Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1992 City Council Agenda packetPrinted -on recycled paper. Proposal: M E M O R A N D U M UMW cD2 TO: City Council FROM: Susan Riggs, Assistant Planner DATE: March 18, 1992 SUBJECT: V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive (Gardanier) The applicant requested variance approval to allow a garage extension to extend into a required front yard setback and to allow a swimming pool, associated decking, and a 6 ft. tall fence to extend into the required exterior side yard setback. The configuration of the parcel is unique in that the parcel is bordered by the street on three sides of the property thus being defined as a corner parcel. Due to the topography of the parcel and the location of the existing residence, the exterior side yard is the only level yard area and is consequently used as a rear yard. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Background: On February 12, 1992, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the variance request to allow the garage extension to encroach 1 ft. into the required front yard setback. The applicant's requests to allow a pool to encroach 16 ft. and a deck to encroach 26 ft. into the exterior side yard setback were denied. The Commission also denied the variance request to allow a 6 ft. fence to be located at the exterior side yard property line. All three requests were denied in one motion with a 2 -5 vote. In the Planning Commission's discussion of the application, Commissioner Caldwell expressed her concern regarding the intensified use of the yard and its visibility from the street. She also discussed the need for additional landscaping for screening purposes along the fence line. Commissioner Forbes stated that he could support all the variance requests, though the final vote reflects that he voted in favor of the garage and inadvertently voted in opposition to the fence, pool and deck request. In the event that Commissioner Forbes had voted in favor V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive of the fence, pool, and deck, the motion would still have failed on a 3 -4 vote. In the applicant's letter of appeal, they stated that based on the unique configuration of their lot, and the fact that it is a hillside parcel with only a single level yard area to support a pool, the variance request should be reconsidered. They also added that there will be no privacy impact in relation to the adjacent neighbors. Attached is staff's discussion of the project and the revised resolution recommending denial of the application. Staff supported the original application as reflected in the staff report and the original resolution. Respectfully Submitted, s' Susan Riggs, Assi Planner ATTACHMENTS; 1. Adopted Resolution V -92 -001 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/12/92 3. Staff Report dated 2/12/92 4. Applicant's Letter of Appeal 5. Site Plan, Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO.-V -92 -001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gardanier; 21110 Canyon View Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to allow a pool, associated decking, and a 6 ft. tall fence to encroach into the required exterior side yard setback and to allow a garage extension to encroach approximately 1 ft. into the required front yard setback and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that: Garage: Force a larger setback than presently exists on the property. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district in that: Garage: The existing carport presently encroaches into the required front yard setback and the garage extension would follow the existing wall line, of which only a very small portion encroaches into the required front yard. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that: Garage: The degree of the nonconformity is not being in- creased. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: Garage: The garage extension is following an existing wall line and not increasing the degree of nonconformity. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Gardanier for variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated herein by reference. 2. Prior to zone clearance, applicant must relocated the pool so as not to encroach into any required setbacks. 3. Prior to zone clearance, applicant must lower that portion of the deck which encroaches into the exterior side yard to not more than 6 in. above grade, or move the entire deck back so as it does not encroach into any required setbacks. 4. Prior to zone clearance, applicant must delete that portion of the fence which encroaches into the exterior side yard and front yard setbacks or lower the fence to no more than 3 ft. in height. 5. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 6. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 7. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolu- tion or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 12th day of February, 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, FAVERO, MORAN, TUCKER NOES: FORBES ABSENT: none The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date AT Chairperson, Planning Commission lanning Commission Meeting of February 12, 1992 Page Eight Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 12, 1992. He also answered questions of staff. Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 9:30. David Elgart, applicant, spoke in favor of his application and the recommendations outlined in the staff report. He also answered questions of the Commission with regard to the second unit and its use. Richard Rivoir, next door neighbor, supported the application, but expressed parking concerns and stated he was in favor of a condition requiring the occupants of the second unit to park on the property. DURKET/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:33 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. BOGOSIAN /DURKET MOVED TO APPROVE SUP -91 -003 LIMITED TO THE USE PERMIT AND NOT THE DRAWINGS_ INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION AND PER COMMISSIONER TUCKERS SUGGESTION, THAT CONDITION 4, PAGE 109 THE. WORDS "AND NOT BE REPLACED" BE ADDED AFTER THE WORDS "KITCHEN SHALL BE REMOVED Commissioner Favero inquired of the City Attorney if an approval of the application would set a precedent in other areas similarly designated as "Low Density The City Attorney explained that the only direct precedent that would be set would be if an existing second unit with the same circumstances were to seek legalization. The motion passed 7 -0. 