Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS��; "-7m, � �Q ,/avt- e57L _, t �J21� Mr. & Mrs. R. K. Richardson 12508 Radoyl,a Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 253 -0603 February 14, 1990 Citv of Saratoga, Planning Department To Whom It May Concern, We have been made amare of the addition to the Lenin's home in our neighborhood. We welcome the remodeling as we feel it wiil enhance the property and thus our neighborhood. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, ,-- ,/Jean Richardson 4t�-A�� t. , �3 2� E jjljll��I! 6, 4o� 0, / 1-t _ � -/ X:L jo CaFzxce Ito - l 95 J 47 le6 e-- �7 lY L V ol� CJ GI:U"�`u Ak J. A, espect fA .Charles E..;� 2 40�1 We have reviewed the plans for the addition of a second story bedroom to Dr. and Mrs. David Levin's home at 180051 Ansley Place. We believe that this addition will be an iini)rovement to their property, will fit in well with the neighborhood, and 'Lind no objections to the plans or the commencement of this project. Nam- 11 Address Phone A acv t X '0 - .4411P Ie q 1� 17 7 -=V g '04 IYO4 J7,Z D, :> �.e. 14 �n� V�&AjSurf% -7 as Je 253- /�5 79 li(. 7 - Z038 LZ64 UJOZ. W�i�rl(C4 f�:,I I q S-:Z-!2 9 0,0 C, Ar R 'M Its I M Me m W im", We have reviewed the plans for the addition of a second story bedroom to Dr. and Mrs. David Levin's home at 13351 Ansley Place. We believe that this addition will be an improvement to their property, will fit in well with the neighborhood, and find no objections to the plans or the commencement of this project. Name Address Phone r,• K4 -,!L D, as3• D 6d 3 * 7- /Y%4t y ✓li 4' I' o� l� 7 %D - i�IrJfLr c — .Da- 2-d -7_ AAZ Z k,%"(g(4 L4A e -5+V i-ew �•c • ?a5 - o-r ►5 1/3 CU,`ob;.� 2LA.J Lc M4 l� ++C) G t 253 3 6 31 o v �3��TO L �- dw: OhO&*#AW eafto We have reviewed the plans for the addition of a second story bedroom to Dr. and Mrs. David Levin's home at 18851 Ansley Place. We believe that tis addition will be an improvement to their property, will fit in well with the neighborhood, and find no objections to the plans or the commencement to this project. Name Address Phone # /m93S ,q yiL , G,(P4 sa -184 4 -Y%2a 119' rfa 2-on 15 _6314 49►G-�3 -� 11 , . 996 -"?,LKr We have reviewed the plans for the addition of a second story bedroom to Dr. and Mrs. David Levin's home at 18851 Ansley Place. We believe that this addition will be an improvement to their property, will fit in well with the neighborhood, and find no objections to the plans or the commencement to this project. Name Address Phone # q 53 7 A, 77� -7 'AI A/ Z- r> J- NN 2 8 1990 18991 Raleigh Place - �i Saratoga, CA 95070 252. -'2510 March 26, 1990 City of Saratoga 13777 lruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Clevenger and Council Persons, We have reviewed the plans for Dr, and Mrs. David l;ewin's one bedroom second story addition (DI: -89 -124) and have no objection to them. Many of the In tiil� i I1Ce;l J ^:..:� :^�"1, ^ -,il ✓'v i'__., "� -i -`, �. _� _ j.,u�.� G1.. �i:.:i :ic-,Uii i. l�. 'iJ Vl�, .:i :.cGp ti1L quality and value of Saratoga Woods high. We see no .reason why a second story should automatically be denied. The Levin's plans are very pleasing and will add great visual appeal to their home. Compared to other additions in Saratoga Woods, theirs is very small and will blend in well with their existing home and with their immediate neighbors. If this addition is denied, we believe it will set a disastrous precedent, as home owners should be able to have this option open to them in the event they need extra space. The majority of homes in Saratoga Woods do not want to build additions, as the majority of homes are occupied by two persons or less. We don't think that restricting Saratoga Woods to having no two story additions could do any good for the neighborhood. It could depreciate property values and will discourage young families from moving into our neighborhood. Sincerely, 18991. Raleigh Place Saratoga, Ca. 95070 MICHAEL & SUZANNE WEBER 12415 SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 March 28, 1990 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mayor Clevinger and City Council Persons: ADDITION AT 18851 ANSLEY PLACE DR -89 -124 We are proud residents of Saratoga Woods and would like to let you know our feelings on the issue of the proposed second story addition at 18851 Ansley Place. We have seen the plans for the bedroom addition and think that they are appropriate for their home, their lot, and their neighborhood. We believe that these plans are aesthetically pleasing and a much better alternative to them than tearing out their mature landscape in front and building out into their front yard thus changing the feeling of openness created by the set backs along their street. Building out would also force them to gut the inside of their existing home, which would be a shame, since their home has a nice floor plan and does not need renovating. We do not believe that a second story addition will work in every house in Saratoga, but we do believe that in some circumstances, such as the Levin's, it is the best alternative (and basically the only alternative) and will improve the look of the neighborhood by reducing the "tract" house look in Saratoga Woods. It would also give the Levin's the needed space and allow them to stay in Saratoga Woods. As home owners, we like knowing that we have options open to us if we someday need to remodel our home, whether on