving ornamental trees where practicable in subdivisions... undergrounding utilities in new developments." App1i'cant will install landscaping along the new cul -de -sac within 20'- 100' of Saratoga Avenue and obtain tree removal permit prior to removing any tree identified on the tentative map. 2. Physically suited for the type of development proposed density. The area to the east is developed with single family dwellings on similar 1/2 acre lots. There are no unique topographic features which would prohibit development of single family homes. 3. There are no adverse environmental impacts. A negative declaration has been adopted for the subdivision. 4: are no public health or safety problems. The project is :_incorporating a bus -stop as required by the Transportation Commission. ._Capping the welt .and abandoning the,:.septic -tank wi1 be under supervision of the water and sanitation agencies. SDR -1522 or heavy traffic." LANDSCAPE PLAN The General Plan objective CI.3.4 states that the "City shall encourage the planting of trees and plan the development of landscaped medians along major arterials." In support of this policy, a condition of approval is that the "pocket" along the northwest side of the new street off Saratoga Avenue be landscaped. The plan should include 15 gallon trees, approved by the City, and installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for first residence. In addition, any tree identified on the tentative map will require a tree removal permit if it is to be removed. COMMISSION MEETING: 6/25/86 APN: 389 -34 -002 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1622, Saratoga Avenue ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of 5 lot residential subdivision APPLICANT: Kelly- Gordon PROPERTY OWNER: Patricia Hobbs OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Map ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration pending ZONING: R- 1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density EXISTING LAND USE: Residence and detached garage SURROUNDING LAND USES: North Saratoga Avenue South and West Existing apricot orchard East single family homes. PARCEL SIZE: 3.34 acres NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Apricot orchard and large walnut trees on lots #2, 3, and 4. Lot #1 has a mixture of mature evergreens, oaks, walnuts, magnolia, and palm tree as shown on the map. ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS TRAFFIC /CIRCULATION C C TECHNICAL INFORMATION Attached in the Commissioner's packet labeled Exhibit 0 is a schematic presentation of a posible future development of the Kerwin property to the south of subject site. Looking forward to the buildout of the area, staff is recommending that the tentative map be approved as shown with an access easement granted to the Kerwin property per conditions #7 of Resolution SDR 1622.1. The developer will not construct full street width improvements on the subject property but only enough to allow safe ingress and egress from the subdivision. When the Kerwin property developes, the cul -de -sac will be modified by the developer of the Kerwin property. Such a configuration will allow future distribution of the traffic (17 lots x 10 TE /day /lot 170 trips) from the area onto Fruitvale and Saratoga. This configuration implements objective CI.3.3 of the General Plan "the function of a street shall be recognized in advance of construction, and design criteria used to minimize disruption to the area caused by through :e fde, r Planning Commission. Minutes Meeting 6/25/86 SDR -1622 Hobbs, request for approval of negative declaration and 5 -lot residential subdivision of 3.25 acres of partially developed property located at 13500 Saratoga Ave. in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the staff report. Planning Director Hsia indicated that there were two conditions attached to this application: The first, on Exhibit "A height of structure, should read, "Lots 1 and 4." The staff were concerned that exhibits received showed the street would go through from Fruitvale Ave. to Ronnie Way, which would be in violation of the general plan. He expressed concern as to whether or not the Land of Kerwin property would be able to open future lots, because of traffic patterns. Traffic access to Ronnie Way would be by way of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues. This comprises the amended exhibit in the staff report, revised page 37. Mr. Toppei, the City Attorney, said that the Lands of Kerwin are not the subject of this application. The only concern at present is about the