5. V -92 -001 Gardanier, 21110 Canyon View Dr., request for variance approval to allow a garage extension to extend into a required front yard setback and to allow a swimming pool, associated decking and a 6 ft. tall fence to extend into the required exterior side yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 22,216 sq. ft. in area and is located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented to the Commission the Report dated February 12, 1992 and answered questions of the Commission. At 9:40 p.m. Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 12, 1992 Page Nine Glen Cahoon, project designer, spoke in favor of the application and the staff report with the exception of staff's inability to make the findings in regard to the pool deck. He stated that there would not be any privacy issues especially since there were no rear neighbors. He also explained that he had explored other options with regard to the location of the pool and deck and because of the constraints of the lot felt that the proposed location was the best. DURKET/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:46 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Tucker stated that she could support the variance for the garage extension, but could not support the variance for the pool and deck. Commissioner Bogosian stated because of the topographical constraints of the lot he could support both of the variances. Commissioner Forbes stated that he could also support both variances and felt that the property owner should be permitted to use and reasonably intensify the use of his yard. Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern regarding the intensified use of the yard and its visibility from the street. She also suggested the use of additional landscaping for screening purposes. Commissioner Durket stated he could support the variance for the garage addition but not the pool and deck variance. Chairperson Moran concurred with Commissioner Durket. Commissioner Caldwell held the same position as the previous two Commissioners. FAVERO /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE V -92 -001 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF APPROVAL FOR THE GARAGE, FENCE, AND POOL, BUT NOT THE DECK. THE MOTION DID NOT PASS 2 -5 (Durket, Forbes, Caldwell, Moran, and Tucker opposed). CALDWELL/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE V -91 -001 PERTAINING ONLY TO THE GARAGE, BUT NOT THE POOL, DECK, AND FENCE. PASSED 6 -1 (Forbes opposed). REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Dr. Applicant /Owner: Gardanier Staff Planner: Susan Riggs Date: 2/12/92 APN: 503 -28 -64 Director Approval: f Oi. C25) L24) f07 2s :s v. Po 1 ry �'L ii sAl 211 se 1es s), 0 64 4 s s 21010 csv MOO amp SO 'ill -tv 21o7o(+1) ca• ts, Vow Cf) 510-s, -vs 210oo( f- 2/ -67 1:12P 21200 01) 503-21-101 21201 C281 uses -21- se ?J d ft. J� 21 200 1•01 1 mos. 'stem 0 Ilee ytssthl W1-4 -if m 20041 1I-sr 20040[ -2f-,r sod's° Cs "Dr 1 4+ 2 114 4 27011, 1 ros -1 8 -14 2 /il 95(1 1•:a •04 21101[4) -lief 214 15 [.1 901-3111- Jibs... Co 200110D m ss J3 11111 81417 tl. rJ 4 4 CAN VI 14, II 40 t fr At 14459 0 01 =t- 74. way- 01w rs as 4b 1 20 505`: 2090, 4os 10 s 1 �N 0 1 N 1. s. 21110 CANYON VIEW DR. File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive CASE HISTORY: ATTACHMENTS: Application filed: 1/20/92 Application complete: 1/22/92 Notice published: 1/29/92 Mailing completed: 1/30/92 Posting completed: 1/23/92 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V -92 -001 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" EXECUTIVE SUM ART PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for variance approval to allow a garage extension to extend into a required front yard setback and to allow a swimming pool, associated decking and a 6 ft. tall fence to extend into the required exterior side yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is located within an R- 1- 40,000 zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolu- tion V -92 -001. File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential PARCEL SIZE: 22,215 s.f. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18% LOT COVERAGE: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: SETBACKS: DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics: Variance Approval: PROPOSAL CODE REOUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 11% (6,653 s.f.) 30% Garage: 704 s.f. 1st Floor: 1,663 s.f. 2nd Floor: 1,080 s.f. TOTAL: 3,447 s.f. 4,206 s.f. Front: 29 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 33 ft. Rear: 33.7 ft. Exterior Side: 2.5 ft. Exterior Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 34 ft. Left Side: 25 ft. The project site is located on Canyon View Drive near the intersec- tion of Sullivan Way. The parcel is bordered by the street on three sides of the property. For all intents and purposes, this lot could be considered a double frontage interior lot. However, based on a literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance, it more closely falls under the definition of corner parcel. The average slope of the property is approximately 18 Due to the topography of the parcel and the location of the existing residence, the exterior side yard is the only level yard area. Therefore, the practical use of this yard area has been that of a rear yard. The exterior side yard is screened by existing hedges measuring 6 ft. and greater in height. Additional fencing and landscaping is proposed which will screen the property from the roadway. Garage Extension: The applicant is requesting variance approval to allow a garage extension