HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2008 Supplemental Council AgendaL(Y7-t-Le
J
h10/(-(7 nC7 t34
��s 93
0/-rs
2 /0/17
(frks
0_ve g;
December 7, 2008
City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Public Hearing PDR 07-
P
j21
0008 -18605
It has taken this long to respond to your surprising decision regarding the Brennan
remodel because, as a group, we were, quite frankly, shocked by your decision, and
hope you will respond to us regarding the same. The planning commission took two
formal votes on the proposed remodel between May and September of 2008. Both
votes rejected the Brennans plan 6 -to-1 and 4 -to -3. The audacity the Council showed
in overturning this six months of the Planning Commission's work is stunning.
After investing 6 months of our time in researching and submitting hard data to the
Planning Commission and City Council, the Council failed to address a single one of our
concerns regarding the Design Review findings when you handed down your decision.
Specifically, you failed to address:
1. Our fact sheet regarding comparable bulk in relation to other properties in the
neighborhood.
2. The fact that the average house height in the Lyons Court/Aspesi Drive
neighborhood is 14 to 15 feet, making the Brennans proposed remodel 50%
higher.
3. The objection to the proposed remodel by all of the immediately adjacent
neighbors as well as 5 of the 6 neighbors on Lyons Court.
4. The opposition to the remodel by 60% of the neighbors within 500 feet. Only
10% came out in support of the Brennans.
5. The letters by neighbors reporting that the Brennans had falsified their petition
results submitted to the City starting in May of 2008, as well as the Brennans on-
going harassment of neighbors.
Moreover, Manny Cappello, in his role as representative of the Planning Commission,
neglected his duties to support the findings of the commission, and instead represented
his personal opinion. Mr. Cappello, for reasons unknown to us, has been wholly
supportive of the Brennan's remodel to a degree that exceeds any support he has
shown in previous 2 story additions put before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cappello
was the one who proposed the now famous "straw vote" at the Planning Commission
study session in August over the objection of some of the other Commission Members.
Mr. Cappello's bias in this matter was evident in his reporting of this "straw vote" to the
Council. He reported that all but one of the Commission members were present and
indicated support for the Brennans "Scheme 4" design. This is false. One or two of the
members were absent, and Mr. Kundtz arrived late. Mr. Kundtz did not participate in the
site visit, and therefore abstained from the vote until he could see the latest story poles.
He specifically requested the story poles be erected with mesh at 18 feet as well as at
the advertised (and disputed) height of 21' -9 Indeed, it was in large part this 18 foot
versus 21 foot 9 inch visual comparison that ultimately resulted in the Commissions final
vote of 4 -to -3 against the Brennans.
Your vote was inconsistent with previous appeals to the Commission. Specifically, in the
case of the March 5, 2008 appeal council meeting regarding the project on River Ranch
Circle, you sent the project back to the Commission for further work. This house had a
smaller bulk ratio and sat in a much more secluded area than in the Lyons Court case.
Indeed, in that case, Councilwoman King went into great detail about how she must
respect the decision and expertise of the Planning Commission after they spent a great
deal of time providing input on the design. She continued by saying that "the Planning
Commission knows a lot more about planning than 1 do" (March 5, 2008 City Council
video time stamp 1:51:50).
Prior to the meeting, we stated our objections to Mr. Livingstone that the Brennans were
being allowed to submit new drawings to the Council that the Commission had not
reviewed. Mr. Livingstone assured us that the Council was abundantly qualified to
perform the Planning function. However, not one of the Council members addressed the
Design Review Findings that are critical to that Planning process. Moreover, Ms. King's
comments above clearly show that the Council, by their own admission, does not have
the experience necessary to review an entirely new plan.
Throughout the process, the neighbors were asked if we had sought a single story
overlay for our neighborhood. This is a red herring, since the overlay would not apply to
the project currently under consideration. The real issue is that an overlay would make
the Council's life easier by saving them from having to make difficult decisions.
Unfortunately, we feel the real reason the Brennan remodel was approved is that the
applicants promised to sue the City if their project was not approved. It was obvious to
everyone that the Applicants would not drop the project. Council Members alluded to
that fact that a lawsuit was threatened during the site visit. Several other Saratoga
residents had warned us that this was going to be the case. The Council reinforced that
feeling when they refused to send the project back to the Planning Commission and
instead insisted on approving the Brennan's project on the spot. Why would the present
City Council not entrust the decision to the duly elected new Council that was to be
seated in a few weeks? Perhaps they couldn't count on the newly elected Council
Members to be pragmatic enough to vote to avoid a lawsuit.
We anxiously await your response on this matter. We strongly feel we deserve an
explanation as to how the Council arrived at its decision, particularly given the dramatic
discrepancy in their approach to this project as compared to other recent projects in the
City.
Regards,
Deirdre Dunnion
Camille Luckadoo
Mary Costanza
Steve Allen
Jennifer Allen
Bemice Keeble
Ned Nederostek
/4"Pvt.7151/4
/4/7 gt
poa -m at7
AVe 4,/(9„,, ez_c
04-1,t,c/
/9"5e
w oteM 4,0
1631 C-
1J'zr. 41,E
06//eAr4't4- °V4944"eaet'
i4etAi cAir(-)-1/4t 4tce fla4„
A >4: f -(4-elertr/e gLvvec, 1 ,1(
ct_ /4/ h he/i4oty4clw.
t1 tV7 c2044(cx) 1/11/, e
_Z' Cam, ovd d 217,,
sv Geiglo./ff
/s
December 7, 2008
Mr. Dave Anderson
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Anderson,
174
DEC
ct
I am writing to you to express my concerns, and the concerns of many of my neighbors,
to the handling of the Application for a second story addition by Sheila and Tom Brennan
(PDR 07- 0008 18605). The residents of Lyons Court and Aspesi Drive feel strongly that
the case was not handled properly by the City of Saratoga.
During the recent Appeal to the City Council of the Brennan Remodel, the City violated
its own procedures on several occasions. Specifically, the City is obligated to schedule
the appeal within 30 days of the Brennan's filing. The appeal was filed on October 9
The City violated 15- 90.070 (a) by failing to schedule the meeting prior to November 10,
2008.
Upon receipt of the notice of appeal and payment of the filing fee, or upon an
appeal being initiated by members of the City Council, the City Clerk shall
schedule the matter for hearing at the next available regular meeting of the City
Council to be held within thirty days after the date on which the notice of appeal
is filed. The City Clerk shall give notice of the date, time and place of the hearing
to the appellant, and to the applicant if other than the appellant, not less than ten
days prior to the hearing, unless such notice is waived by the party entitled to
receive the same. If a public hearing is conducted on the appeal, notice shall be
given in accordance with Section 65091 of the Govemment Code, except that
such notice shall be mailed or delivered to all persons shown on the latest
available assessment roll as owning any real property within five hundred feet of
the real property that is the subject of the hearing."
There are no allowances in the code for continuances or for the appellant to revise their
drawings. Had the situation been reversed, we wouldn't have been allowed to present
new data. Yet the Brennans were granted an extension and allowed to submit an
entirely new plan that the Planning Commission had not seen.
Furthermore, the City failed to provide to the public all information submitted to the City
by the Brennans. Specifically, several references were made to a DVD that the
Brennan's submitted to the Council prior to the November 19 meeting. No such DVD
was made available to the opponents or the public at large. Indeed, when I went to the
City on November 12 to see if the Brennans had submitted new drawings, I was first
told that I'd have to wait a week until Contract Planner Heather Bradley returned from
vacation. After being bounced back and forth from the Planning Desk to the City Clerk,
and insisting on seeing whatever was submitted, only then were the latest plans shown
to me.