a single or second story basis. We feel that by restricting an entire tract to single level additions, only, would devalue the neighborhood in terms of discouraging families from upgrading their homes and from buying here. There are some absolutely lovely homes with second story additions here (within 3 blocks of our and Levin's home). We are strongly against restricting this neighborhood to single level additions only. Thank you for your kind consideration.of this letter. Very trAly yours, e ic ael Weber zanne M. Weber LETTERS AND PETITIONS AGAINST DR -89 -124 ARTHUR L. BLISS MAR 27 1990 12430 CURRY COURT • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 March 25, 1990 Ms. U race E. Cory Deputy City Clerk City Council City Offices City of Saratoga 13777 rruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 9S070 Re; DR -89 -124 - Levin, 13851 Ansley Place: APN 386-20-20 Request that Council uphold Planning Commission s denial of 2nd story addition to one- story residence. Ladies and Gentlemen% We, Arthur L. and Marilyn 0. Bliss, residing at 12400 Curry Court in Saratoga, wish to establish our strong opposition to any second story additions in the Saratoga Woods residential area and particularly to the above cited pending application. While we respect homeowner's;property owner's rights to request variances or other necessary approvals by due process through advisory and governing boards, we also feel such agencies have been established to safeguard and enhance rather than diminish or allow the diminishing of our neighbo'rhood's character or of our individual property values. The Planning Commission obviously agreed with this premise, given that their considere<:l response was to deny said application. The purchase of our home in the early '60"s was based substantially on the quiet tranquillity and established character of the neighborhood. Additionally, our review of the CCR's indicated that the developers were equally as sensitive to maintaining a like and similar character throughout the neighborhoods. To that end they established the equivalent of an Architectural Review Board that made provisions for its continuation to safeguard the neighborhood from any additional. development. That this was accomplished is apparent in the overwhelming limitation uhroughout the neig -bor huo:l to one and one and one-halt story homes. Ms. Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk, City t:.y of Saratoga March 25, 1990 (gage 2 We have been led to believe that two story homes were either expressly or implicitly precluded from the neighborhood. We feel that the proposed addition not only violates the character of the neighborhood but would be visually .intrusive and objectionable from many view corridors within the immediate neighborhood. We additionally feel that the second story addition is an intrusion upon the privacy of our respective back yards and will have significant adverse effect upon the value of our property. We, therefore, respectfully request that the City Coun- cil uphold the Planning Commission "s denial of the applicant's request for this addition and make rinding3 of negative impact on the character of the neigh- borhood. Respectfully„ Art (ur L. 8. ss Marilyn 71ss 16830 «nsley Place Saratoga, CA 95070 March 24, 1990 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Ref: 1. Notice of Hearing on appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a second story addition at 18651 Ansley Place (Appellant /Applicant, Levin) DR -69 -124 April 4, 1990 Ref: 2. (Enclosed) Letter from the undersigned to the Planning Commission /Site Review Committee dated February 9, 1990• In regard to the proposed addition of a second story at 18851 Ansley Place, we the undersigned, object to the modification proposed for the reasons stated in Ref. 2. In addition to the objections stated in Ref. 2, we are also concerned about the reduction in view from the single story homes when two story homes exist next to them. The addition of the second story mentioned in Ref. 2 has completely eliminated our view to the south from our den, living room and master bedroom and greatly reduced the air flow from the south into our backyard. We believe that the Saratoga Woods development should be retained as a single story ranch home type setting which is what the origi- nal developer planned and which the city approved. Second story additions especially the box on box type structure detract from the ranch style design. Second story additions also infringe upon the neighbors privacy, block views from adjacent homes, block air flow and sunlight and affect tree and plant growth and health. We urge you to uphold the rejection of the proposed modifica- tion stated in Ref. 1 by the Planning Commission. Cordially yours, Richard C. Much Elsie M. Much r/e encl. I DECd:RATIOt: IMPOSING CC%'ENANTS RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS AFFECTING TRACT NO.2032, SARATOGA VWDS KNOW ALL MEN.BY THESE PRESENTS: That Santa Clara Development Co, a partnership, hereinafter called the Declarant, is the owner of the real property situate in the City of Saratoga. County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: All of Tract No. 2032 Saratoga Woods, a Map of which was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on March -3. 