of approximately 1 ft. into the required front yard setback. The existing carport and attached shed File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive presently encroach as much as 9 ft. into this setback. The garage extension will follow the existing wall line of the carport while only a 4 -5 ft. long section will encroach into the required setback. The residence is currently nonconforming in terms of parking. The variance request would bring the residence into compliance with current code requirements while not increasing the degree of setback nonconformity. Pool Deck Encroachment: Variance approval is requested to allow a swimming pool to encroach 16 ft. and a deck to encroach 26 ft. into the exterior side yard setback. The zoning ordinance defines this yard area as an exterior side yard; however, its practical use based on the physical configuration of the lot is that of a rear yard. This yard area is the only level area which can accommodate the proposed pool and associated decking. By defining this yard area as an exterior side yard, the applicant is not afforded the typical exceptions to yard requirements allowed by the City Code. These exceptions would allow for the pool to be located 6 ft. from the rear property line and a deck to encroach 4 ft. into the required rear yard setback. Neither the pool nor the deck will be visible to adjacent properties as they are screened by existing landscaping and abut the street. In addition, the 17 ft. wide right -of -way which borders the property provides an addition buffer or setback from the street. Where staff can recommend the findings to support the pool, based on the physical constraints of the property and the fact that for all practical purposes this would be considered the homeowners rear yard, staff is not able to recommend the findings for the deck. The exceptions for yard area requirements contained in the City Code allows for a deck 4 ft. or less in height to encroach 4 ft. into a required rear yard setback. The proposed deck encroaches 26 ft •into the setback. The deck would be allowed without a variance if it were lowered to no more than 6 in. above the natural grade. Although the deck would not be visible and would not raise privacy concerns, staff feels that there are several design alternatives which would negate the need for a variance. Fence: A 17 ft. wide road right -of -way runs along the exterior side yard and front yard of the subject property. Currently the majority of the right -of -way is landscaped with a tall hedge and several trees. However, there is approximately a 60 ft. long portion of this right -of -way which is adjacent to the exterior side yard that is unenclosed. The applicant proposes to construct a 6 ft. tall redwood fence where a 3 ft. fence is allowed. Section 16- 75 .010 (b), of the City's Building Code, requires the pool to be completely enclosed by a fence of not less than 5 ft. in height. The fence is proposed in the right -of -way and would then extend in towards the residence. This would provide the needed privacy for the rear yard as well as address the related safety concerns associated with the pool. The applicant is proposing to screen the RESOLUTION NO. V -92 -001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gardanier; 21110 Canyon View Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to allow a pool, associated decking, and a 6 ft. tall fence to encroach into the required exterior side yard setback and to allow a garage extension to encroach approximately 1 ft. into the required front yard setback and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that: Garage: Force a larger setback than presently exists on the property. Pool Exterior Side Yard Fence: The zoning ordinance defines this yard area as an exterior side yard when its practical use, based on the physical configuration of the lot, is a rear yard. Based on the literal interpretation of yard area, the applicant is not afforded the typical exceptions to yard requirements which would allow for a pool to be located 6 ft. from a rear property line and a 6 ft. tall fence within the required rear yard setback. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district in that: Garage: The existing carport presently encroaches into the required front yard setback and the garage extension would follow the existing wall line, of which only a very small portion encroaches into the required front yard. Pool Exterior Side Yard Fence: Based on the natural topography of the lot, the exterior side yard is the only level area to accommodate a rear yard and provide for a pool. For all intent and purposes, this yard area would be consid- ered a rear yard in which case a 6 ft. tall fence would be allowed. File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive exterior of the fence with drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover. According to the City's Engineering Department, the City has no future plans to improve this right -of -way. Mr. Dorsey, City Traffic Technician, has reviewed the plans and will grant an encroachment permit for a 6 ft. tall fence provided the variance for height is approved. He has also made the determination that the fence will not create a sight distance problem. Based on the above, staff recommends the Planning Commission make the finding to approve the variance request for the garage, pool, and 6 ft. tall fence and deny the variance request for the deck encroachment. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution V -92 -001. File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that: Garage: The degree of the nonconformity is not being in- creased. Pool Exterior Side Yard Fence: The physical constraints of the parcel are such that to consider the yard area as any thing other than a rear yard would limit practical enjoyment of the parcel. Both a pool and a 6 ft. tall fence are allowed in a rear yard. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: Garage: The garage extension is following an existing wall line and not increasing the degree of nonconformity. Pool Exterior Side Yard Fence: The pool proposal will not be visible or have a negative effect on the adjacent proper- ties. The small section of 6 ft. tall fence is necessary for safety reasons if a pool is to be allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Gardanier for variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated herein by reference. 2. Prior to zone clearance, applicant must lower that portion of the deck which encroaches into the exterior side yard to not more than 6 in. above grade, or move the entire deck back so as it does not encroach more than 4 ft. into the required exterior side yard setback. 3. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 4. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall acquire an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department to allow the proposed 6 ft. tall fence to encroach into the road right of -way. 410 File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive 5. All landscaping shall be of native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the City's xeriscape guidelines 6. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 7. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolu- tion or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 12th day of February, 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson, Planning Commission File No. V -92 -001; 21110 Canyon View Drive ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 21110 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 March 8, 1992 Subject: Appeal of V 92 001; 21110 Canyon View Drive Dear Council Members: This appeal is to request that the City Council accept the original recommendation for variance made by the planning staff of the City of Saratoga and reject the variance as rewritten by the Planning Commission. It is my belief that the Planning Commission failed to take all of the factors into careful consideration when evaluating my variance request. Listed below are the factors which I believe warrant an approval of the original variance request. 1. Three sides of the property are bordered by Canyon View Drive and the only adjoining neighbors are on the western side of my property. (To my knowledge, this makes my lot very unique.) Consequently, there will be no impact on the privacy of the adjacent neighbors by having the pool extend into the southern setback. 2. Being a hillside parcel, the only portion of the lot that is level enough to support a pool is the southern portion of the lot. (Because of the way the house is located on the lot, the south end of the lot should be classified as the backyard but because Canyon View Drive wraps the property, the southern and eastern sides of the lot have been classified as "side yards" and have the associated larger setbacks.) 3. The topography of the lot (i.e. a hillside lot) is such that the northern portion of the lot is below the grade of Canyon View Drive and the southern portion of the lot is considerably above the grade of Canyon View Drive. Thus the pool will not be visible from Canyon View Drive or Sullivan Way. 4. There is a 17 foot wide right -of -way that separates the street (i.e. Canyon View Drive) from the property line and provides an additional buffer /setback from the street. Consequently, this I believe reduces the importance or need for such a large side yard setback. 5. In order to have the pool in the direct sunlight for the maximum amount of time, it needs to be located approximately equal distant between the east and west boundaries of the lot and close proximity to the southern boundary. This is necessary due to the tall trees and hill on the western side that would block the late afternoon sun if the pool is located too close to the western boundary. During the Planning Commission's review of the variance application, 3 of the 7 Planning Commissioners expressed support for accepting the recommendations of the planning staff. I respectfully request that the City Council approve the variance, as recommended by the planning staff, to allow a pool, associated decking, and a 6 foot tall fence to encroach into the required exterior side yard setback and to allow a garage extension to encroach into the front yard setback. If you have any questions relating to this letter or the requested appeal, please feel free to contact me at either (415) 962 -3518 or (408) 741 -5615. Sincerely, Paul Gardanier (property owner) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 ,-I MEETING DATE: March 18, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Pierce Road Bridge at Sarahills Drive CIP 953: Approval of Design Engineering Agreement Recommended Approve a Engineering agreement. Action: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM )1 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Engineering Design Engineering Agreement with Mesiti Miller for $27,625 and authorize staff to execute the Discussion: As authorized at your previous meeting, staff has negotiated the attached agreement with Mesiti Miller Engineering for design engineering services associated with the replacement of the Pierce Road bridge. The agreement is comprehensive and takes into account alignment and utility problems associated with the existing bridge as well as an effort to explore utilizing some of the structural steel previously purchased for the abandoned bridge widening project and recently taken possession of by the City. Because Mesiti Miller Engineering has already performed some preliminary engineering work on the bridge replacement, they are well positioned to proceed into a design development phase rather soon. Assuming the Council approves the attached agreement, I would estimate that construction drawings and specifications can be ready for advertisement within two to three months. Fiscal Impacts: Total compensation for Design Engineering services is proposed to be a not to exceed amount of $27,625 exclusive of reimbursable expenses, geotechnical engineering and topographic surveying. Assuming a construction cost of $300,000, this represents design fees of approximately 9.2 Industry standards for design fees for a