During the City Council Meeting, Contract Planner Heather Bradley reported that the
latest plan submitted by the Brennans had undergone and passed a cursory staff
review. Since Ms. Bradley had not even seen the plans until the morning of the Council
meeting due to her vacation schedule, this review must have been cursory indeed. The
fact that the Council approved a set of plans that had not passed the same scrutiny that
any "standard" application must pass is ridiculous. The message been sent by the City
is that if you are persistent enough, the City will eventually just approve a project to
satisfy a pesky applicant.
It is my opinion, as well as that of numerous Saratoga residents within and beyond the
immediate Aspesi Drive neighborhood that the Planning Staff, including Ms. Bradley and
Mr. Livingstone, had become personally invested in the success of the Brennans
application, thus allowing their professional judgment to be clouded. Ms. Bradley and
Commissioner Cappello acted more like advocates for the Brennans than arbiters of the
City Code.
On more than one occasion, conversations with your Building Department staff
regarding code interpretation for setbacks, non conforming structures and the like
indicated that the Building Department disagreed with the Planning Departments
interpretation of the Brennan application. Eventually, the Building Department staff was
admonished by their superiors to "stay out of it
Attempts by the neighbors to get information in order to understand the Planning
Commission process and the City Council appeals process were virtually stonewalled by
City Staff. The Brennans were continuously coached by Ms. Bradley on how to negotiate
each upcoming step of the process, which arguments to use, etc. In contrast, the
opponents in this process were given only the briefest of answers on procedural
questions, and were provided no advice on how best to present our case. As
taxpayers, we should have been afforded equal access to the process that the
applicants were given.
I encourage you to investigate the handling of the aforementioned application. Having
spent a career in the construction industry, and dealing with Building and Planning
officials throughout the Bay Area on a regular basis, I am deeply concerned with the
manner in which this application was handled, and with how the City interacted with
neighborhood residents.
I look forward to your response on this matter.
ards,
ami a Luckadoo
18575 Aspesi Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
City Clerk
From: Kathleen [saratogakc @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 4:38 PM
To: Christopher Riordan; sbogosian @aol.com; aa; Ann Waltonsmith; Chuck Page; City Clerk; Jill
Hunter; k
Subject: City HISTORICAL COMMISSION: 3 items +Meeting time Change to 7pm;
Chris,
Three items:
Other reasons:
THE CITY should focus on Public Access, and Public participation!
I want the city to think of the residents that they are working for.
11/24/2008
Page 1 of 2
1. City Council Meeting last Wednesday:
There was not a representative on the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) at the City Council
meeting, regarding an HPC issue, of the Saratoga Heritage Orchard, please make a note of that in the
next meeting minutes, again the responsibilities of the HPC were overlooked. You were not there, nor
the commissioners to add to the meeting on agenda item 13, or give answers.
2. At the end of the City Council, They were talking about the Heritage Orchard oak tree. They said,
that the HPC had to vote on the City council taking the Heritage Orchard one more time because the
Orchard is a register landmark. Three residents of Saratoga went to the West Valley College Board
meeting last Wednesday, we were promised that they would think of an alternative Oak tree, and not use
the Heritage Oak Orchard Tree.
Please discuss this with the President of West Valley College, PHILIP HARTLEY before the next HPC
VOTE. As suggested by the City Council this tree is an Historical landmark, and truly is an asset
protected under the historical registration of the Orchard, where the HPC needs to vote. I do want to
suggest the vote of NO for the removal of the tree and for it's future. Saratoga residents are making note
of the STOP organization's original intent of the Heritage Orchard. The STOP organization were the
primary organizers of the orchard.
3. Meeting time changes for 2009:
For the New Year, I would like the HPC commission to change their meeting time, and meet the
general rule of all commissions, especially of the Saratoga Historical Preservation Commission which
needs more residential support.
This HPC commission should be meeting at 7pm.
I don't buy the excuse below for NO CHANGE in MEETING TIMES, because of what the commission needs, all
the other city commissions are meeting after 5pm.
Public office workers can come -in -to -work at a later time, (that is part of their very expensive salary package) and
spend time with their families in the mornings, which can be done on meeting days. (which, I think is already
happening)
How about the hardship for the public -the Saratoga- residents that work in the Bay area, there are many more
people in the community that could observe ALL the commission meetings of Saratoga.
Working full time in the tech world, I would get out of work at 5pm and have to commute in full -on- traffic to be at
the Saratoga commission meetings. It has been difficult to get any long -time Saratogans into the commissions,
when there have been openings for months. My estimate on how many people work that 9 to 5pm schedule is
about 90% of the working public, have those hours
The number one reason for residents not applying is many of the commissions have bad hours.
This has been the problem for over three years, trying to get other long -time Saratogans to join commissions in
the political commission programs at SARATOGA, and I know some very good candidates that would be useful to
maintaining the qualities of Saratoga.
There have been no on -line video reports for several commissions, and no minutes. Most minutes of the meetings
on most of all the commission, commitees and task force meetings have not been piublished in a timely manner,
there especially seems not to be any timely published decisions before any historical houses have been
demolished.
LINGO USED:
Please ask the City Council to change the meeting time of the HPC in their next meeting, to match all other
commissions to a format after 5pm, 6pm, or 7pm preferred, with two hour maxium meeting time length to
be designated. Time to be equal to taking an evening college course schedule, this is do -able for the civic
workers, and the public.
Kathleen Casey
11/24/2008
Page 2 of 2
Also, I resent the lingo used on the television and in other meetings, though Jill Hunter has been a champion to
curb acronyms in City council meetings. I do know they are used constantly in other meetings.
The procedure is in typing meeting minutes is the job of the meetings secretary, is to type the full description for
the abreviation, and then use the abbreviation, example such as: Saratoga Historical Foundation (SHF).
There is a whole host of problems that I want changed soon, and I have been sitting back just been documenting
them. I am ready to go to the State, and discuss this soon regarding Historical Preservation, they need to attent
several classes before they are qualified to demolish any future homes over 50 years the house on St. Charles is
a complete embrassassment to the HPC you are managing.
4. PUBLIC ACCESS has been a problem for over three years, and is the only answer to good government and
solving public unrest. Any Saratoga resident can see the unrest in the City Council meetings in the last 5 years,
and I see elder residents ashamed of the HPC.
City Clerk
From: Camille and David [Luckadoo @comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:41 PM
To: Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Chuck Page; Kathleen King; Jill Hunter
Cc: Dave Anderson; City Clerk; fishkidsmail @yahoo.com
Subject: Brennan Remodel Copy of Letter from Sal Cricchio
Attachments: Letter to Council from Sal Cricchio.tif
Dear Council Members
Please find attached a copy of the letter from Sal Cricchio of 18556 Aspesi Drive and mailed to the City last week.
I inadvertently left a copy Sal's letter out of the package of documents distributed during today's walk through.
Please accept my apologies for the omission.