Kelly- Gordon subdivision; and people were in attendance who would be addressing that issue. Assistant Planner Caldwell said that the negative declaration in exhibit before The Commissioners, addressed requirements of traffic distribution. The schematic (page 37) was only an exhibit to show the possibility of distributing traffic without the negative impact. The City Attorney felt that it was a planning issue at the location of the cul -de -sac. He said that if it could be connected with the Kerwin property, there would be the possibility of other linkage to other lots using it as a means of access to Saratoga Ave., and that that was the .only purpose for the exhibit. Commissioner Pines asked if there was any criteria of what can be one- story. Assistant Planner Caldwell said it was totally at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Guch pointed out that the entire development to the rear of the property is of one -story homes. Commissioner Guch presented Land Use Committee report describing the property and surrounding land use. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, engineer, appeared for the applicant. He said that making a left turn off Saratoga into the property, what is required now is to go down to the signal light and make a U -turn; so basically, with the present arrangement, it,is a right turn in and a right turn out of the property. Commissioner Burger also felt it poses a problem for Scotland Dr. traffic. .Commissioner Pines also was concerned about the turn. Page 4 I Mr. Heiss felt that the problem could be alleviated by modifying the safety island, or create some left -turn lanes within the island. Commissioner Guch felt that was a very good point and should be studied; as did Commissioner Pines, who suggested a reduction of the landscape and making another turn lane. Commissioner Burger felt it is an extremely dangerous condition. Commissioner Pines felt a mini -study should be made to see if the turn situation should not be completely closed, especially with the addition of nine lots in the area; and that the City Engineer should look into it. Toppei said that the situation can be conditioned so that the effect would be that the safety island was configured to prohibit left turns into the proposed street from Saratoga Ave., as it was approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Pines suggested closing off Scotland Ave., diagonally across Saratoga Ave. Planning Commission Minutes Me 6/25/86 Mr. Heiss feels that in any case all concerned would have to wait until the suggested study is completed. A neighborhood resident, Carol Machol, said that the area had always been composed of single -story homes. She presented a petition signed by residents of Ronnie Way, who feel that the project should only be restricted to single -story houses, and that privacy of the neighbors will be assured; and the preservation of low density of Kentfield area. Mr. Robert Cooper also spoke as a friend of The Commission and expressed his desire that the beauty and peace of the neighborhood be assured through, what he expressed was the good work of the Planning Commission. David Cooper (not related) also felt that the openness and beauty of the hills should remain. ,Mr. Don Bowden, also a Ronnie Way resident, feels disappointed because of the development, but is not adverse to it. He wants the rural atmosphere to be retained. Discussion about pad elevation followed, which would involve the construction of one and two -story homes. Brian Kelly, the applicant, s:r'.was of the understanding that he and the Planning Commission would not be getting into a discussion of this matter during tonight's meeting. Mr. Bill Heiss indicated the pad elevations are required on which to build a house; indicated because of the ground which falls toward the :'rear of the property, and poses some problems, like drainage. Commissioner Burger asked him about drainage toward the street. Mr. Heiss said that the street would be put in as low a grade as possible; a storm line would be set in the street, bringing drainage from the property. The backyards could be sloped in their natural configuration and water brought out by a small pipeline. Commissioner Siegfried wanted to know about house style, etc., and asked about the possibility of reducing size. Mr. Kelly felt that could be done on an individual basis during the design phase with the Planning Commission. He mentioned the company's intent was to build homes in the 3,600 sq. ft. range. Commissioner Burger said that parameters can be established, consisting of height or story