HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-1985 City Council packet�j i Initial: T/
AGENDA BILL NO: U 4K Dept. Head:
DATE: July 16, 1985 City Atty:
DEPARTMENT: Parks Buildings_ City Mgr:
SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Donations
Issue Summary
Janice Deller of San Jose has contributed $40 towards the
purchase of bamboo for Hakone Gardens.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
Donation of $40.
Attachments
None.
Council Action
8/7: Approved.
1
AGENDA BILL NO: 7:.3
DATE: July 16, 1985 City Atty: shOr
DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Donations
Issue Summary
The Pacific Scribes of Santa Clara have contributed $50 to Hakone
Gardens.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
Donation of $50.
Attachments
None.
Council Action
8/7: Approved.
Maintenance City Mgr:
1
Initial:
Dept. Head:
7- 7-- 1
c,4; cee.-4-ee=e
eef'.
AGENDA BILL NO. 6 S S
DATE: 7/8/85 (7/17/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Bevel opment
SUBJECT: UP -581 Appeal of Planning Commission Denial William Mary Benson
Issue Summary
1. The proposed accessory structure will be located within the required rear yard setback
area, 25 ft. from the rear property line and 20 ft. from the side property line.
2. The structure has three parts, a pool equipment pad, a bathroom and an open area.
3. The residence is 6,175 sq. ft. The square footage of structures on permanent founda-
tions and enclosed on three sides is calculated into the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor
area standard for the zoning district. Staff has not been calculating the-square foot-
age of pool equipment pads into the allowable floor area standard. Generally a pool
equipment pad and small storage area is 40 sq. ft.
4. Design Review Approval is not required provided the on -site square footage does not
exceed 6,200 sq, ft.
5. At the May 8, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission vote was split (3 -3) on the Design
Review Use Permit applications to locate a cabana in the rear yard setback area.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny UP -581
2. Staff recommended approval of UP -581
Fiscal Impacts
None
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Exhibits/Attachments
1. Appeal Application from William and. Mary Benson 6. Correspondence
2. Staff Report dated 5/22/85 4/29/85
3. Resolution No. UP -581 -1
4. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing of 6/12/85 and 5/8/35
5. Exhibits
Council Action
7/17: Granted appeal subject to conditions and staff report 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed).
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
*Please do not
City offices.
appeal please
JUN 1.7 i99b
COQdM MIIY DiVELofMERr
APPEAL APPLICATION
VI 1
o'/4 Cu L4N) /),e,
14/- g
frY1y C 4/ v6-
ZIP- )s/
2D ,1 33 .1226k {I Gt' 1e
M sea ,v tz/X b
Decision Being Appealed: ,NTA)441, D AWL/e /NNW
Date Received: 6 -17,
Hearing Date: 7 -Ji-
Fee jJ
CITY USE ONLY
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.
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
1. 7 /e P ii/AJc &Am,/k;5imi dD7? iiJ4 SSG /T 5- 3 /1"N.O a, "rte /NcoAlea /Sivc
2 ..r AA /W Ookboif s/Uti c S i1i2/O 1/&W,0 72 P Al Y ii 6,41&()
/i14 lit 4 i/J D/Ak p T6 Peo /DSee .Wt6s5D,ee .577ebcn1f.
at, jj,,' ,9eptlA7 7 A )01:6.41 4G ,L
ire T c wid Dr &E Z r 74 Auc6' vu� D 77/
A LtavA tC. ricae kkek 6 1,0ezi 1 o0 6&.0 ;7 71 l 110
OGNiK>9 arc esTYDR/)J,U4'/t)CC NS 5 4, 56-ca77i'4)
t #16 rRo' 7W De 7 /Ns noiJ oP
rcer;wg 77J 5bl44Zt i COPte-7L" kVi )IJ 4-N)/ 5iAtientA AlL.� .f is A/0T
a6Nelze6 C3 GNU T// 6 o4 iUo,t, SAD S.