1958 in Book 91 of Naps, at pages 16 8 17, All of which property they desire to and intend by these presents to subject to certain conditions, covenants and charges between them and all subsequent purchasers of said property, or any part thereof. NOW THEREFORE, said owner hereby declares that said property and each and every part hereof is held and shall be conveyed subject to the conditions, covenants and charges set forth in the various clauses and subdivisions of this Declaration,to -wit: USE AND IMTR0VEMENT No buildings other than one detached single family private residence, a private garage for use of the occupants of such residence and other usual and appropriate, outbuilding, strictly incident and appurtenant to a private residence, shall be erected or maintained on any lot or plot in this subdivision and no use whatsoever except in connection with its use and improvements as the site and grounds of a private residence shall be made of any lot or plot in this subdivision. The term, 'private residence' is intended to exclude every form of multi - family dwelling, board- ing or lodging house, sanitarium, hospital, and like, but it is not intended to exclude a proper 'guest house' for the entertainment of social guests nor servants quarters for servants or other employees upon the premises. The term, 'use as a private residence' is intended to exclude every form of business, commercial, manufacturing, or storage enterprises or activity and /or the exploration for or production of mir._ral or other natural resources. DWELLING COST, QJALITY AND SIZE No dwelling shall be permitted on any. lot at a cost of less than $25,000.00 based upon cost levels prevailing on the date these covenants are recorded it being the intention and purpose of the covenant to assure that all dwellings shall be of a quality of workmanship and materials sub- stantially the same or better than that which can be produced on the date these covenants are re- corded at the minimum cost stated herein for the minimum permitted dwelling size. The ground floor area of the main structure, exclusive of one -story open porches and garages. shall be not less than 1.500 square feet for a one -story dwelling. EASEMENTS Easements, as indicated upon the recorded Map of this Subdivision are reserved for the installat- ion and maintenance of sewers, pole line utilities, right of way and other uses for public or quasi - public good. No building shall 'be placed upon such easements or interference bemade with the free use of the same for the purposes intended. SIGNS No billboards or other advertising device shall be erected or placed upon any lot or plot in this subdivision. No more than one 'For Sale, Lease, or Rent' sign shall be displayed upon any single lot or plot and such sign shall not be larger than twelve (12) inches by twelve (12) inches: pro- vided, however, during the Subdivision and sale of Lots in this tract the owner or his agent may upor approval of architectural committee erect and display larger signs and construct a sales office. CARE OF PROPERTIES All vacant lots in this Subdivision shall at all times be kept free of rubbish and litter. and weeds and grass shall be disced out or kept well mown so as to present a tidy appearance. The yards and grounds in connection with all improved properties shall be at all times kept in a neat and sightly condition and shall be cultivated and planted to an extent sufficient to maint- ain an appearance not out of keeping with that of typical improved properties in this Subdivision. TEMPORARY DWELLINGS No structure or building other than a completed proper residence designed as such shall be used or occupied as a dwelling place on any lot or plot in this Subdivision. No tents, trailers, or other temporary habitation are to be used. CO14PLETION OF CONSTRUCTION . Any residence or other building in this Subdivision the construction of which has been started, shall be completed without delay, or on or before b months, whichever is sooner, except -when such delay is caused by acts of God, strikes, actual inability of the owner to procure delivery of necessary material, or by interference by other persons or forces beyond the control of the owner to prevent. Financial inability of the owner or his contractor to secure labor or materials or discharge liens or attachments shall not be deemed a cause beyond his control. KEEPING OF FOWL, ANIMALS, ETC. No lot or plot or building therein in this Subdivision shall be used for the keeping or breeding of fowl, animals or creatures of any kind for commercial purposes. Such fowl, birds, or animals 1 as may be kept for the pleasure, use or consumption of the occupants of the premises. where kept, shall be of an ordinary or usual species, and shall not be kept in numbers or under conditions objectionable to other residents in the Subdivision. All yards, pens, and outbuildings used in connection with the keeping of such fowl, birds and animals shall be located on the rear half of the respective lot and shall be adequately screened from view from any street. APPROVAL OF PLANS A. No building, fence, wall or other permanent structure shall be erected, altered or placed on any lot or plot in this Subdivision until building plans, specifications, and plot plans showing the location on the lot or plot have been submitted to and approved in writing as to conformity and harmony of external design and as not interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of any other lot or plot and by a Committee composed of George Day, Jack Fisher, Tom Burke, James