limitationOA101_, Commissioner Pines was of the opinion that there was nothing to justify two- stories to get square footgage on the site, because of the largeness of the lots. PINE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 4 -0. Commissioner Burger said that she was very much in favor of limiting the five homes to single -story height, and was in agreement with that discussed by the other Commissioners. She was greatly concerned about the corner location and its traffic problems. SIEGFRIED /PINES MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SDR- 1622,•WITH CONDITION AND RESOLUTION FOR SDR -1622, changing condition #1 to read: "The height and construction on Lots 1 and 4 should not exceed 22 feet and adding conditions "that all homes on !Iwm lots.to be single story; and that the applicant shall submit a traffic circulation plan showing prohibition of any left turn into subdivision from Saratoga Avenue; and such plan shall be subject to City Engineering approval." Passed 4 -0. LLOYD SUNDBLAD 13573 RONNIE WAY SARATOGA, CA. 95070 July 28, 198E CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. '95070 Re: Proposed subdivision known as SDP, 1422 (Appellant B. Kelly) 13500 Saratoga Ave. To Whom it May Concern: We support. the development of._single..family homes on the property mentioned above. However, ,we wou-1_dJ i ke to ,go on record as strongly recommend..i ng the ho be-_ si n.gl e story 'to conform with the established neighborhood pattern. Also, that the building sites (lots) be4 so that the structures are built at the same ground level as the adjoining homes. We are sorry we w i l l.- be unable to attend. the JAAugust. b hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, arrie.t- Sundblad JUL 2 19ao August 7, 1986 Mr. Brian J. Kelly Kelly- Gordon Development Corporation 12241 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Kelly: This is your official notification that your appeal concerning a condition placed by the Planning Commission on your subdivision SDR 1622, the condition being that all the homes should be single story, was denied by the Saratoga City Council at its meeting of August 6, 1986. Sincerely, MUT' cD2 0 IP Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson /76c AGENDA BILL NO. 11 I DATE: August 6, 1986 DEPT.: Community Services SUBJECT: Special Assessment of Delinquent Refuse Collection- Summary: Under current law, refuse collection accounts which have remained delinquent for more than sixty days are subject to property lien proceedings initiated by the City. Each August, all property recorded and unsatisfied liens can be transformed into special assessments and made a part of the regular County property Tax Bill. Such an action must be authorized by Council, and involve the addition of a 150 interest charge based on the original amount of the bill plus a $20.00 special assessment charge imposed by the City to cover processing costs. Fiscal Impacts: Since this is the first special assessment the City has attempted with regard to refuse collection accounts, it is not known to what degree the process will result in the satisfaction of the delinquent accounts and collection. Exhibits /Attachments: List of previously filed lien proposed for special assessment by the County. Recommended Action: Authorize the County to transfer all recorded liens by the County to the property tax bills, and impose penalties as outlined by ordinance. Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM Ea CITY MGR. APPROVAL Name Hortense E. Rozman Norman E. Pronger, Trustee Cbry's Place Lorie L. Shafer Lester P. Ethel M. DeBar Anthony T. Virginia Sartino Nedjo Jean Spaich Peter H. Chisam Terrence J. Rose Marilyn Swift Mildred B. McGill Robert Kavale Terrence J. Trudy A. Rose Hortense E. Rozman Mun K. Helen Lee Nelson M Keyes Janet Damner Karl F. Hendrika A. Stahl Cory's Place Lester P. Ethel M. DeBar` Milka Persa Kralj Jahn N. I. J. Denny William D. Betty L. Cole Richard E. Ippisch Waldon G. Carlson J. Wilton Hughes Hortense Rozman Min K. Lee Mike Eros Lester DeBar Dave Smith Ralph Flynn Marian M. Laine Peter Chisam Milka Kralj Douglas F. Vaughn Special Assessment for Delinquent Garbage Collection Charges Service Address 20341 Chateau Dr. 20600 Lomita Ave. 18613 Paseo Lado 20730 Prospect Rd. 12451 Quito Rd. 13960 Ravenwood Dr. 14021 Shadow Oaks Way 12400 Ted Ave. 14595 Carnelian Glen Ct. 13810 Saratoga Ave. 18626 Aspesi Dr. 12775 Bach Ct. 14595 Carnelian Glen Ct. 20341 Chateau Dr. 21142 Chiquita Way 18901 Devon Ave. 13250 McQ.illoch Ave. 18491 Nbntpere Way 18613 Paseo Lado 12451 Quito Rd. 20423 Thelma Ave. 13250 Via Arriba Dr. 13360 Via Ranchero Dr. 13472 Ward Way 12234 Brookglen Dr. 20800 Canyon View Dr. 20341 Chateau Dr. 21142 Chiquita Way 13186 Montrose St. 12451 Quito Rd. 13675 Quito Rd. 19290 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. 