Appellant's aturej
COEirg7 04 0
PARCEL SIZE: .92 acre (40,075 sq. ft.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/22/85
COMMISSION MEETING: 6/12/85
APN: 517 -18 -52
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: William Mary Benson
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: UP -581, 20433 Montalvo Road
ACTION REQUESTED: Use Permit Approval to construct an accessory
structure in the rear yard setback area 25 ft. from the rear
property line.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED: The Planning Commission granted Dea
Review Approval of the residence on 3/28/84. The building permit
was issued 8/28/84. A building permit was issued for the
swimming pool on 11/7/84.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Very Low
EXISTING LAND USE: The residence is currently under construction.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Villa Montalvo is located south of the
site; a vacant lot (vineyard) abuts the northern property line.
Residences are located to the east and west of the site.
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The site slopes slightly to the
Report to Planning Commission DATE: 5/22/85
UP -581, Montalvo Rd., Benson PAGE: 2
north. No vegetation or landscaping exists on the northeastern
portion of the site. Landscape plans for the site have been
reviewed and approved by staff in compliance with a condition of
the Design Review Approval for the residence.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.5% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level
GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is required.
EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 180 feet Rear: 25 feet
Left Side: 160 feet Right Side: 20 feet
HEIGHT: 12 ft. (the elevation scales to 12.5 ft.)
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 35.8%
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Residence
(Including Garage): 6,175
Per Applicant Per Staff
Bathroom: 25 sq. ft. 38 sq. ft.
MATERIALS COLORS: The pool equipment and bathroom will be finished in
brick. veneer With a wood shingle roof to match the residence.
STAFF ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission at the May 8, 1985 meeting denied
a Use Permit application to locate a 334 sq. ft. cabana in the rear yard of
the subject site and denied the Design Review Application to exceed the
6200 sq. ft. floor area standard for the R- 1- 40,000 zonipg district.
The accessory structure as proposed has three parts, a pool equipment pad,
a bathroom and an open area. The square footage of each area according to
staff's calculations, measured exterior wall to exterior wall or post, is
as follows:
Pool Equipment Area:
Bathroom:
Gazebo:
103 sq. ft.
37.4 sq. ft.
189 sq. ft.
Although pool equipment pads are sometimes enclosed staff has not
calculated square footage of the pad into the allowable floor area
standard. Staff has discussed the size of pool equipment pads with the City
Building Inspectors and a pool firm. Generally, a pool equipment pad is
about 32 sq. ft. 4 ft. by 8 ft.) which provides adequate room for a
filter, heater and sweep pump. If the property owner wants a small storage
Report to Planning Commission Date: 5/22/85
DP-581 Benson Montalvo Road Page 3
area the pad may be enlarged to about 40 sq. ft. •For referenne, the pool
firm has indicated that the smallest pad they feel 1s possible is 3.5 ft.
by 7 ft. or 24.5 sq. ft. Based on the above information staff feels the
pool equipment pad as proposed is excessive and should be reduced to 40 sq.
ft. A building permit has been issued for a swimming pool on the subject
site. It should be noted that the pool equipment pad shown on the building
permit plans is located on the northeastern portion of the site and 1s
about 150 sq. ft. (10 ft. by 15 ft.). No elevations were shown for the
equipment pad which would indicate that it was not to be covered.
The bathroom area is included in the allowable floor area standard figure.
The residence 1s 6.175 sq. ft. which allows 25 sq. ft. for the bathroom to
comply with the 6200 sq. ft. standard in the R-1-40.000 zoning district.
The applicant's figure indicates a 25 sq. ft. area. Houever, calculating
the area from exterior wall to exterior wall, the bathroom is a 37.4 sq.
ft. As shown on the drawings the on site square footage would exceed 6200
sq, ft. and Design Review Approval would be required.
The remaining portion of the proposed structure is an open area. The
allowable floor area standard includes accessory structures on permanent
foundations and enclosed on three sides. Since the area is not enclosed on
three sides the square footage of the open area is not included in the
allowable floor area.
A Use Permit 1s required since ,the accessory structure will be located in
the rear yard setback area. The guidel1nes in the Zoning Ordinance for
accessory structures in rear yards (Sections 3.7.1) specifies a 25 ft. rear
yard setback for accessory structures and a 12 ft. limit in height. The
guidelines can be modified with a Use Permit.