project of this size can be expected to range from 10% 12 I estimate that the geotechnical and surveying work can be performed for approximately $7,000 using the City's Geotechnical and Surveying consultants who are already under contract and who could rapidly produce the topographic and materials data which the design engineer needs to complete his work. Total design fees therefore would be approximately $34,625. The adopted FY 91 -92 budget contains $35,000 in Capital Project No. 953 for design expenses. Attachments: 1. Proposal from Miller Engineering dated March 11, 1992 with attachments. Motion Vote: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Fiscal Impacts: $3,000 Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL two at Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale /Scotland one at Fruitvale and Allendale one at Cox Avenue and Darien one at Quito and Pollard one at Saratoga Avenue at Sacred Heart School AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 18, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager C K SUBJECT: Request from Public Safety Commission to Approve Funding of Additional Crossing Guard Position Recommended Motion: Authorize Additional Crossing Guard Position and Approve Appropriation Resolution in the Amount of $3,000. Report Summary: For several years the City has had an agreement with the Saratoga Union School District and the Campbell Union School District to reimburse them for costs for crossing guards at authorized locations. This year the Saratoga School District was able to recruit and hire more guards than in previous years, which has resulted in an anticipated overexpenditure of the amount budgeted for salaries and benefits. Sacred Heart School has also found a guard for the crosswalk on Saratoga Avenue in front of the school, and has contacted the Public Safety Commission to request funding for the guard. Adding this position will result in six authorized positions at the following locations: $16,850 was budgeted for 91/92 for crossing guard salaries and equipment. Since a shortfall is anticipated by the end of the fiscal year, a supplemental appropriation of $3,000 is requested to cover the shortfall and the cost of the additional guard. Attachments: Appropriation Resolution Authorizing Additional Crossing Guard Position Printed on recycled paper. Recommended Motion: Ft1 C ©2 'a 'no. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Rermoyan, Assistant Planner DATE: March 18, 1992 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission denial to construct a six (6) foot high fence within required front and exterior side yard setbacks (V -91 -014) Applicant /Appellant: Persico Location: 14761 Bohlman Rd. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the variance request. Project Description and Background: The subject application involved two requests. The first was a proposal to construct a 138 sq. ft. bedroom addition which involved the extension of an existing, non conforming setback. All variance findings were made and the Commission voted unanimously to approve this portion of the request. The second part was a proposal to erect a six (6) foot high fence within required front and exterior side yard setbacks where three (3) feet is permitted. The Commission voted unanimously to deny this portion of the request. The Planning Commission determined that the variance findings were not present to approve the construction of a fence as submitted. The fundamental concern expressed by the Commission involved the possibility of creating a traffic hazard and the granting of special privilege. Staff's review indicated that a traffic hazard would not be created based on the conclusion of a line -of -site study. However, the proposed fence height and location would be inconsistent with the City Code requirements and objectives articulated in the variance ordinance. File No. V -91 -014; 14761 Bohlman Road Issues of the Appeal: The rationale for the applicant's proposal was to eliminate some of the noise generated by the traffic on Bohlman Road and to provide privacy within the rear yard area. The applicant asserts that the slope of the parcel will make a code conforming fence ineffective because the height of the fence would be only three (3) .feet above the roadway, at 25 feet from the property line. Staff, however, has provided an alternative fence location which would not necessitate a variance. Staff's review indicates that the combination of the existing vegetation, a code conforming six (6) foot high fence, and the existing topography will serve as a sufficient barrier to minimize noise and privacy concerns. Pictures of an existing six (6) foot high fence on the parcel serves as a reference point for the alternative fence location which staff recommends. These photographs will be available at the hearing. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution V -91 -014 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 1/22/92 3. Staff Report 4. Appeal letter 5. Exhibit "A Site Plan 6. Exhibit "C line -of -site diagram 7. Correspondence RESOLUTION NO. V -91 -014 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14761 Bohlman Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for variance approval to extend an existing nonconforming building line within the front yard setback of a 13,400 square foot parcel. The request also involves variance approval to erect a 6 foot high fence within the front and exterior side yard setbacks where 3 feet is required, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public he- aring at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application request for an extension of an existing nonconforming building line, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that the property is a corner parcel in which the existing residence was constructed in close proximity to the property line. Upon the City's incorporation in 1956, new zoning regulations created a nonconforming front yard setback. Therefore, the existing setbacks makes additions to the residence more difficult than other properties within the same zoning district. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that previous requests for extensions of nonconforming building lines have been considered to not constitute a grant of special privilege. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support his said application request to construct a 6 foot high fence within the front and exterior side yard setback where 3 feet is required, and the Planning Commission makes the following finding: (a) The granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that the alternative fence design, indicated in Exhibit "B can mitigate all of the applicants concerns without the need of a variance. File No. V -91 -014: 14761 Bohlman Road NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Persico for variance approval to construct a 6 foot high fence within the front and exterior side yard setback is hereby denied and the request for variance approval to extend an existing nonconforming building line be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. Exterior materials shall be vertical wood siding painted red and composition shake roofing to match. existing. 5. Any portion of a structure located under the dripline of a tree shall pier and grade beam foundation with the beam poured at original grade. 6. Prior to issuance of zone clearance, 6' chain link or welded wire mesh protective fencing shall be placed around the Oak tree's dripline, located at the northeast corner of the lot. 7. All construction fences shall remain in tact and in place until construction is fully complete and contractors are gone from the scene. 8. Any future landscaping shall emphasis native and drought tolerant species consistent with the City's xeriscape guidelines. 9. Applicant agrees to hold harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall_ be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. File No. V -91 -014; 14761 Bohlman Road Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of January, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: DURKET, FORBES, MORAN, TUCKER NOES: none ABSENT: CALDWELL, FAVERO Signature of Applicant ATTES The foregoing conditions are hereby ac.-pted. rson, Planning Commission Date ABSTAIN: BOGOSIAN ecretary, ry, Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 22, 1992 Page Six Commissioner Tucker asked that Condition 1 be amended to read "The sign shall be located and constructed per stated changes in Exhibit A..." and Condition 3, a phrase should be incorporated to include continual monitoring of the lighting by Planning staff. BOGOSIAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE UP -550.2 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: CONDITION 1 SHOULD READ "...AND CONSTRUCTED PER CHANGES STATED IN EXHIBIT A... CONDITION 3 A PHRASE TO INCLUDE STAFF'S CONTINUAL MONITORING OF THE ILLUMINATION OF THE SIGN; CONDITION 4 TO STATE ALLOWABLE HOURS OF THE SIGN LIGHTING; CONDITION 6 ADDITION OF "...AND THE CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN SIGN AND CABINET WIDTH FROM 10 FEET TO 8.4 FEET. AND SECTION (d) OF RESOLUTION UP -550.2 "INTERNAL" SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE WORD "EXTERNAL Passed 4 -1 (Commissioner Forbes opposed) 7. V 91 014 Persico; 14761 Bohlman Road, request for variance approval to extend an existing non conforming building line within the front yard setback of a 13,400 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves the construction of a 6 ft. high fence within the exterior street side yard setbacks where a 3 ft. high fence is permitted. The property is located within the R -1- 10,000 zone district (cont. from 1/8/92; application expires 5/8/92). Commissioner Bogosian excused himself from this item and stepped down from the dais. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated January 8, 1992, to the Commission. Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Ray Persico, applicant, explained to the Planning Commission that extending building lines would improve the appearance of the building. He also requested, because of his lot's slope and in order to provide adequate screening, that a 6 -foot fence be allowed to encroach on the front and exterior street side yard setback. FORBES/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 P.M. Passed 4 -0. Commissioner Durket stated he could support approval of both the addition and the fence. DURKET MOVED APPROVAL OF V -91 -0014 WITH AMENDMENTS TO THE FINDINGS TO INCORPORATE THE FENCE. The motion died for lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 22, 1992 Page Seven Commissioner Tucker stated she could support approval of the addition, but she could not make the findings to support approval of the fence. TUCKER/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE V -91 -014 IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION BUT NOT THE FENCE. Commissioner Forbes stated he also could not make the findings to support approval of the fence and added that the fence may possibly pose a traffic hazard. Commissioner Durket questioned staff as to whether they had concerns regarding traffic visibility problems as a result of the proposed fence. Planner Walgren explained that staff had taken the traffic safety issue into consideration, but after investigation staff was convinced that there would not be a traffic visibility problem. Commissioner Durket asked Commissioner Forbes if staff's reply had changed his mind about prohibiting the proposed fence. Commission Forbes maintained his position and stated he still believed that the fence may be a traffic safety hazard. Chairperson Moran restated the motion for approval of V -91 -014 as per the staff report dated January 8, 1991. Commission Forbes clarified that the motion for approval was for the addition, not the fence. The motion carried 4 -0. (Commissioner Bogosian abstained). Commission Bogosian rejoined the Commission at the dais. 8. SM 91 008 McCormick, et al; Tollgate Rd. /Quail Ridge Ct. and Deersprings Ct., request for site modification approval to allow the neighborhood residents to construct and maintain a private entrance gate within the McBain and Gibbs subdivision /NHR zone district. This application is being made at the discretion of the Planning Director for Planning Commission review and approval. Planner Walgren presented to the Commission the Report dated January 22, 1992. The public hearing was opened as 8:25 p.m. 7.0840 Zoi70 7 -7 -28 24 15Z10 2067 1317 -12 14724 517.12.