19540 Scotland Dr. 12400 Ted Ave. 20423 'Thelma 13612 Vaquero Ct. Quarter Amount 12/84 2/85 12/84 2/85 12/84 2/85 12/84 2/85 12/84 2/85 12/84 2/85 12/84 2/85 12/84 2/85 3/85 5/85 3/85 5/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 6/85 8/85 8/6/86 94.45 160.26 137.21 94.84 183.57 135.52 115.60 94.84 94.84 94.84 94.84 94.84 94.84 94.84 86.96 94.84 122.33 94.84 94.84 122.33 94.84 78.73 94.84 94.84 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 88.35 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 125.48 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 89.62 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 96.59 9/85 11/85 88.35 DATE: 8/7/86 AGENDA BILL NO. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 74 DEPT.:City Attorney CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF MARION ROAD OFFERED FOR DEDICATION AS:A PUBLIC STREET Summary: In 1891, a subdivision map was recorded which dedicated Marion Road as a public street from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road to an area near the northern end of Paul Avenue. That dedication was .not accepted. The western end of Marion Road was resubdivided in 1982 and was reconfigured to terminate Marion Road In a cul -de -sac located east of the western end of Marion Road as dedicated in 1891. Mr. Carl Franklin and Mr. Gary Campbell, the owners of the parcels located west of the current Marion Road cul-de -sac, have requested that the dedication for Marion Road on their properties be vacated" by the City. The City Engineer recommends that the dedication of the referenced portion of Marion Nay as a public street be vacated. Fiscal Impacts: Unknown Exhibits /Attachments: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga vacating a portion of Marion Road offered for dedication as a public street. Map delineating portion of Marion Road sought to be vacated. Recommended Action: Adopt attached resolution. Council Action Adopted resolution. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA VACATING A PORTION OF MARION ROAD OFFERED FOR DEDICATION AS A PUBLIC STREET WHEREAS, W. D. POLLARD executed an Owner's Certificate offering for dedication as a public street Marion Road, as identified, described and delineated on that Map of the Pollard Subdivision recorded and filed in Book E of Maps, at page 65 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on January 13, 1891 (hereinafter referred to as the "Map and WHEREAS, the board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara have never accepted the aforesaid offered dedication of Marion Road; and WHEREAS, the area encompassed in the Map was placed into the jurisdiction of the City of Saratoga (hereinafter "City when the City was incorporated; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has never accepted the aforesaid offer of dedication of Marion Road; and WHEREAS, a portion of the land delineated on the Map has been re subdivided pursuant to a parcel Map recorded at Book 496 of maps at Page 1 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on February 2, 1982 (hereinafter "Parcel Map and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66477.2(a) provides that if, at the time a final Map is approved, a dedicated street, path, alley, public utility easement or similar item which directly benefits the residents of a subdivision is rejected, the offer of dedication shall remain open, and the City may at a later date rescind the rejection and accept the street, path, alley, public utility easement or similar item; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66477.2(c) states that offers of dedication which are covered in Government Code Section 66477.2(a) may be terminated and abandoned in the same manner as described for the summary vacation of streets by part 3 (commencing with Section 8300) of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, CARL FRANKLIN (hereinafter "Franklin the current owner of a parcel of real property delineated on the Parcel Map and encumbered by the Marion Road dedication, has requested that the City vacate that portion of Marion Road offered for dedication and not accepted as identified, described and delineated in the metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, inasmuch as the referenced portion of Marion Road has, for a period