If the pool equipment pad were separate from the accessory structure and
did not exceed G ft. in height or 3 ft. in depth it could he located as
close as 6 ft. from the rear property line without a Use Permit. Since
the pad is attached to an accessory structure it is being treated as a part
of the structure.
The properties to the north and northeast are at a lower elevation than the
subject s1to. The residence to the northeast is oriented towards the
subject site. It does not appear that the area behind the adjacent
residence is ourrently, heavily used. The wall along the property line
will provide screening between the properties.
FINDINGS:
1. Accordance with Zoning Ordinance Objectives:
The proposed accessory structure is consistent with residential uses
and structures. The accessory structure does meet the Zoning Ordinance
objectives to allow such structures and maintain open space and
privacy.
Report to Planning Commission Date: 5/22/85
UP -581, Benson, Montalvo Road Page: 4
Public, Health., Safety, and Welfare:
The proposed accessory structure will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
3. Compliance with Ordinance Provisions:
With the conditions recommended in the Staff Report, the structure has
been found to be consistent with ordinance objectives through the Use
Permit procedure.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit for the
accessory structure per the Staff Report dated 5/22/85 and E hibit "B"
subject to the following conditions:
1. The pool equipment pad shall not exceed 40 sq. ft.
2. The total on site square footage shall not exceed 8200 sq. ft, unless
Design Review Approval is obtained. The bathroom shall not exceed 25
sq. ft. measured in accord with Section 13A.3(j).
3. Total impervious coverage on the site shall not exceed 35% of the site.
Plans showing the reduction in impervious coverage shall be submitted
for review approval of the Planning Division prior to issuance of a
building permit for the accessory structure.
4. The height of the structure shall not exceed 12 ft.
APPROVED:
LH /kah
P.C. Agenda: 6/12/85
Lucille Hise
APN: 517 -18 -52
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
OTEIToff LID'oC�
u� of S :;r atc �f
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised: 5/8/85
DATE: 4/25/85
COMMISSION MEETING: 5/8/85
APPLICANT: Cobb Morton Architects OWNER: Mr. Mrs.,_ William: Benson
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: UP -580, A- 1084; 20433 Montalvo Road
ACTION REQUESTED: Use Permit Approval to construct a cabana in the
required rear yard setback 25 ft. from the rear and 15 ft. from the side
property line and Design Review Approval to exceed the 6,200 sq. ft.
allowable floor area standard.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED: The Planning Commission granted Design Review
Approval of the residence on 3/28/84.. The building permit was issued
8/28/84. A building permit was issued for the swimming pool on 11/7/84.
GENERAL PLAN .Single Family
DESIGNATION: Residential'- Very.Low
Density
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.5% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level
EXISTING LAND USE: The residence is currently under construction..
SURROUNDING LAND. USES: Villa Montalvo is located south of the site;. a
vacant lot (vineyard) abuts the northern property line. Residences are
located to the east and west of the site.
PARCEL SIZE: .92 Acre (40,075 sq. ft.)
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: A tree removal permit has been issued. to
complete the removal of a eucalyptus tree begun without benefit of permit.
Report to Planning Commission
UP -580, A -1084; Benson, Montalvo Rd.
GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is required.
PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 182 Ft. Rear: 25 Ft.
(To Cabana)
HEIGHT: 15 Ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 35.6% (14,281 sq. ft.)
Left Side: 164 Ft. Right Side: 15 Ft.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Residence
(Including Garage): 6,175 sq. ft.
Cabana: 334 sq. ft.
Total Square Footage On. Site: 6,509 sq. ft.
4/29/85
Page 2
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and
standards of the zoning ordinance in that the square footage on site will
exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. standard. With the addition of the cabana, the
impervious coverage on the site will exceed the 35% allowed. The applicant
must reduce the impervious coverage to 35% or obtain a variance.
MATERIALS COLORS: The cabana will be finished to match the residence.