If you should need copies of any of the other materials submitted today, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best Regards,
Camille Luckadoo
18575 Aspesi Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
11/18/2008
Page 1 of 1
November 11, 2008
Dear Council Members,
City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Re. Public Hearing PI)R 07- 00084060 5
My name is Sal Criccbio. 1 live at 18556 .Aspesi Drive in Saratoga, 1 wan to go on
record that I am neutr rl in proposed rea:nodel at 18605 Lyons Court. That has been
tuy position since the beginning.
it was brought to nay attention recently by my neighbors that, on several occasions,
my name has been included a list of people who support the remodel proposal at
1(1605 1_.yons Court. This is else. Over a year ago, I was approached by Sheila
Brennan to sign a document regarding th.e remodel whereby 1 could check ,a
different box if I agreed or disagreed with their 20 story remodel plans. Since I
chose to remain neutral, I did not check either box. '1'o zMk.nowledge receipt; of the
form, I filled out the bottom, portion with my name, address and signature,
The foram bearing my signature has since been modified with an X" in the box
indicating approval, as well as the words "supports pr-ojerl'' written below, 'l'lic
writing is clearly not Mine. Please disregard any attempt to use niy name in support
of this project
Sincerely,
Sal Cri,chio
185 56.A.spesi Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
City Clerk
From: Cindy Brozicevic [cindy@innerhousedesign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:50 PM
To: Heather Bradley; City Clerk; sheilabrennan @sbcglobal.net
Subject: Brennan Residence City Council Letter
Attachments: Brennan Residence Council Letter.pdf
Ms. Sullivan,
Can you please forward the attached letter the the City Council members? I
understand Heather Bradley is on vacation until tomorrow, and I wanted the
Council members to get this in time for the hearing tomorrow. I would greatly
appreciate it! Thanks very much.
Best Regards,
Cindy Brozicevic
Innerhouse Design
Tel /Fax: 408.868.9475
11/18/2008
Page 1 of 1
November 18, 2008
Ms. Heather Bradley
Contract Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
R Q S I D Q N T I A L
RE: Brennan Residence: 18605 Lyons Court, Saratoga, CA
Dear Heather:
It has come to my attention through mutual friends that the Brennan Residence is
now before the City Council. As I understand it, this project was before the
Planning Commission in May 2008, and was continued by the Commissioners.
The Homeowner then worked with the staff and Commissioners to resolve issues
that were concerning the neighbors via three separate study sessions. The result
of these study sessions was the recommendation to bring the project back to the
Commission for another hearing and vote. It is reasonable to assume that the
homeowner would not have brought the project back for a hearing if they received
negative feedback during the 3 study sessions. I can only assume that both the
commissioners and homeowner were expecting to approve the project, and that
the homeowner had met the requests of the Commission, as that is the intent of
the study sessions.
Although I have not been involved with the design of this project, I feel this is an
important opportunity to express my thoughts on the process. As a designer who
has worked with the City for nearly 10 years, I am very familiar with the process of
moving projects through the planning department. During the past 2 months, my
work has been approved by the Planning Commission twice. I have also been
involved in controversial projects, most recently the successful construction of a 2
story home on the corner of Oak Street and Komina Avenue, across the street from
Oak Street School.
As a professional who frequently works in the City of Saratoga, it is very difficult to
explain to clients that even though the project can be a high quality design, two
story additions are far more difficult to obtain approval. I clearly understand that the
City has the best intentions to maintain privacy and address the concerns of the
neighbors, but this often results in poorly designed single story homes, rather than
attractive, thoughtfully designed two story homes. The process for getting approval
for a 2 story home is much more rigorous, which gives the Planning Commission
and Staff the opportunity to scrutinize designs, and ideally make them stronger.
It is understood that within the City of Saratoga, where the zoning code allows for
two stories, the neighbors within a 500 foot radius have a lot of influence over
whether the project would get approved. In many instances, the neighbors'
opinions seem to carry more weight than the zoning designation itself. In fact, it is
generally the case that the loudest voices are those in opposition to the project,
rather than the larger consensus of neighbors who are supportive proposed
designs.
It is my goal to provide beautiful designs which add to the character of Saratoga, as
well as meet my clients' needs. It is my job to guide my clients through the
planning process, and it is a challenge to explain to clients that they may not be
able to have what the zoning code allows. In addition, it is difficult to explain that
single story homes (under 6000 s.f.) are not as scrutinized as two story homes, so
that the quality of design is often not as high.
When homeowners decide to pursue study sessions with the City, it costs them
both valuable time and money. The Commissioners are also volunteering their
time, all with the common goal of finding a compromise that will best fit into the
neighborhood, and meet the needs of both the homeowner and the neighbors. If
homeowners follow this process, and achieve a compromise, only to be denied,
then the question becomes, is there any two story design that could be approved?
By denying this project, it sets a precedent for the rest of the neighborhood, that
there is an unwritten rule that two story homes will not be approved. That is in stark
contrast to the zoning code which allows 2 story construction. The question is
simple, "why
We are fortunate to be a part of a community where people care about their
homes and can design them in ways to meet their own very personal needs.
These changes reflect the character of the community, and should be looked at as
opportunities to improve the quality of life in this city. Much of the opposition to two
story homes is because they may influence views and privacy. On the positive
side, they can also be very beautiful, full of character, and have smaller footprints,
which has far less impact on our environment. Please help the others like me who
are interested in providing high quality design, a way to navigate through the
planning process, that will be less stressful, and more productive to the residents of
Saratoga. With these common goals in mind, it is possible to unite the community
around good design, rather than divide these neighborhoods along the lines of 1
story and 2 story homes.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Brozicevic
Designer
BAY AREA OFFICE: 12229 Goleta Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Tel /Fax: 408.868.9475
SIERRA OFFICE: 15101 Georgia Way Grass Valley, CA 95949 Tel /Fax: 530.271 .5787
Email: cindy @innerhousedesign.com
2
November 11, 2008
City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Public Hearing PDR 07 0008 18605
Dear Council Members,
RECEIVED
NOV 17 2008
CITY OF ARATOGA
My name is Sal Cricchio. I live at 18556 Aspesi Drive in Saratoga. I want to go on
record that I am neutral in proposed remodel at 18605 Lyons Court. That has been
my position since the beginning.
It was brought to my attention recently by my neighbors that, on several occasions,
my name has been included a list of people who support the remodel proposal at
18605 Lyons Court. This is false. Over a year ago, I was approached by Sheila
Brennan to sign a document regarding the remodel whereby I could check a
different box if I agreed or disagreed with their 2nd story remodel plans. Since I
chose to remain neutral, I did not check either box. To acknowledge receipt of the
form, I filled out the bottom portion with my name, address and signature.
The form bearing my signature has since been modified with an "X" in the box
indicating approval, as well as the words "supports project" written below. The
writing is clearly not mine. Please disregard any attempt to use my name in support
of this project.
Sincerely,
4,1,4„
Sal Cricchio
1855 Aspesi Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Neighbor Notification Template for
Development Applications
Date: Gt t gcb /0 7
PROJECT ADDRESS: SSW) o C S c r«
Applicant Name: "T c>,-1-\ S}- h�
Application Number. P D 1 O i ()QC" aj
The Saratoga. Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to
address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of
the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look
favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by
applicants prior to the public hearing. Staiand the Planning Commission prefer that
neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly
to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all
residents residing on your properhy. Irrespective oldie opinion expressed below, you
may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the
City q f Saratoga.
i<My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion
with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please
attach additional sheets if necessary):
Neighbor Name: 54 C
Neighbor Address:
gCCG Asp- -sif dc'
Signature:
Neighbor Phone 1°5 q 2' V F
Printed:
City v f Saratoga
Planning Department
List of Neighbors and Their Position Regarding the Project.