of five consecutive years, been impassable for vehicular travel, and no public money was expended for the maintenance of the referenced portion of Marion Road during such period of time; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the portion of Marion Road which Franklin has requested to be vacated has, for a period of five consecutive years, been impassable for vehicular traffic, and no public money was expended for maintenance of the referenced portion of Marion Road during such period of time; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RESOLVES THAT: 1. That portion of Marion Road identified, described and delineated in the metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, offered for dedication as a public street on the Map of the Pollard Subdivision recorded and filed in Book E of Maps at page 65 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on January 13, 1891, is hereby vacated pursuant to the authority of Chapter 4 (commencing at Section 8330) of Part 3, of Division 9 of the California Streets and Highways, and that from and after the date that this resolution is recorded, the aforementioned described portion of said Marion Road shall no longer constitute a street or public highway as offered for dedication. 2. Except for the portion of Marion Road expressly vacated pursuant to the description contained in Paragraph 1 above, all other easements and offers of dedication identified, described and delineated on the Map of the Pollard Subdivision recorded and filed Book E of Maps at page 65 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on January 13, 1891, and on the Parcel Map recorded at Book 496 of Maps at Page 1 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on February 2, 1982, are not vacated by the City at this time. 3. The Saratoga City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution, attested by the Clerk under seal, to be recorded without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledgment or further proof, in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, California. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest: City Clerk The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: Mayor, City of Saratoga MARION ROAD ABANDONMENT Beginning at the Northwest corner of parcel A as 'shown on that certain_ Parcel Map recorded in Book 496 of maps, page 1 of Santa Clara County Records, said point of beginning being also a point on the centerline terminus of Marion Road, as shown on the map of the Pollard Subdivision, which was recorded in Book E of maps, at page 65 of Santa Clara County Records; thence from said point of beginning along the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of said parcel A, North 56 46'30" West 18.10 feet; thence leaving said prolongation and proceeding Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Marion Road said line being parallel with fifteen feet Northerly measured at right angles from the said centerline of Marion Road, North 67 15' East 233.79 feet to a point of cusp, said point of cusp being North 69 04'51" West 42.00 feet radially from the centerline of a cul -de -sac as shown on said Parcel Map; thence Southerly along a radial curve to the left from said radial bearing with a radius of 42.00 feet through central angle of 24 21'53" for an arc length of 17.86 feet to the Northeast corner of said parcel A; thence along the Northeasterly line of said parcel A and continuing along said curve to the left with a radius of 42.00 feet through a central angle of 20 50'16" for an arc length of 15.28 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said Marion Road; thence Southwesterly along said Southeasterly line of Marion Road, which is parallel with and distant fifteen feet from the centerline of said Marion Road and the Northwesterly line of said parcel A, South 67 15' West 201.92 feet to a point on the Southwest line of said Parcel A; thence North 56 46'30" West 18.10 feet to said Northwest corner of Parcel A and the point of beginning. EXHIBIT "A" r 4 OgU7 ©2 0 oC REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: 1 ISSUE: Determine whether proposed residence is on a slope which exceeds 40% natural slope at any location under the structure between two five -foot contour lines and violates City Code Sec. 15- 13.040(c). BACKGROUND: At the appeal of the above project, the Council received a site plan from the appellants showing areas under the proposed building pad which exceeded 40% slope. The appellants indicated that the City Code stated that when the slope exceeds 40 a variance