The Design Review Approval for the residence was for a light :grey stucco
structure with wood trim and grey slate roof. A condition of the approval
reads that changes to the elevations shall be submitted for staff review
and approval. The residence is being finished with red brick and has a
light colored shake roof.
A -1084 DESIGN REVIEW
Design Review Approval is required since with the addition of the cabana,,
the total square footage on site will exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. floor area
standard in the R 1 40,000 zoning district. The site is the minimum size
for the district.
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy:
The addition of the cabana on the.: site will not interfere with views or
privacy of the adjacent properties. Windows have been kept to a
minimum and the size of the window and the type of door on the eastern
elevation help minimize potential privacy impacts.
2. Preservation of Natural Landscape:
Minimal grading is required for the cabana since the area is fairly,
level. No trees will be removed.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk:
With the addition of the cabana, the square footage will exceed the
Report to Planning Commission
UP -580, A -1084; Benson, Montalvo Rd.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height:
4/9/85
'Page 3
allowable floor area in the zoning district. The site, being the
minimum size for the district, cannot accomodate additional square
footage. The pitch of the structures (residence and cabana) further
increases the perception of bulk. Staff cannot make the finding.
The square footage on site will exceed the allowable floor area on a
site that is the minimum size for the zoning district. The combination
of the residence and cabana will not be compatible with residences to
the east. Staff cannot make the finding.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards:
The project will incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion
control standards.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Design Review application
to exceed the standard per the Staff Report dated 4/29/85, and Exhibit B.
If the Commission wishes to approve the Design Review, the necessary
findings must be made, and UP -580 must be approved. Staff has recommended
several conditions with the Use Permit if it is approved.
Report to Planning Commission
UP -580, A -1084; Benson, Montalvo Rd.
UP 580
A Use Permit is required since the cabana will be located in the rear yard
setback area. The guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance for accessory
structures in rear yards (Section 3.7.1) specifies a 25 ft. rear yard
setback for accessory structures and a 12 ft. limit in height.
The properties. to the north and northeast are .at a lower elevation than the
subject site. The residence to the northeast is oriented towards the
subject site. It does not appear that the area behind the adjacent
residence. is currently heavily used. The wall will provide screening
between the properties. Staff recommends that the structure maintain a 20
ft. side yard setback since there is adequate space on the site to increase
the side yard setback. The cabana, as proposed, will maintain the 25 ft.
rear yard setback given as a guideline in the Ordinance.
The cabana is designed to match the residence. Staff recommends that the
height of the structure be reduced to the recommended 12 ft. in order to
minimize the appearance of bulk on the site.
FINDINGS UP -580
4/29/85
Page 4
1. Accordance with Zoning Ordinance Ob.iectives
The proposed cabana is consistent with residential uses and structures
The cabana does meet the Zoning Ordinance objectives to allow such
structures and maintain open space and privacy.
2. Public Health. Safety and Welfare
The proposed cabana will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare.
3. Compliance with Ordinance Provisions
The structure has been found to be inconsistent with ordinance
objectives since the on-site square footage with the cabana will be in
excess of the allowable floor area standard.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit for the cabana
per the Staff Report dated 4/29/85, Exhibit "B" subject to the following
conditions:
1. The cabana shall maintain a 20 ft. side yard setback..
2. The height of the structure shall not exceed 12 ft.
3. Total impervious coverage on the site shall not exceed 35% of the site:
Plans showing the reduction in impervious coverage shall be submitted
prior to issuance of a building permit for the cabana.
APPROVED:
LH /dsc
Report to Planning Commission
A -1084, UP -580, Benson, Montalvo Rd.
4. The size of the cabana shall be reduced to 250 sq. ft. (measured
exterior wall to exterior wall).
5. Design Review Approval is required prior to issuance of a building
permit.
P.C. Agenda: 5/8/85
4/29/85
Page 5
Lucille Hise
Planner
USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of WILLIAM AND MARY BENSON for a Use Permit
to allow the construction of an accessory structure in the rear yard
setback area 25 ft. from rear property line at 20433 Montalvo Rd.