Summers
Urrnz ,r'.:
atis
Moon
Pakdel .c:...r,
Foley
18829.
18608iAseEiel
13689 Ouito ;Rd
13701: Quito
18553
18848 ASpesitt:
1 8570:Aspesi Dr'
18581: Li/One Coati
18741 _AspeSidr•'
18529
18682 Aspesi Dr::
18542:Asesi.D
13633 Riverdale Ct
18600 Aspesi Dr
18789 Dr
18696 I Dr.
18737 Dr
Martin
Peeks'
Culp
Liddrard
Brown
18764 I Dr
18781 Dr
Herman
Luckenbihl
Ballard
13 631Rhierdale 'Dr:
18630iAspesl'Gt-
18634' Ct
187 17:Mettier
18725 Mettler.(;t
1$626
18713 Metter Ct
f Ct
18593 L Ct
18587 C
Signed
notice.
in
support
Neutral Signed
petition
against
Rescinded
name on
petition
Accepted
certified
letter
Refused
certified
letter
returned
Sheila met
personally
to explain
plans
Neighbor
1 Nate:Mien
Sala
Welke
Sadhu
Address
18514.ASpesi Dr.
13841 Ct-
13551 La'.Paz?;;
1y,.. I,Dr.::,'
In Support
Neutral
No Response
Opposed
26
2
16
14
Sent
letter in
response to
petition
Total 58
Did not Notified
pick up letter of
certified 2story
letter@ plans
PO 10/12/07
X
City Clerk
From: Camille and David [Luckadoo @comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:42 AM
To: Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Chuck Page; Kathleen King; Jill Hunter
Cc: Dave Anderson; City Clerk; fishkidsmail @yahoo.com
Subject: Brennan Remodel View from Bernice Keeble's Back Yard
Attachments: View from back yard of Bernice Keeble Residence.pdf
Dear Council Members
Please find attached a side -by -side comparison of the view from Bernice's back yard. The photo is the current
view (note the Brennan's story poles) and the copy on the right is a depiction of their latest "Scheme 5" design
reflected on the 11/10/08. The story poles were used to define critical points on the new roof line.
If you should need copies of any of the other materials submitted, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best Regards,
Camille Luckadoo
18575 Aspesi Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Cell 408.640.8146
11/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
View from back yard of Bernice Keeble Residence "Before"
View from back yard of Bernice Keeble Residence "After
11/10 Design"
November 18, 2008
City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Public Hearing PDR 07- 0008 -18605
Dear City Council Members,
We continue to oppose the latest proposed remodel plan presented by the Brennans. The
latest design is merely a reshash of plans previously floated to the Planning Commission.
Unfortunately, this offering is even more aesthetically unappealing. In an attempt to address
some of the Planning Commission's issues with the design rejected on October 8 the
Brennans have simply chopped away elements of their previous design instead of taking a more
wholistic, integrated approach. The result is mutilated design that does not improve on any of
the critical findings of the planning commission.
Indeed, by making the structure taller, we believe they have made the proposed structure even
more bulky than before. Comparing the previous design's 21 foot 11 inch height to the
maximum single story height of 18 feet, Commissioner Kundtz asked "what possible difference
could 3 foot 11 make. Well, 3 foot 11 has a dramatic impact And now the Brennans have
increased the height further still. The present design raises the roof line to 22 feet 3 inches. If
3 foot 11 makes a dramatic difference, then 4 foot 3 is even worse.
The latest design does nothing to improve the impact upon the neighbors' views and privacy.
The sightlines into our backyard are no longer obstructed by the Brennans' trees, regardless of
the season. In addition, the balconies are even more apparent.
The latest design is continues to dwarf the surrounding homes. The side profiles of the home,
with the blunt front facade, have grown in scale. The overall height of the home has grown, no
longer fitting into the "story- and -a -half" category that two of the Planning Commissioners were
so keen on. While the Brennans have eliminated the 43 foot ridge line, they have replaced it
with a higher 30 foot ridgeline with a much more dominant front view.
For each design presented throughout this drawn out process, we have highlighted inaccuracies
and code conflicts in the designs presented. At first, the Brennans claimed their lot was larger
than it was. The original petition indicated that the lot size was 8,408 square feet. At the
October 8 Planning Commission meeting, the lot size was reduced to 8,150 square feet. This
change took place only after Mr. Allen and I questioned the accuracy of the previous
submissions. At the time, our questions were dismissed as being uninformed. The fact that
the lot size has been reduced on the two most recent sets of plans suggests otherwise.
Then the Brennans offered designs that did not meet the requirements for setbacks and non-
conforming structures. Each time, our concerns were dismissed as uniformed, and yet the
subsequent design was adjusted in these areas. We pointed out that the "Scheme 4" design,
rejected by the planning commission on October 8, could not be build within the height
limitations promised by the Brennans. Again, we were told we didn't understand construction.
Curiously, the latest design, with a flatter roof than before, is still several inches taller than their
promised "Scheme 4" height.
With this latest design, we are again forced to point out the non- costructability of part of the
structure. The north elevation the side seen from the Aliens house shows a shed roof above
the kitchen window extending from the back of the garage to the back of the house. This
overhang is approximately 5 feet wide and extends about 30 feet to the back of the house,
and yet no support posts are shown! While this could simply be another oversight on the part
of the Brennans architect, we have seen far too many "oversights" to be believed. The reason
for this omission is clear. The necessary support posts would be located within the required 7
foot setback, and therefore would be disallowed. It is easier to show no support columns
whatsoever, and then add them during construction.
The Brennan's story poles should add to your suspicion about the openness and accuracy of
their application. Instead of providing the standard orange netting to outline the volume of the
proposed addition, they cleverly opted for a green netting to define the ridgeline. This
approach masks the bulk of the proposed addition since the material used blends into the
surroundings. Unfortunately, the real addition, with its composition roof, will not so easily
blend into the skyline. We ask that you please not be fooled by the theatrical games being
played by the applicant.
The most important comparison of bulk is the comparison to the houses immediately
surrounding the applicants. By increasing the roof height to 22 feet 3 inches, the Brennan's
house will tower more than 6 feet higher than that of either Mrs. Keeble or the Allen's. Their
home will be 36% taller than their neighbors. Coupled with the small lot size, their proposed
remodel will not be of comparable bulk to neighboring homes. It will be an elephant on the
block.
Section 15- 45.030 of the City of Saratoga Design Review Standards states that, for lot sizes
5,000 sq. ft to 10,000 sq. feet in size, the square footage of the house shall be limited to 2,400
square plus 160 square feet for each 1,000 square feet of lot size over 5,000 square feet. The
lots sizes shall be rounded up to the nearest thousand, therefore allowing a maximum of 3,040
square feet. The code goes on to state that these are maximum floor areas that may be
reduced by the Planning Commission in order to make the findings described in Section 15-
45.080 of the Standards. We feel that such a reduction is warranted for the following reasons:
The maximum is artificially high in relation to neighboring homes due to the provision
that allows lot sizes to be rounded up for calculation purposes. In this case, the lot size
was rounded up from 8150 to 9000 square feet, and increase of more than 10 The
Brennan's lot, in the lower 14% in size in the neighborhood, has the same maximum
allowable square footage as a lot of 9,000 square feet. With these smaller Tots, it is
incumbent upon the Commission to consider reducing the allowable floor area in order
to keep the structure in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. While the rounding
calculation may have negligible effect on larger lots and the perceived bulk of the house,
it creates a large disparity when applied to smaller lots.