is required and none was granted. After discussing the proposed project, and recognizing that the Code specified 40% slope of a natural slope as opposed to artificial, the Council directed that the "City Geologist make a geological study...to ensure that the slope in question is artificial and to require that the applicant obtain a variance if one is found to be necessary." Attached for the Council's information is a letter from the City Geologist with the map showing areas that were graded. The upper slope is 29 (32 the lower cut is 38° (42 As shown on the enclosed site plan, the majority of area indicated by the appellants to be over 40% slope is cut slope. The section labelled A -A is "natural slope...under the structure between two, five -foot contour lines...." The slope of A -A is 38.5 FINDINGS: Staff has determined that the project approved by the Planning Commission and confirmed by the City Council meets the limitation DATE: 7/22/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/6/86 City Geologist report on natural slope of 19288 Bainter Ave., Hwang Report to Mayor City Council Re: Hwang, 19288 Bainter Ave. FINDINGS:, cont. of the City Code Sec. 15.13.040(c) that "...no dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall be built upon a slope which exceeds 40% natural slope at any location under the structure between two, five -foot contour lines..." No variance to this slope limitation is required. YuhhJuek Hsia Planning Director YH /kc /dsc cc: Bill Young 2 8/6/86 Page 2 William Cotton and Associates TO: SUBJECT: Site Inspection RE: Lands of Hwang, SDR -1605 19288 Bainter Avenue At your request, we have reviewed pertinent maps from our office files and inspected the slopes at the proposed building site. Two cut slopes (as shown in red on the Tentative Map) cross the lower portion of the proposed building site. Within the proposed building site, the upper cut slope has an inclination of approximately 29 and the lower cut slope has inclinations ranging from 30 to 38 Above these cut areas, the slope within the proposed building site is very irregular, which appears to be the result of materials moved during agricultural tillage. Our previous mapping of the subject p:-operty (July 5, 1985) indicates that the average slope angle in the western portion of the proposed building site is approximately 18 Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance in the review of the subject application. WRC:TS:ls Kathryn Caldwell, Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 318 B North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 July 17, 1986 RECEIVED S1375C ALL 181986 PLANNING DEPT. \iat,AAA '4L a ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION ENGINEERING cut slope asfamm appellant's slope natural slope E {66-1-1.4E.,1 5' C NTONKS) 0 /O 1 (so 1,w) v cut slope appellant's slope natural slope CA NTOW S) es. ...4- WA G F 506 A PLICAT 4 r at). i iv 1 PT ..•'Yy�V M Z THE H W A N G APPLICATION C S D R 1 6 2 C THIS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL PROPOSAL IS MEETING STRONG RESISTANCE FROM LOCAL AREA RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE, BULK, INAPPROPRIATENESS, THE AMOUNT OF GRADING, AND THE QUESTIONABLE LEGALITY OF THE PROJECT. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MANY COMPLEX ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, THIS DOCUMENT WILL ADDRESS ONLY SOME WHICH RELATE TO CITY ORDINANCES AND /OR THE GENERAL PLAN. THESE ISSUES MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TO INSURE THAT THE CITY OF SARATOGA PROTECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE AREA AND DOES NOT INVOLVE ITSELF IN ANY HILLSIDE LITIGATION. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE EXCERPTS FROM THE SARATOGA CITY ORDINANCES,WITH COMMENTS QUESTIONING THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO THESE ORDINANCES: CITY ORDINANCES S15-13.040 Development criteria No principal use shall be established, and no main structure shall be erected or constructed in an HC -RD district, nor shall any building or other permit be issued therefor, unless and until the applicant has complied with the following development standards, which standards shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any and all, other development criteria and require set in Chapters 14 and 16 of this Code: S14- 05.030 Conformity with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (a) Nothing contained in this Chapter, nor any act or forbearance done or permitted hereunder, shall waive or relieve compliance with any other ordinance of