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (1 x) (has not) 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 Use Permit
by 6encooxtacMx (denied) subject to the following conditions:
XXXXNNXNVIU 1d XXXWUNJ (the Planning Commission could not make all the
requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to
notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 12th day of June
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners J. Harris, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris
and Peterson
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that QARXX XXN
UP 581 1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO: UP -581
be, and the same is here-
1D 1 r
1985 by the
Chairman, Planning Commission
Secr
Planning Commission
Minutes Meeting 5/8/85
Page 4
GPA 85 -1
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adopt the resolution recommending that the
City Council amend the L.U.4.2 and designate the Fifth Street site as
Retail Commercial, per the Staff Report dated May 2, 1985. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -1, with Commissioner
Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she sees this
change as being the precedent in expanding commercial in the downtown area
site by site, which was not the intention of the people in that area during
the General Plan discussions.
8a. UP -580 Mr. and Mrs. William Benson, Request for Use Permit
8b. A -1084 Approval to construct a cabana in the required rear yard
setback area 25 ft. from the rear property line and 15
ft. from the side property line, and Design Review
Approval to exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor
area standard at 20433 Montalvo Road in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district
The application was explained by Staff. They indicated that they cannot
make the findings and recommend denial of the design review. They stated
that they could make the findings for the use permit and recommend approval
with conditions, such as restricting the height to 12 ft., having the
impervious coverage reduced, and reducing the structure to 250 sq. ft.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the
applicant had indicated he would move the side yard setback to 20 ft. and
the height to 12 ft., but prefers to cut off the roof instead of changing
the pitch. She added that he felt that reducing the size would change the
architectural style of the structure.
The public hearing was opened at 8:11 p.m.
Mr. Benson, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He
submitted a petition from the neighbors in support. He indicated that he
had no problem with reducing the height. Commissioner McGoldrick commented
that she was having a hard time making Finding #3 and asked Mr. Benson to
help make that finding. Mr. Benson stated that from the street level only
6 ft. of the structure would be seen. He commented that the landscaping
will mitigate it even further. He discussed the trees that will be
planted.
Commissioner Peterson commented that, regarding Finding #3, it is not the
bulk of the cabana; it is the fact that we are exceeding 6200 sq. ft.
total square footage on the lot. Mr. Benson commented that the people who
would directly be affected by that do not consider that to be a problem.
He noted that similar situations have existed on Ashley Way and Via Tesoro
Court.
John Scott, View Oak Drive, indicated that he plans to build sometime this
year. He spoke in support of the project, commenting that he was the
neighbor most affected.
Don Call, 14930 Montalvo Road, indicated that he had been President of the
Montalvo Homeowners Association for the past two years and during the time
when there had been a great deal of change in the character of that
neighborhood. He reviewed the projects that had resulted in this change
and spoke in opposition to this project.
Jack Christian, current President of the Montalvo Homeowners Association,
gave the history of the Butler subdivision in this area, and indicated that
Mr. Butler had asked for a variance on this lot and it had been turned down
by the City Council. He commented that they would continue to oppose any
homes over 6200 sq. ft. because of precedent. He submitted a letter from
4
Planning Commission Page 5
Minutes Meeting 5/8/85
UP -580 and A -1084
the MacDonalds, in opposition to this project.
Mrs. Marino, 20553 Montalvo Road, spoke against the project. She stated
that she would like the Commission to establish a precedent of enforcing
the 6200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard for the neighborhood.
Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she feels that in this situation she
sees this as a precedent. Commissioner McGoldrick added that she voted
against the cabana on Via Tesoro and also on the Benson home previously.
She moved to deny A -1084, per the Staff Report dated April 29, 1985 and
Exhibit B. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion.
Commissioner Burger stated that, after visiting the site, she feels from an
eye point of view that the cabana would be an pleasant item to behold on
the lot, especially with the reduction in height and making the side yard
setback 20 ft. However, she stated, after the comments this evening,
she feels that apparently there was quite a bit of discussion about this
and a strong indication made to the neighborhood that the structures would
not exceed 6200 sq. ft. Therefore, for the integrity of that neighborhood
and for the individuals who obviously went through a lot of trouble to
preserve that integrity at 6200 sq. ft., she cannot vote for the cabana.