In an effort to quantify the bulk of a house, the ratio of house to lot size was compared
for all houses in the Aspesi Drive neighborhood (Figure 1). The neighborhood average is
25 By this measure, the proposed Brennan remodel will create the bulkiest house in
the neighborhood with a ratio of 37 The only house in the neighborhood with a
comparable ratio is 18881 Aspesi Drive, with a 36% ratio. However, this house is a
single story with basement, so it is fair to assume that at least 1/3 of its "bulk" is below
grade. Therefore, its visible bulk is only 24 The next bulkiest house is located at
18612 Aspesi Drive and is a single story residence on the third smallest lot in the
neighborhood. Clearly, the proposed Brennan remodel would increase the size of the
house beyond the scale and proportions of the surrounding neighborhood.
The Brennans' lot is among the smallest 14% of lots in the neighborhood. Moreover, its
location on one court that backs onto another court is unique in this neighborhood. An
oversized house in this location has an adverse affect on many more neighbors than is typical.
However, allowing a 2 -story house on their lot in no way compares to those already built on
Aspesi Drive and adjoining courts.
0 There are a total of 95 residences in this area (Figure 2), 9 (9.5 of which are 2 -story
and 4 (4.2 of which are split level houses (defined as those whereby the lower level is
partially below grade).
0 Of the 2 story houses, 7 back onto Wildcat Creek, thereby significantly reducing the
impact on neighbors (many of these lots also slope down and away from the street,
drastically reducing the profile of the home) (Figure 3).
0 One split level house backs onto the creek.
0 1 of the 2 -story homes abuts the train tracks, also minimizing the number of affected
neighbors.
The existing 13 two -story and split level homes have an average of 3 immediate neighbors. In
contrast, the Brennans' property is surrounded by 5 other homes and overlooks at least one
other back yard. Unlike any of the other 2 story houses, the Brennans' second story will be
visible from far beyond the immediate neighbors —for example, it will be seen from all of the
homes on Metier Court and also from as far away as near the intersection of Quito Road and
Souza Lane on the north side of Highway 85! This situation is unparalleled in the neighborhood.
No other 2 -story houses in the neighborhood have such a negative impact on so many
neighbors.
Looking a little closer to home, the bulk of a second story addition would dwarf the surrounding
houses. There are no 2 -story structures in the immediate area. Commissioner Nagpal
summed it up the best by saying the root cause of the problem in approving any of the
proposed designs was their lot size. By their own admission, the Brennans have one of the
smaller lots in the neighborhood, but they are attempting to build one of the larger and more
dominating houses. Simply put, this house will be out of scale with the rest of the
neighborhood. Their proposed remodel in this neighborhood is incongruous with its
surroundings and should be rejected.
Please support the October 8 Planning Commission decisions and reject this appeal. Failure to
do so will inflict a permanent scar on this neighborhood that has otherwise managed to age
gracefully over the past 50 years.
Lastly, we'd like to thank the City Council for their service to our community. We appreciate
the time you've invested in listening to our concerns.
Camille David Luckadoo
18575 Aspesi Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
a
Q
0
0
v-
Aspesi Drive Neighborhood
Bulk of 2 -Story Split -Level Houses
Figure 1
Bulk (ratio of house size to lot size)
Address
Stories
Lot
Size
Backs
Onto Creek
Backs
Onto
Tracks
of
Adjacent
Lots
18600 Aspesi Drive
2
20,037
Yes
No
4
18646 Aspesi Court
Split Level
9,020
Yes
No
2
18729 Metter Court
2
16,988
No
Yes
2
13630 Ferncrest Court
2
13,625
Yes
No
2
13641 Ferncrest Court
2
11,556
Yes
No
2
18764 Aspesi Drive
Split Level
10,200
No
No
3
13641 Springhill Court
2
13,200
Yes
No
3
13621 Springhill Court
2
10,070
No
No
4
18796 Aspesi Drive
Split Level
10,200
No
No
3
18820 Aspesi Drive
Split Level
11,250
No
No
3
13646 Riverdale Court
2
11,088
Yes
No
1
13645 Riverdale Drive
2
10,500
Yes
No
1
13615 Riverdale Drive
2
10,560
Yes
No
3
Aspesi Drive Neighborhood
2 -Story Split Level Comparison
Figure 3
Average
12,184
3
18605 Lyons Court (Proposed)
2
8,150
No
No
5
Policy 4
TECHNIQUE #t Locate structure to minimize view blockage
DO'S
ioieci- ifexe view -ram
-n2 nicer Uvvin meta
1I one
TAAA.+1.1 vt6
DON'T'S
bo wok b1.6Lk view
mod. u, stf e
Grp trieu)
2S
Policy 5
TECHNIQUE light, air and solar access to adjacent homes
October 6, 2008
Steve Allen
18599 Lyons Ct
Saratoga, CA 95070
Steve,
A Akeena
Solar
Based on the SunEye findings, an electronic device for measuring shading factors,
the second floor remodeling of your next door neighbor house will exceed an
additional 10% shading factor of your home. The remodel will also take away
from kW production of your Photo Voltaic system.
Regards,
Peter Koiwai
Design Consultant
Name
Address
Si nature
IrANWAI
Mfr ROC
I g -t-1- c ').t
f
9 I ��"1� i It Arai
p�- may' �1 e
'41 li ISI P,l: r2, 1
dLl
?�r
s
116—‘,5" sy.
1 /te• Z(./c.741
/4s'7.S" D' 4`Z cS�
r
at-
4. ktt 1
10 r' 5pe5.i t r.
6
1 E /60_
5 Ly ors Cr
September 23, 2008
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Petition Against the Approval of the Proposed Remodel at 18605 Lyons Court,
Saratoga, CA (Application PDR07 -0008)
We the undersigned do hereby respectfully request that the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission reject the proposed 2nd story addition at 18605 Lyons Court for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed "Scheme 4" design unreasonably diminishes the privacy and views of the
surrounding neighbors.
2. The proposed design is excessively bulky in relation to adjacent Tots and structures.
3. The proposed design, being 40% higher than typical homes in the area, and 21% higher
than any other home in the immediate vicinity, is grossly incompatible in bulk and height
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Signatures collected by c --ev€
Page of Z
Name
Address
Signature
2.6-81 066
tgc84 NsV0-
CtMPS 0(i
►SSG46 stes n1L
5-�„>r 1 S
Cc i- �-Co
AU f
C
I Q'7( M #-tQ.- r
er
"-�C Urro
r
t-C1∎0 ifFe -C- E
A
T u
3Q
U C
1 160 CAneiv,p4V,
1 O4
8
s 0
cA
\lc. c,,,,
1 i
September 23, 2008
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Petition Against the Approval of the Proposed Remodel at 18605 Lyons Court,
Saratoga, CA (Application PDR07 -0008)
We the undersigned do hereby respectfully request that the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission reject the proposed 2nd story addition at 18605 Lyons Court for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed "Scheme 4" design unreasonably diminishes the privacy and views of the
surrounding neighbors.
2. The proposed design is excessively bulky in relation to adjacent lots and structures.
3. The proposed design, being 40% higher than typical homes in the area, and 21 higher
than any other home in the immediate vicinity, is grossly incompatible in bulk and height
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Signatures collected by Si U&
Page of
September 23, 2008
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Petition Against the Approval of the Proposed Remodel at 18605 Lyons Court,
Saratoga, CA (Application PDR07 -0008)
We the undersigned do hereby respectfully request that the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission reject the proposed 2" story addition at 18605 Lyons Court for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed "Scheme 4° design unreasonably diminishes the privacy and views of the
surrounding neighbors.