-05 2ob3 51712 OA 2o(04 517.12 206 30 si7•1f- 10 20 62c r,1 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: V -91 -014; 14761 Bohlman Road Applicant /Owner: Ray Persico Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: January 8, 1992 APN: 517-07-023 Director Approval: /S` ti 517 517 /2 -01 PERSICO; 14761 BOHLMAN ROAD (A 2 0 5/7- CASE HISTORY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DISCUSSION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 9/17/91 Application complete: 11/17/91 Notice published: 12/25/91 Mailing completed: 12/26/91 Posting completed: 12/19/91 Request for variance approval to extend an existing nonconforming building line within the front yard setback of a 13,400 square foot parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the front and exterior street side yard setback where 3 feet is permitted. The property is located within the R -1- 10,000 zone district. The property is a corner parcel fronting Bohlman Road and Sixth Street. The residence was constructed prior to the City's incorporation in 1956, and it's current setbacks reflect the standards of that time. Staff's analysis suggests that an extension of an already nonconforming setback will not constitute a grant of special privilege since the addition does not increase the nonconformity. Further, extensions of nonconforming setbacks have previously been found to not constitute a grant of special privilege. The second part of the request involves constructing a fence within required setbacks due to privacy and noise impacts. Staff, however, is not able to recommend the necessary findings to support the fencing as proposed. Approve the request to extend an existing non conforming setback and deny the request to construct a 6 foot high fence within the front and exterior side yard setbacks by adopting Resolution UP- 91 -010. 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V -91 -014 3. Exhibit "B Alternative Fence Location 4. Exhibit "A Plans File No. V -91 -014; 14761 Bohlman Road ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M -10) PARCEL SIZE: 13,400 s.f. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6% GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Vertical wood siding painted red, composition shake roofing to match existing, and redwood fencing. PROPOSAL CODE REOUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 30% (4,051 s.f.) 60% HEIGHT: 14.5 ft. 26 ft. HOUSE WIDTH: 46 ft. N/A HOUSE DEPTH: 71 ft. N/A SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Residence: 1,900 s.f. Det. Gar.: 540 s TOTAL: 2,440 s.f. SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Exterior Side: Interior Side: DISCUSSION: 15 ft. 10 ft. 37 ft. 10 ft. STAFF ANALYSIS 3,880 s.f. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 10 ft. Exterior Side: 25 ft. Interior Side: 10 ft. The applicants property is a 13,400 square foot corner parcel fronting Bohlman Road and Sixth Street. Currently on site is a 1,675 square foot residence and a 540 square foot detached garage. The residence and detached garage are considered nonconforming in that their front yard setbacks are less than required. Surrounding uses are single family residential with the Madronia Cemetery located to the south of the applicant's parcel. The R -1- 10,000 zone district exists to the north and east while the R -1- 40,000 zone district exists to the south and west. Although the applicant's File No. V -91 -014; 14761 Bohlman Road property is considered a conforming parcel, the majority of parcels within the adjacent R -1- 10,000 zone district have nonconforming lot dimensions accompanied by other nonconforming situations. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to construct a 138 square foot bedroom addition approximately 15 feet from the front property line where 25 feet is required. The addition will merely be a 12 foot extension of an existing nonconforming setback. Staff can support this portion of the request because approving extensions of nonconforming building lines have been considered, in previous cases, to not constitute a grant of special privilege. Further, the addition will not increase an already nonconforming situation. The proposed addition will be approximately 16 feet from an ordinance size Oak tree located on the northeast corner of the parcel. Due to the addition's distance from this tree, standard tree preservation conditions have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. The second request involves obtaining a variance permit to erect a 6 foot high fence approximately 5 feet from the exterior side yard property line and approximately 16 feet from the front property line. The rationale for this proposal is to provide a screening device to mitigate noise and privacy impacts associated with traffic along Bohlman Road and Sixth Street. Staff, however, feels a 6 foot high fence could be constructed without the need for a variance as indicated on Exhibit "B This alternative will help mitigate noise and privacy impacts, it will still allow a rear yard area, and it will comply with all zoning standards. Staff, therefore, feels that approval of the proposed variance for fencing will constitute a grant of special privilege. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to extend an existing nonconforming setback and deny the request to construct a 6 foot high fence within the front and exterior side yard setbacks. Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED MAR 0 9 1992 PLANNING DEPT. RE: Appeal for variance V 91 -014, 14761 Bohlman Rd, Saratoga. March 18, 1992 Public Hearing Ray Persico Sue Kalman 14761 Bohlman Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Background: We live on the corner of 6th st. and Bohlman Rd. and we are appealing the planning commission's denial of our request to allow a 6 ft. fence within the 25 foot setbacks for corner lots. Traffic moves very quickly around the corner from 6th St. onto Bohlman and the right -turn lane is on the edge of our property. There is no shoulder or sidewalk area. After several near accidents while pulling of our driveway, we moved our driveway from Bohlman Rd. to 6th St. We received permits from the Building and Public Works Dept. to do so. On Bohlman Rd. in front of our house there is a dirt island between us and the Madronia cemetery which is used as a parking lot and as an equipment /material storage site by contractors that work up Bohlman Rd. Attached are two photographs that show these activities. Our only yard area faces Bohlman Rd. We would like to build a fence to screen off Bohlman Rd. and the cemetery to provide privacy. We are raising a family (we have a 4 month -old baby) and as a family, we need a yard with privacy for kids to play in, and for family activities. Analysis: The Planning Dept. staff recommended against the fence variance, stating there Is room on our property to place it 25 ft. back from the property line. Our lot slopes away from Bohlman Rd. and at 25 ft. back, our property is 3 ft. to 4 ft. below the roadway making a fence ineffective for screening road noise and providing privacy. Attached are drawings showing a perspective of the proposed fence and a cross section illustrating the differences in elevations. The perspective drawing shows the fence as proposed 5 ft. off Bohlman (PL), 15 ft. off 60 (PL), and a diagonal section across the corner. This placement of the fence was reviewed by the Saratoga Engineering Dept. The proposed location is per their recommendations, and poses no traffic visibility problems. The cross section shows the slope of our lot in relation to Bohlman Rd, approximately 50 ft. south of 6th St. As the section shows, at 25 ft. back from the property line, our lot 1s 3.9 ft. below the road. A 6 ft. fence at this location is only 2.1 ft. above the road, which would provide no screening or privacy. At 5 ft. back from the property line, our lot is 1.2 ft. below the roadway. A 6 ft. fence would be 4.8 ft. above the road, providing screening and privacy for our patio and yard area. Conclusion: We feel there is a hardship, that qualifies for a fence variance for the following reasons. 1. Traffic in the lane on the edge of property looks down on our property and creates noise. 2. The dirt island is frequently filled with trucks and equipment which Is noisy, invades our privacy, and is something residential areas should not have to put up with on a regular basis. 3. On Bohlman Rd. we face the Madronia cemetery and no residential homes. 4. Our yard and patio area is in front of our house and fronts Bohlman Rd. 5. The slope of our lot makes a fence at 25 ft. from the property line ineffective in providing screening and privacy. 6. The fence as proposed will not create public safety or traffic visibility problems. 7. We are starting a family and need a yard with privacy. The proposed fence will provide that privacy. We hope that Council agrees with our position and approves the fence location as proposed. If council agrees with our findings but wishes to place the fence farther back than 5 ft. from Bohlman Rd, we are open to the Council's recommendations. Respectfully Submitted, Ray ersico Sue Kalman .C.-----, 5,4__e_46.e/ LOOrC1NG F201s4 OA 7 -r i4 p5 Co *2- c24 aid DlaT l31_A-LG Fieo 4T(A G O (E D1!2T lSL�ls(� H U4a 1 16 c)14LM,M �,C rtfzslco 1 c •3IDGNcE 14761 f',or+t.MAN R.4 ✓Pf(i -TOGA G,d 1 7A4i s ',a �� lol.o Oo 00 EL I EL 97. i Its i C,ZYm f w Date Received: 2/40/ Hearing Date: ttt t 1 f /ss, 0 t Fee: Receipt No. 2 2-3'1 APPEAL APPLICATION n Name of Appellant: /C d 2 Address: Al �O �J (J Lj bnan W- Telephone: 1 7 d 7 73 2- 3 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: p-9/-/e--/ /4'76 664 4-r4:147 Decision Being Appealed: 7G /?di a/ a c'e- O v (3) Ice ,'/4 h e 5 i i, 7 Z 5 1 Se 7 ,6 Qr,k- rd-ecf Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): a 7 2 ,act /e >A 3 a idv CsUa 4t4t/a, an /k a7 Serge e`r r-, o a y et4 4W aka /4� 7 t� 4 4' Pa 7 Cry e a�c� y icv� y4 G.a *Appella 's Signature *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. FROM:CSJ- NEIGHBORHOOD MAINT. TO: ...1 Be 4 irY 1 q. i';4:pol-i, k-vr c 2. j r,; 07 -►c e' g /q7'/ 4c10 1 /4 id sr, .2 5 i ff Oil/ p rs9 54- /7 eta -4-" y 1 ez4t/e are 4087411132 FEB 12, 1992 11 :51AM P.01 3 i;�4 i,, /4I �..�a.J> ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE $988 EDITIONS OF THE UBC, UMC, UPC, UFC AND WITH THE 19E17 NEC. SCALE: 10 ccior RESIPELci A.P.W. go 1-01- SO APPEEK, 141(.1 0014-11A1.1 12.f f•Rs•• UK: rIOHARY NEVI:MUGS IMMO S2 FT Sinn: si17. WPM .4.,' 122.• ADICO 1610.0 11110 3,11 SO •••••i cur. 4 1.fr 0.1 1%44. PICiuu R-I MP.* FRI•1 4•Twar ft MAU MICE C U. AsiOc ilgr SaU JOSE q5120 .1•,) q air vog 1••••••••Il 4 X arm. LAJ OnolloOo .44_ P111 ■."16'"" IA O —10 y�. 113f T4 �F ' .' `1 �•" 5 (ti) mob' �IM a�Y tz� .. �� ^. C"9 rpm \ 1 r � •1. I 1 - a r w FLI CA V1RT'FIOIJT �® FOR A VARIANCE AI]T3iNATiVE , A i6) M. `'J. Riot-; N i r� � I � JNk APPLICANTS REQUEST - *t (0 OAK 4. �rlyrll.l G /`� NNI'� � 'I I 00 � , . ' rRdO V IBO\\\0 EXHIBIT 8 FACE OF CURB 50' NOTE; No fence's, shrubs or other visual obstructions exceeding 3 feet in height in this oreo SIGHT DI STANCE ACROSS STREET CORNER 1 Ne o cr- cN 0 PL EXHIBIT 0 n o Ir! 0 -n. c 73 (0 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 20630 Lomita Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 March 16, 1992 Ladies and Gentlemen: RE: Persico appeal, V91 -014, agenda item 8A As a neighbor, I would urge you to overturn the Planning Commission decision which denied the applicant a variance to construct a 6' fence. I was unable to vote on this item as a Planning Commissioner. however, if any lot can satisfy the variance findings, this one certainly qualifies. The lot is clearly constrained by the path of Bohlman Rd., and to deny the fence would deny the applicant reasonable use of the front and side yards.