Commissioner Schaefer added that if this application were for something
considered an essential thing, that had been an oversight that was
necessary for the enjoyment of this home, she might consider it
differently. However, she feels there can be a beautiful backyard
entertainment center without the cabana.
Commissioner Peterson indicated that he had a very difficult time not
approving covering some pool equipment. He explained that he understands
the neighbors' view; however, this is for a small accessory structure,
whose primary function is to cover up some pool equipment. He added that
he does not feel this sets any kind of a precedent.
Commissioners McGoldrick and Schaefer indicated that if the applicant would
like to come in with a structure that simply covers the pool equipment,
they would be happy to vote for it. Commissioner J. Harris commented that
there were no cabanas in her neighborhood, but she does not see any
unsightly pool equipment. Commissioner Peterson commented that his concern
is the noise. Staff clarified that if the applicant were just covering the
pool equipment, the structure would not be considered in the square
footage.
The City Attorney indicated that there should be a motion on the use permit
first. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny UP -580, being unable to make
the finding Compliance with Ordinance Provision, since the on -site square
footage with the cabana will be in excess of the allowable floor area
standard. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-
1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. Commissioner moved to deny A-
1084, per the Staff Report and Exhibit B. Commissioner J. Harris seconded
the motion, which was carried 5 -1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting.
The appeal period was noted.
9. V -666 Amana /Schiro, Request for Variance Approval to allow a
12 ft. corrective retaining wall along the property
lines at 13898 Upper Hill Drive and 13902 Upper Hill
Court in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (to be con-
tinued to May 22, 1985)
It was directed that this matter be continued to May 22, 1985.
5
Planning Commission Page 3
Minutes Meeting 6/12/85
A -1095
J. Harris agreed that she would like to see more relief given to the
bulky appearance from outside and suggested a study session, in order to
allow the applicant to address the Commission's concerns. There was a
consensus that the Commission needs a better feel for where some of the
square footage is and how it could be relieved by some minor
architectural relief.
It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on June
18, 1985 and the regular meeting of June 26, 1985.
Discussion followed on Item #4, A -1097 and SDR -1600, James and Roxanne
Axline.
The public hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that this home in that
neighborhood 7.2 ft. from the side property line is inappropriate
because the houses on that street are very small. She added that the
home is above the amount of allowable square footage because it has two
auxiliary buildings already on the property. Staff submitted
information received from the applicant relative to the location of two
story residences in the area.
Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the
lot and the setbacks.
Glen Bolage, architect, gave a presentation on the project, describing
the other homes in the area and the site. In answer to Commissioner J.
Harris' inquiry, he described the work shop area. He addressed the
square footage, indicating that they could reduce the structure by 148
sq. ft.
Mr. Bolin, 20151 Thelma, referenced the petition he and the neighbors
have submitted in opposition to a two story. He stated that they would
welcome improvement on the site but feel there is room for expansion on
the site without having a two -story building. He noted the two trees on
site which would be impacted.
David Garrett, 13555 Saratoga Vista, expressed opposition to a two -story
because of invasion of his privacy. He added that Mr. Axline's home is
already 4 or 5 ft. higher than his home.
Joyce Laland, 20184 Thelma Avenue, agreed with Messrs. Bolin and
Garrett.
Bill Masline, 20095 Thelma Avenue, stated that he would like to see some
improvement made in that area and asked that the Commission work with
the applicants to build a satisfactory home on this site.
Mr. Bolage stated that the applicant is flexible and would like to
satisfy the neighbors and suggested a study session on the application.
It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on June
18, 1985 and the regular meeting of June 26, 1985. Commissioner J.
Harris asked for clarification of the fact that the applicant's home is
already 4 or 5 ft. higher than that of Mr. Garrett.
Discussion followed on Item #8, UP -581, William and Mary Benson. The
public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Benson, the applicant, referenced his previous application for a
pool house and the current proposal. He submitted a sketch addressing
Staff's concerns in the Staff Report. He explained that they have
eliminated an enclosure for the pool house and do not exceed the 6200
sq. ft.