the City. Neither final map nor building site approval shall be granted for any lot, site or subdivision which is not in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance as contained in Chapter 15 of this Code, or which has been or is created in violation of such Zoning Ordinance, or which is not consistent with the General Plan D F X N I T I O N S S15- 06.420 Lot (d) Flag lot means a lot having access to a street by means of a private driveway or corridor of land not otherwise meeting the requirements of this Chapter for site width. The length of a corridor access shall be measured from the frontage line to the nearest point of intersection with that property line parallel or most nearly parallel to the frontage line. (e) Hillside lot means a lot having an average slope of ten percent or greater. (f) In -fill lot means a lot surrounded by other developed lots in at least three out o our northern, southern, eastern or western directions. FLAG LOT P 8 L E M S15- 13.070 Site frontage, width and depth (a) The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in an HC -RD district shall be as follows: Frontage Width Depth 80 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (a) of this Section: (1) The minimum site frontage on a cul -de -sac turnaround shall be sixty feet where seventy -five percent or more of the frontage abutts the turnaround. (2) The frontage and width of an access corridor to a flag lot shall be not less than twent y feet. THE LOT IN QUESTION APPEARS TO BE A FLAG LOT WHICH DOES NOT HAVE AN ACCESS CORRIDOR 20 FEET IN WIDTH. IN ADDITION, SOME AREAS OF THE ACCESS CORRIDOR EASEMENT HAVE BEEN LEGALLY BLOCKED BY PRESCRIPTION ACCORDING TO LEGAL OPINIONS OBTAINED BY VARIOUS NEIGHBORS. EXCESSI'V'E SLOPE P R O13 L EM S15- 13.050 (c) Location of building sites. The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall not exceed thirty percent slope, and no dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall be built upon a slope which exceeds forty percent natural slope at any location under the structure between two five -foot contour lines, except that: (1) A variance pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter may be granted where the findings prescribed in Section 15- 70.060 can be made, and (2) An exception under Article 14 -35 of the Subdivision Ordinance may be granted where the findings prescribed in Section 14- 35.020 can be made. GENERAL PLAN S 4 1 O 10. No home or other structure shall be built on an area with an average slope that exceeds 30% or an area that exceeds 40% natural slope at any point under the structure with possibility for variance procedure and exception from the Subdivision Ordinance for unusual situations. THE MAP AND GRADING PLAN SUBMITTED WITH SDR 1620 SHOWS CONTOUR LINES THAT APPARENTLY INDICATE THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ON A SLOPE WHICH I5 IN EXCESS OF 40% AS DEFINED IN ORDINANCE 15 13.050c.(SEE ATTACHED DRAWING). NO VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. INFILL LOT PROBL 515-06.420 Lot (f) In -fill lot means a lot surrounded by other developed lots in at least three out o our northern, southern, eastern or western directions. 51 5- 45.040 Design review findings Prior to approving a design review application required for any single family main structure, or major addition thereto, or any accessory structure, the approving authority shall make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The_ height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure or major addition, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, and will consider the topographic and geologic constraints imposed by particular building site conditions. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The orientation of the proposed main or accessory structure or major addition in relation to the immediate neighborhood will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure or major addition will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures located within five hundred feet and within the same zoning district, and shall not unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control standards. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Infills: compatibility, views, privacy, and natural features. Proposed main structures, accessory structures or major additions to be constructed on in -fill lots, will be compatible in terms of bulk with adjacent structures, will minimize obstruction of views, will minimize privacy impacts on adjacent property owners, and will incorporate the natural features of the site. (g) Preservation of natural contours. The proposed structures are designed to follow the natural contours of the site with minimal grading, minimum impervious cover, and maximum erosion protection. A stepped foundation shall generally be required where the average slope beneath the proposed structure is ten percent or greater. THE LOT IS ADJACENT TO AND SURROUNDED BY EIGHT OTHER PROPERTIES, SEVEN OF WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, AND SIX WHICH ARE RELATIVELY SMALL ONE -STORY HOMES. THIS CLEARLY DEFINES THE STRUCTURE AS AN INFILL PROJECT. THE STRUCTURE, WITH ITS EXCESSIVELY LARGE HEIGHT AND BULK DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDIA FCE OR SECTION L.U. 5.0 OF THE GENERAL PLAN. THE STRUCTURE IS ALMOST 120 FEET LONG, 100 FEET WIDE, AND HAS A VERTICAL TOTAL PROJECTED HEIGHT OF 42 FEET (NORTH ELEVATION)!! THIS WOULD CLEARLY IMPOSE UPON TL9r .7!1T.n1.t CITY O R D I N A N C E S 14- 25.030 G ENERA L P L A N ACCESS 1= R0 F3LE1.1 S (c) Dead -end streets and adjoining acreage. Unless otherwise approved by the advisory agency, no dead -end street shall be longer than five hundred feet measured from the centerline of the nearest intersecting street. Where the subdivision or site adjoins acreage, such streets as may be extended in the event of the development of the adjoining acreage, shall be constructed to within two feet of the boundary line of the tract or building site, and the remaining two -foot strip shall be granted in fee to the City. (d) Cul -de -sac streets. Cul- de-sac streets shall have a vehicle turning area within a minimum right -of -way radius of forty -two feet and a minimum roadway radius of thirty -two feet No cul- de-sac shall be longer than five hundred feet from its intersection with the centerline of a non cul-de -sac street to the center of the turn around, unless a length in excess of five hundred feet is, in the opinion of the advisory agency, the only feasible method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned, or unless any other method of subdividing or developing the property would create block lengths of less than eight hundred feet. CI.2.2 For safety, every new or developing public or pri- vate cul -de -sac greater than 500 feet in length, and every new and developing residential area in the City with more than 15 residential lots on a cul -de -sac should have a primary and an emergency access. THE NEAREST LOT LINE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING SITE IS ON A DEAD -END STREET WHICH IS 600 FEET FROM THE NEAREST INTERSECTING STREET (BAINTER AVE). THE STRUCTURE IS APPROX. 265 FEET FROM THAT LINE RESULTING IN 865 FEET OF DEAD -END STREET ON A CUL- DE- SAC,WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS OF HCRD ZONING OR CONSISTENT WITH ELEMENT CI.2.2 OF THE GENERAL PLAN. SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS S15- 13.100 Height of structures (a) No main structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. (b) No structure shall exceed two stories. (e) No accessory structure shall exceed twelve feet in height. THIS HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON 4 LEVELS- WITH NO LEVEL MORE THAN TWO STORIES. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE HEIGHT OR VERTICAL PROJECTION OF THE STRUCTURE IS 42.5 FEET EQUIVALENT OF A 4 -STORY BUILDING (NORTHERN ELEVATION -SEE ATTACHED DRAWING). PER HCRD ZONING ORDINANCE I5- 13060C, THIS LOT, ON A STEEP HILLSIDE SLOPE, DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR ANY STRUCTURE, MUCH LESS THE EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE ONE REQUESTED.HOWEVER,SINCE IT WAS AN EXISTING LOT OF RECORD,IT MIGHT BE LEGAL FOR A BUILDING OF SOME SIZE,BUT THE ONE PROPOSED IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE INTENT OF THE HILLSIDE SLOPE ZONING ORDIN ANCE. THE ABOVE POINTS CLEARLY QUESTION WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A NUMBER OF ORDINANCES AND ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE HOUSE BE REDESIGNED SO THAT IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APLICABLE ORDINANCES AND THAT ACCESS RIGHTS ARE CLEARLY AND LEGALLY PROVEN. veva 7b' T N 1. 0 RED SHADING INDICAT AR WHICH APPEAR TO EXCEED FORTY PERCENT NATURAL SLOPE AS DEFINED IN ORDINANCE L-1. 3 0 4 0 c i1 N s ei• .13 "/a A 0 ,5 A/1P t .1 f 10 /19i- O PP" r10" fi A 4PA' k c=> PARCEL A 5=> 4 23,120 sq. ft. -Gros.; CD c o 20,311 sq. fr.- Net (e 15 Marion ..7- c..- Rola■asernant cz) ....5 C' S4d1 •Ss 1.-- S) ....T1 .r ...4..." 5 pi_GZ I NA tvi;15.0°' j c\N 1-f;/120-Y.-/- fo e goP p ts7 c 5 la. O AP