2. The proposed design is excessively bulky in relation to adjacent lots and structures.
3. The proposed design, being 40% higher than typical homes in the area, and 21 higher
than any other home in the immediate vicinity, is grossly incompatible in bulk and height
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Address Signature
Signatures collected by: 14 3 i /)4 f
Page of
Name
Address
Signature
FRS N1< kik x
JOY I
-h
c.Atz CA-(zDo
/yA1:25V-751-
C, d G•
✓/l c gi& c /i/e a
/77/7 /1S,P,s! ,4
An67
11.7)49 45PES i itg' J
+i
7 i4¢04N
54 E__ 44K ole
6)7o y4sPEs I A
.4 a. 4 ,/640-72
Ifs i er
/ri ?7
x
�eL
Ay y
/8c'7er
l J f 7 h/ 8si ?A
v
4.
I R 6 -s"" /i-i'r.-( 4
_AL, ,-I,-
September 23, 2008
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Petition Against the Approval of the Proposed Remodel at 18605 Lyons Court,
Saratoga, CA (Application PDR07 -0008)
We the undersigned do hereby respectfully request that the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission reject the proposed 2" story addition at 18605 Lyons Court for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed "Scheme 4" design unreasonably diminishes the privacy and views of the
surrounding neighbors.
2. The proposed design is excessively bulky in relation to adjacent lots and structures.
3. The proposed design, being 40% higher than typical homes in the area, and 21% higher
than any other home in the immediate vicinity, is grossly incompatible in bulk and height
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Signatures collected by:
Page of
oppose
1.0 1'0 ,.ml
DRIVE
ant
R, os. S33 /ad
•CA
4'
1 T•,
N
Cn
CC ff
0 f-; I y4
bZ v 1 1�
N o C c 17\ w k u
$O
43 G
pp•• U a
KO
.V V^ y L t ro E
Subject: 18605 Lyons Court
APN: 389 -25 -012
ASPESI
PM 452•M
it f.4
uur
AIL MI
jt 1=
a
l: k -t ::i
1'I T' tC.
T: AR LflG H •'t• W 'rte 1 0.4/o••,
.S1.41‘. M .rfn r.cn •b uTtc t AI
a�.o i ossac cs.c.
•t' „,,,,,:c:...,..4.
I t '!:,..1...r.„:„.
V C Sl= `.._�o.'�• as
!,z' 1b a onvrc
1 N 6 f r 1 iCVMD.
e, ate.
7r,-"• cr q in 41 tC� 4 1 j l ij:i 1 ni 41 1 1 I ea f 1 1 1 4 t 4 0
itt L. n ••A. P eR s .r. TaacT Ii fT WAY 0 .l� 11_,,
la
pJ/1- �(i NT T R UN.3
a Tf O PEA£I,D .w�. t. �T i,,.�•
a..
77
S p A EI
rr
I I I- I, r
1"°
1 8 c,,pr 1a g ti i3 ki I •s
1 It I 1" I .,e ,t.!
4 1 1
j It I c ,t TP. rc. s
lo,
L1' 0. 6T 1T 1.' rc�
VI 11 17 17i
;4 i1
G
a
0
7.
Y
45
1 11
If! 11
f1 �l.
IG L
A of
b \1 a' nIn
w s q-
7! 1 S C. (S'(.
500' Radius
Aspesi Drive Neighborhood Addresses Within 500' Radius
Survey area 54 homes
Address
Street
OPPOSE IN SUPPORT
NEUTRAL VACANT
18514
Aspesi Drive
X
18515
Aspesi Drive
X
X
18520
Aspesi Drive
18528
Aspesi Drive
X
18529
Aspesi Drive
18541
Aspesi Drive
X
18542
Aspesi Drive
X
18553
Aspesi Drive
18556
Aspesi Drive
X
18565
Aspesi Drive
X
18570
Aspesi Drive
X
18575
Aspesi Drive
X
18581
Lyons Court
X
18587
Lyons Court
X
18593
Lyons Court
X
18599
Lyons Court
X
18605 Lyons Court
18611
Lyons Court
X
18584
Aspesi Drive
X
18598
Aspesi Drive
18600
Aspesi Drive
18608
Aspesi Drive
13701
Quito Drive
X
13689
Quito Drive
13687
Quito Drive
13692
Quito Drive
18612
Aspesi Drive
X
18626
Aspesi Drive
X
18639
Aspesi Drive
X
18630
Aspesi Court
18634
Aspesi Court
18640
Aspesi Court
X
18646
Aspesi Court
X
18650
Aspesi Drive
X
18654
Aspesi Court
X
18665
Aspesi Drive
X
18682
Aspesi Drive
X
18696
Aspesi Drive
X
18697
Aspesi Drive
X
18701
Metier Court
X
18705
Metier Court
X
18709
Metier Court
X
18713
Metter Court
X
18717
Metier Court
X
Survey of 2 -Story and Split Level Homes in Neighborhood of 18605 Lyons Court, Saratoga CA
FIGURE 2
Total Homes in Neighborhood: 95
Total 2 -Story Homes: 9
Total Split -Level Homes: 4
0 2 -story Homes on RR Tracks: 0 2 -story Homes On Wildcat Creek:
13615 Riverdale Dr.
13645 Riverdale Dr.
13646 Riverdale Ct.
13641 Springhill Ct.
0 Other 2 Story Homes 13641 Ferncrest Ct
13621 Springhill Court 13630 Ferncrest Ct
18600 Aspesi Drive
18729 Mettler
0 Split level Homes on Wildcat Creek:
18646 Aspesi Court
0 Other Split Level Homes
18820 Aspesi Drive
18796 Aspesi Drive
18764 Aspesi Drive
Aspesi Drive Neighborhood Addresses Within 500' Radius
Survey area 54 homes
Address
Street
OPPOSE
IN SUPPORT
NEUTRAL
VACANT
18721
Metier Court
X
18725
Metier Court
X
18729
Metier Court
X
18733
Metier Court
X
18710
Aspesi Drive
X
18734
Aspesi Drive
X
18737
Aspesi Drive
X
18741
Aspesi Drive
18744
Aspesi Drive
X
18620
Ferncrest Ct
29
6
5
2
Max height allowed is 2.6 feet ours is 22'3"
Ridgeline length is 32 feet and has been reduced in length from 58 feet (last design)
58 ft
22 ft 3 in Our proposed
project peak height
Posts represent front corner of
wall of proposed new 2 story
32 ft
Shows
hipped roof
Ruchi Sanjay Sadhu
18612 Aspesi Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, CA 95070
Refi APPLICATION #APCC08 -0004 -18605 LYONS COURT Brennan
Dear Sir /Madam:
November 19, 2008
We live in 18612 Aspesi Drive, across Lyons Court, in Saratoga, and sincerely request you to reject
the proposed expansion plans in the above stated application (Brennan's).
You will read, and hear, many petitions from neighbors around Lyons Court and Aspesi Drive,
emphasizing on their issues with this proposed plan. We fully agree with all the objections raised and
want to reemphasize that the 2- storey construction will certainly become an eye -sore amidst this
beautiful single -story neighborhood. We also believe it will cause tremendous problems with the
quality of life with immediate neighbors surrounding the Brennan's property.