Planning Commission .Page 4
Minutes Meeting 6/12/85
UP -581
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he feels the roof line is going to
be very visible and will have quite an impact on the Marinos. Mr.
Benson discussed the proposed landscaping and stated that he did not
feel that the Marinos would see the pool house when their landscaping
and that of Camargo Layne go in. He addressed the design of the pool
house, indicating that it was compatible with the rest of their home.
Mr. Benson noted the petition that was signed by the neighbors in
support of the project.
Commissioner Sschaefer commented that the intent of the Accessory
Structure Ordinance is garden type of structures that have a feeling of
decoration to the landscaping, rather than a building kind of concept.
Commissioner Siegfried agreed.
Mr. Benson stated that they have tried very hard to develop a structure
that the City could be proud of and the neighborhood would endorse. He
noted that the opposition by the Commission of the previous structure
had only been that it would set a precedent if he was permitted to have
more than 6200 sq. ft. of building on the site.
Commissioner Peterson agreed with Mr. Benson that the design had not
been discussed previously. He commented that he feels that landscaping
will mitigate seeing the structure.
Mr. Benson indicated that he was also concerned about a precedent that .a
single person in a neighborhood who might be able to see the structure
could direct the decision for the whole neighborhood. Commissioner
Siegfried stated that he did not think that is the point at all. He
commented that in the original discussion about the size of this house,
he thinks the Commission was very specific in saying that the square
footage could be 6175, but they did not want to see other things, as
time goes along, that will increase the perception. He commented that
he thinks the structure is a perception of another 400 sq. ft. of
building. Mr. Benson commented that they had tried to comply with the
spirit of the ordinance, discussions with Staff, and the discussion with
the Commission. He noted that the neighbors have all signed a petition
in support of it.
Commissioner J. Harris noted that the Accessory Structure Ordinance
being considered this evening calls for a maximum height of 10 ft. for
gazebos, and asked him if that height would be satisfactory. Mr. Benson
stated that he would have to check the figures to see what that would do
to the consistency of the structure with the height of the home.
Don Call, the former President of the Montalvo Homeowners Association,
stated that they had not previously commented on the square footage,
because they felt that it was very clear that anything over 6200 sq. ft.
would eliminate the proposal. He discussed the size of the homes in
relationship to the size of the lots in the neighborhood. He indicated
that the proposed project is not compatible with the neighborhood, and
more building should not be allowed on the lot. Chairman Peterson
commented that he feels that the Planning Commission appreciates the
Homeowners' concern relative to the 6200 sq. ft. maximum, because they
denied Mr. Benson's application for a home exceeding that square
footage.
James Marino, 20553 Montalvo Lane, submitted a petition, reaffirming the
position of the neighborhood in asking that the Commission stand by
their vote on May 8, 1985 by denying any additional square footage where
6200 sq. ft. is the allowable maximum.
Bill McDonnell, 15201 Montalvo Road, stated that he had signed that
petition, not in opposition to 6200 sq. ft. as a specific number, but
rather the perception that that represents in terms of the house that is
there, which is very pretty and very large. He added that to expand
that, whether a wall is open or not, increases that massiveness
4
Planning Commission Page 5
Minutes Meeting 6/12/85
UP -581
perception. He noted that there were nine more homes to be built in the
immediate area in the future, therefore, the size of this home is a
concern.
Clare Marino, 20553 Montalvo Road, stated that she is sorry this process
brings about neighbor against neighbor, but she would like to enter into
the minutes that Mr. Benson threatened her this evening, stating that
she better get her house in order because he is out for war.' She
commented that she is not fighting with Mr. Benson but is trying only to
have the ordinances as they stand enforced to everyone in the same way.
She added that all the homeowners wanted from the 6200 sq. ft. cap was
to leave some visual open space. She asked the Commission to renew her
faith in a system of building permits and ordinances that used to
protect the precious quality of life that is so unique to Saratoga.
Winifred Miller, 20560 Montalvo Lane, echoed what the neighbors have
said, that she would like the Commission to protect the neighborhood.
Mary Ann McDonald, 15201 Montalvo Road, spoke to the impact that the
roofs have on the neighborhood. She agreed with the neighbors that they
would like to keep it green and woodsy.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger commented that it was her recollection of the
discussion on May 8, 1985, when the Commission voted for denial, that at
that time she heard the neighbors saying over and over again that they
did not want structures on that site to go over 6200 sq. ft. She
explained that at the time she voted for denial she made it clear that
she thought the cabana was attractive as the proposal was submitted, and
the only reason she voted to deny was that somewhere along the way the
neighbors had received an assurance that structures in the neighborhood,
including accessory structures, would not go over 6200 sq. ft. She
stated that what she sees here this evening is a proposal, with
conditions in the Staff Report, that will not go over 6200 sq. ft.; she
still thinks the cabana is attractive, and she could vote in favor of it
with a reduction of the roof line to 10 ft. Commissioner B. Harris
agreed. Commissioner Siegfried reiterated that he is not opposed to
some cabana or shade or garden structure. He noted, as Commissioner
Schaefer had stated, that the whole concept of accessory structures was
that they were viewed as open garden kinds of structures. He stated
that his problem with this application is that, whether we remove the
walls or not, given this particular roof design, it has a perception of
a building that does increase the impact on the neighborhood.
Therefore, he added, he would vote against this particular design.
Staff clarified to Commissioner J. Harris that the wall that surrounds
the property is now 6 ft. in height. Commissioner J. Harris noted that
even if a 10 ft. gazebo were allowed it would extend 4 ft. above that
wall. She stated that she feels that everybody should have the
privilege of having some kind of gazebo in the back, but she has to
agree with Commissioner Siegfried that this is going to look like
another building. She added that she cannot even go along with the 10
ft. height, because there is so much building on that lot, that the wall
completely encompassing the back yard just increases the perception of
building. She stated that to have the proposed roof accentuates that.
She commented that she thinks if it was some sort of a structure that
had plants on the top, an arbor, she could approve it. However, she
could not approve this design.
Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny UP -581, William and Mary Benson,
per Exhibit "B Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which
resulted in a split vote 3 -3, with Commissioners Peterson, B. Harris and
Burger dissenting. It was noted that the split vote is deemed a denial,
and the appeal period was noted.
RE: POOL HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 20433 MONTALVO ROAD, SARATOGA
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, APPROVE OF THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF
THE POOL HOUSE PROPOSED BY WILLIAM T. AND MARY BENSON.
NAME
LI 7 7.7 41 cfr �f��. -�'c; j
I■--kC
3 (qa.,.."f uA2 J
1 2/-
gS
DATE
m 'j/- oa►-/c ,br
raci [a G 4/lf- to T Q n /t /4.7 ✓4 r i rk I T tNr
A/IZA1 O .2kS
3-6 4 1 1 ,5 'o 7120 -f v„
Ja Lt. J'C GC s- 3 2 r
City Council
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Av.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Dear Council Members:
8 July, 1985
I am writing as president of the Montalvo Mendelson
Homeowners group regarding the appeal before you for a
cabana on the Benson property.
We have argued this cabana twice before the planning
io and_ i t h. a. bee n t_uxn„ed_dawn t w c.e. Mr. B ensen_
is a seasoned contractor and had ample opportunity to
include the cabana in his design review but choose not
to. We believe that his actions are an attempt to circu-
mvent the rules that have been established to insure
orderly development and preservation of neighborhood
atmosphere.
The last four homes built in the Montalvo area have
requested variances and there is another one before the
planning commission this month. The city established the
rules and restrictions which we feel are more than
liberal. The fact that developers continue to exceed
these limits and petition for even looser restrictions
dismays us.
We request that the City Council deny the appeal for
cabana as it will result in a total improvement in
excess of the 6200 square foot limit.
The time has come to either enforce the regulations
established or to admit that they were only adopted to
appease the homeowners at the time.
R ;gards
Jack Christian
r
1�' 1
z
to 0
v)
a sSr leFiffitswAllil
004
I
I t
J