How does it affect us? It does more from the point of misrepresentation by Brennan's when they first
introduced the proposal to us few months back. It was suggested that many neighbors were in favor
of, and that their proposal will not, and does not, affect surrounding neighbors. To our astonishment,
when we attended the Planning Commission meeting, we were simply mystified by the line of
neighbors and their objections, both from surroundings environment point -of -view, and from
Brenan's lack of socio- responsibilities towards this small community of loving neighbors. We walked
away from that meeting with a feeling of betrayal from Brennan's positioning, and decided to speak
in favor of rejecting their proposaL
We strongly believe in living in a loving and caring neighborhood where many families have grown
up and another generation (like ours) is raising the family. To Brennan's, this does not seem to be
important, as they are continuing to drag this appeal with an attitude of "whatever it takes, no matter
what".
Again, we ask that the Council Members to look not only at the codes, bulk issues and serious issues
being impacted to the surrounding neighbors, but also look at keeping a harmonious and healthy
environment on our small and beautiful neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ru hi and Sanjay Sadhu
Resident —18612 Aspesi Dr. Saratoga, CA
k■,,%\;
To: Saratoga City Council Members
185 6 5 Aspesi Pk'
November 19, 2008
We are unfortunately unable to make the city council meeting this evening;
however, we would like for our opposing position regarding the Brennan remodel project
to be noted. We have lived in this area for over 9 years and very much value the
landscape and appearance of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Mark and Therese Rizzo
c
rosy 1 TECHNIQUE #6: Use architectural features to break up massing
ato p_iisauhd hnilteol q
)ON'T'S
Avo6 v u k ca l uazs
ifnat add -b
ti eA
Arvi r
larrv. wut,(.
urii-kcut
tidows
YES
NO
Ci
408 -402 -9400 Akeena Solar www.akeena.net
Corporate Headquarters: 16005 Los Gatos Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032
November 19, 2008
Saratoga City Council
Saratoga, CA 95070
To Whom It May Concern,
Please allow this letter to clarify our position with regards to a potential solar power
system installation at 18599 Lyons Court in Saratoga. If a solar system were to be
installed at this location, it is possible that the Solar Rights Act may come into play if
a nearby property shaded the system. However, since the solar system has not
been installed at this time, there is no applicability of the Solar Rights Act.
We are very happy to continue to work with all Saratoga homeowners and
businesses to encourage the installation of clean, renewable solar power. It is our
belief that solar systems make good neighbors, and there is almost always a way to
accommodate the diverse interests of our community.
Regards,
Peter Koiwai
Design Consultant
18605 Lyons Court
Reference Packet
This packet was designed to help you
understand the progression of this project.
Including:
Design Changes put forward to accommodate
neighbor concerns and P.C. concerns.
Timeline of the Process.
Our process has included
Hearing #1 Moved to study session.
3 Study sessions At third session; recommended to move
to hearing since majority indicated findings could be met.
Hearing 2 Design not approved by 3:4 vote.
The Current Status Appeal of hearing #2 to city council.
Summary of Design Changes
Over twenty designs have been produced.
Four primary designs have been presented and
discussed at hearings or study sessions.
A modified design is proposed herein which addresses
the concerns of the last hearing.
The next series of slides documents the
designs and changes proposed for:
hearing #1
hearing 2
The current modified design for the CC hearing.
Front view from street.
Original Design
Hearing 1
Design 4
Hearing 2
Current Design
C.C. Hearing
Lower hei ht and tucked into 1st sto
To rid•eline reduced b 45%
Side view from left.
Original Design
Hearing 1
Design 4
Hearing 2
1.
Irft1
Less mass Less bulk Total privacy
Current Design
C.C. Hearing
Side view from right.
Original Design
Hearing 1
G;
r^^/ r rst
Design 4
Hearing 2
Current Design
C.C. Hearing
Less mass Less bulk Total privacy
Rear view from neighbor behind our lot.
Original Design
Hearing 1
Design 4
Hearing 2
Current Design
C.C. Hearing
Less mass Less bulk Total privacy
Top ridgeline reduced by 45%
Timeline.
It has been "15" months since we filed our application with the planning Dept.
18605 Lyons Ct Project Event Timeline
Submitted Plans
2008
We contacted 53 neighbors
Petition by adjacent
neighbor
Response to petition via
certified mail
Study session =3
Study Session =2
Study Session =1
P.C. Hearing =1
City council Hearing
P.C. Hearing continuance
2009
Our compromise
We have compromised significantly, to accommodate our neighbors
concerns and the comments from the planning commission, with respect
to our original design compared to design #4.
This table describes some of the most notable compromises.
Design 1
Design 4
Design 4
modified
Bedrooms upstairs
3
2
2
Bathrooms upstairs
2
1
1
Total Square footage upstairs
897
587
587
Square footage added downstairs
0
313
223
2nd floor 1st floor ratio
1/3
1/4
1/4
Windows and walls on side and rear of 2nd story
Yes
No
No
Total Square footage (includes garage)
3033
3036
2946
Roof Height
23 ft 8 inches
21 ft 11 inches
22 ft 4 inches
Top ridgeline length
NA
58
32
Our compromise
We have compromised significantly, to accommodate our neighbors
concerns and the comments from the planning commission, with respect
to our original design compared to design #4.
This table describes some of the most notable compromises.
Our position with regard to expansion on the ground level.
We have investigated all options to build out on the ground level and find it
impossible for the following reasons.
•We would have set -back interference that would preclude gaining
total desired layout and square footage.
•We would incur max allowable hardscape restrictions that would
preclude us from achieving desired layout and square footage.
•We would be forced to remove our backyard swimming pool.
•It is unacceptable because it would significantly destroy the charm,
character, and openness of our yard and landscape.
•It would destroy a notable and remarkable large tree in our
neighborhood. There are only 4 really -large trees in the front yards of
Lyons ct. We have 3 of them. We like large trees, and landscaping,
and wish to preserve and protect them.
Our position with regard to our right to build this 2"d- story.
•We are zoned for it.
•We are the property owners.
•We pay the property tax and the mortgage.
•We have lived in this home for 7.5 years. We are native -born to this
region and grew up here. This is not real- estate speculation. It is to
provide for our needs as a family and our dreams.
•We have met the building codes and planning department requirements.
•We do not require a variance for any aspect of the design.
•We have remained compliant and have compromised in every possible
way except to entirely forfeit the project.
•We expect a process of reasonable review and guidance that allows our
civic leaders to engage in deriving a workable supportive solution. It
should not be denied because of neighbor opposition.
•Our project is within reason compared to the precedence in this
neighborhood and the rest of Saratoga.
Neighborhood List and Their Related Position.
Neutral 2
58 Homes Total
In Support* 27
signed statement
No Response 16
Opposed 13
Neighbor
Address
Signed
notice
in
support
Neutral
Signed
petition
against
Rescinded
name on
petition
Sent certified
letter in
response to
petition
Accepted
certified
letter
Refused
certified
letter 8
returned
Did not
pick up
certified
letter
PO
Notified by
letter of
2story
plans
10/12/07
Sheila met
personally
to explain
plans
1
Nateqhian
18514 Aspesi Dr.
X
X
X
2
Safa
13641 Ferncrest Ct
x
X
X
3
Welke
13551 La Paz
X
X
X
4
Sadhu
18612 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
5
Martin
18829 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
6
Enriquez
13631 Riverdale Dr
X
X
X
7
Freeman
18608 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
8
Bennion
13689 Quito Rd
X
X
X
9
Brown
13701 Quito Rd
X
X
X
10
Reckwerdt
18553 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
11
Cricchio
18556 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
12
Amstutz
18733 Metter Ct
X
X
X
13
Ryan
13630 Ferncrest
X
X
X
14
Brown
18800 Casa Blanca
X
X
X
15
Huang
13621 Springhill Ct
X
X
X
16
Avnur
13620 Spinqhill Ct
X
X
X
17
Summers
18646 Aspesi Ct.
X
X
X
18
Urroz
18570 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
19
Walls
18581 Lyons Court
X
X
X
20
Moon
18741 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
21
Pakdel
18529 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
22
Foley
18630 Aspesi Ct
X
X
X
23
Poldyn
18634 Aspesi Ct
X
X
X
X
X
24
Cartacar Samuels
18717 Mettler Ct
X
X
X
X
X
25
Gopakumar
18725 Mettler Ct
X
X
X
X
X
26
Nguyen
18626 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
X
X
27
Gerth
18657 Aspesi Ct
X
X
X
X
X
1
Stevenson
18682 Aspesi Dr.
X
X
X
2
Peeks
18542 Asesi Dr.
X
X
X
1
Culp
13633 Riverdale Ct
X
2
Liddiard
18600 Aspesi Dr
X
3
Brown
18789 Aspesi Dr
X
X
4
Matteini
18696 Aspesi Dr.
X
X
5
Cardona
18737 Aspesi Dr
X
6
Machover
18821 Aspesi Dr
X
X
7
Tucker
13645 Riverdale Ct
X
X
8
George
18844 Aspesi Dr
X
X
9
Tanner
13620 Ferncrest Dr
X
10
Runkle
18764 Aspesi Dr
X
11
Vance
18781 Aspesi Dr
X
12
Herman
18796 Aspesi Dr
X
13
Luckenbihl
18804 Aspesi Dr
X
14
Pesta
18805 Aspesi Dr
X
15
Hills
18813 Aspesi Dr
X
16
Bishop
18734 Aspesi Dr
X
1
Nederstep
18665 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
X
2
Luckadoo
18575 Aspesi Ct
X
X
X
X
X
3
Allen
18599 Lyons Ct
X
X
X
X
X
4
Gallard
18713 Metier Ct
X
X
X
X
5
Riqqle
18640 Aspesi Ct
X
X
X
X
6
Keeble
18611 Lyons Ct
X
X
X
X
X
7
Costanza
18593 Lyons Ct
X
X
X
X
X
8
Leg
18584 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
X
X
9
Dunnion
18587 Lyons Ct
X
X
X
X
X
10
Salahieh
18705 Metier Ct
X
X
X
X
X
11
Allen
18710 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
X
X
12
Robinson
18701 Metier Ct
X
X
X
X
X
13
Shepherd
18654 Aspesi Dr
X
X
X
X
Neighborhood List and Their Related Position.
Neutral 2
58 Homes Total
In Support* 27
signed statement
No Response 16
Opposed 13
Examples of Existing 2 -Story Homes in the Neighborhood
Metier Ct
Riverdale Ct.
Casa Blanca
Aspesi Ct.
Ferncrest Ct.
Aspesi Dr.
BRENNAN DRAWINGS
FOR
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL
TABLE CF CONTENTS
i■
iAl,
lA14,■0041
i,.....
001em
EiT
lOoio0 RCM.
SAI.YAIMAOlt
GRAPHICAL SETBACK CAMS.
rtZOJECT OTATIEt
PLOT MAP
40.4-Ift 2:7
TO add tato IWO Osairootas and 04741 With to 1 rim
second 11::scar thstatin pros/fare stsapandsat mast
losstroastrsta roan altos ssa ran% room on
Dat Brat floor. Tits tatuatihe Mown and larseitCala
aroma ars to bat spew:Sort That sails IA hors
'r XterWr 1n keel:707800 tna Craftsman
tractticso arrf istsysratoctartarx at that rder pm:Mats
amprotactior Sore citt,tt visual atshasts
SITE PLAN
.0.7.4.1411.0.014%.
4,
4 004104 40
4-401,0'
LYONS COURT
HMI MCA VO40044,14‘.....107to O.14/Ltift,11444.1.4
04a,4416■1011.4.9.V0 414.4741O4 CIONI.V.4*3.1.11 04. ALCOA
011 A.4440,10 ORM.
A.11 WAAL.
Zoo..X:440
os:ssawssas
VICNIrr MAP
i..
LmataLri not
"PRXECT DATA
4.041,
010.000.4.4
4 All:OV4414011X1
enit
440401 cOrOvOitini4
7.40
Mal 4.44.14:00.4
0.10.40 MAYO,
MIVAIIAMIN IMIA•11.7.21.
440',071$11.4..
44030.40
Olkluret VOA
MARV 04:14
ADM.* 001k4041f
toTAISIMPO
40 0 04
114
rex trelOociowmuuosIt.
107.4041L14 Q111.01.041.
140414614/046.1e4e11146G00600
IIRAFAAAIATA Rt. MAR el II Jai
AARisAapAce Ike Rawl*.
14*
0.04-0. 440.0 04400,
4041.07.4. ON10.41 COI 14 41 404 10 II
OV0 40 40. 0 .0 0.004 44.4.,-.Cosit
WO FUT
4,1420016
;ow RI
a■slia+1
NJO74/04., IVA 1441001.411T
4.44.1.440 WAWA .40701
lolloOt
04 b41.1d01.4440[41 Wfl
Tv..0 401,1404.74.. /kJ
01.01011.4410 00 Atli O.
04.401ousarot14004 7041' oor0..
.7[1114.1,1 411641.1i ■A" AAA... AA,
*NAV Or SO, 11.1.11ril
*AA WWII tlA.OAOR <AZ'
orOiliiiM
lu
I
1.11.11■1511110.■
LANDSCAPE PLAN
=V
wif C•Iv•
LYONS COURT
4.440044 flPIPM411.0
C.05411
•04:411 :Moor
FOX 10•‘41.1
GANS 4 W.11,41 est sta Pr
4124 oa
APega• *Me 4.201r
tow irsrmwszi.o. .11X1.1•0•1•Its•
41011.31141WACut. 4011691414. 01141.I.
"1101:004.31141114141.4 COVIPACIS
adowir,.000 AXPAR/K).
•44.1•••••••••
AU
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
vocirtoom t:. eclal4
Meet rue A!4 x#'eera.it
6ersaNPNRAIWA 6516.2 Ft
FLOOR AREA MA
TOTAL R.R.AREA 2,162 60. ft
21514 bGL ALLOW& 3040 &a Pt
!A! k,1(j
irvS.0
WEST REAR) ELEVATION
N4RTN MTI ELEVATION
AS BUILT FIRST FLOOR PLAN
e1-OW MAPS 11-4E SPRING, SUMMER, FALL AND lats,ITER EQUINOX'S
SPRING SUMNER
MARCH 2V3 AM MARC14 21,12 PM
SEPT 21, S AM
FALL
sepr 21, 12 PM
MARC44 21, 3 PM
SEPT 21.3 PM
JUNE 21. SAM
DEC 2t fa Am
,LINE 21, 12 91
WINTER
cec a 12 PM
JUNE 21, 3 PM
DEC 21, 3 Pri
.1***mii
A10