W. Day and Marion W. Day. This Committee will not approve the plans of any structure which is not artistic and of an architectural type suitable to a rural suburb. B. Failure by said Committee or its designated representative to approve or disapprove such plans and specifications within 30 days after receipt of a proper presentation, approval of such plans and specifications will be deemed to have been made, provided such proposed construction complies with all other provision of this Declaration. C. In the event any member of said Committee resigns or is unable to act, the remaining members shall appoint his successor. Pending his appointment the two remaining members shall discharge the functions of the Committee. D. At any time said George Day, Jack Fisher, Ton Burke, James W. Day and Marion W. Day, shall by appropriate statement, recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, re- linquish the right hereinabove reserved to appoint and maintain said Architectural committee or be unable so to act, the then record owners of 50% or more of the lots in this Subdivision may elect and appoint a committee of 3 or more of such owners to assume and exercise all of the powers and functions of the Committee hereinabove provided for in paragraphs, A, B, and C of this Clause. No member of any Architectural Committee, however, created shall receive any compensation or make any charge for his services as such. BUILDING LOCATION No building shall be located on any lot nearer to the front lot line or nearer to the side street line than the ninimur.. building setback lines shown on the recorded plat. In any event no build- ing shall be located on any lot nearer than 25 feet to the front lot line, or nearer than 10 feet to any side street line. No building shall be located nearer than 5 feet to an interior lot line, except that no side yard shall be required for a gar :ge or other permitted accessory building located to the rear of the dwelling. No dwelling shall be located on any interior lot nearer than 25 feet to the rear lot line. For the purposes of this covena..t, eaves, steps, and open porches shall not be considered as part of a building, provided, however, that this shall not be construed to permit any portion of a building on a lot to encroach upon another lot. NUISANCES No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot or shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. FAILURE TO ENFORCE The various restrictive measures and provisions of this Declaration are declared to constitute mutual equitable covenants and servitudes for the protection and benefit of each property in the said Subdivision and failure by the Declarant or any other person-or persons entitled so tocbto enforce any measure or provision upon vidation thereof shall not stop or prevent enforcement thereafter or be deemed a waiver of the right so to do. SEVERABILITY The various measures and provisions of this Declaration are declared to be severable, and the holding invalid of any one measure or provision shall not affect any other measure or provision. SUBORDINATION TO MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUST Nothing contained in this Declaration shall impair or defeat. the lien of any Mortgage or Deed of Trust, but title to any property subject to this Declaration obtained through sale in satis- faction of any Mortgage or Deed of Trust shall thereafter be held subject to all of the measures and provisions thereof. TERMS OF RESTRICTIONS These covenants, restrictions and agreements are to run with the land and shall continue in full force and effect until date of March 31, 1978 at which date the same shall be automatically ex- tended for successive periods of 10 years, unless by a properly executed and recorded statement the then owners of 75% or more of the lots in the said Subdivision, as shown on the record Map thereof, elect to terminate or amend them in whole or part. ENFORCEK.ENT AND REMEDY Each grantee of a conveyance or purchaser under a contract or agreement of sale by accepting a deed or a contract of sale or agreement of purchase, accepts the same subject to all of the coven- ants, restrictions, easements and agreements set forth in this Declaration and agrees to be bound by same. Damages for any breach of the measures and provisions of this Declaration are hereby declared not to be adequate compensation, but such breach and /or the continuation thereof may be enjoined or abated by appropriate proceedings by the Declarant, or by an owner or owners of any other lot or lots in said Subdivision,. IN WITNESS *HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and sealed this instrument this third day of March, 1958. SANTA CLARA DEVELOPMENT CO. a partnership Properly acknowledged. By: T. E. Burke Recorded: March 3, 1958 °:-i: 4n70 Of Offi r. ::l Fcccrds. Pi ^^ !c'. °. �.-r -fir F_ ?c "'n: 1et33GE ` � ~`( - -_- - -' ~ - � ` ' FACSIMILE OF RECORDED MAP FREPAR[D BY W-rSTERN TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY SANTA CLARA COUNTY Cl'.,:SjON SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA � - _-- - - ~ - - _- ~ - ,- ~ - - - . - ~ , - ~- - - " 4 1 n nA4-" 't 13 4 C-4 . ct 7 u i L, ,�...� �p / cf fj j pl�� Jzl�eoj —a-., /�j 4-,1 ek, c2- 7�C a- �s Ala s ' �,. "4:t- �� ler'L 74 a I o6 ek - ti1-e- y 1 S 1441- pates ,�z� -� IA 3 m o7`- � C141� V harch Gracl E. Copy, Depvry CiWP!Vr--- Cizy counci-, City Offices City of Saratoga. 12777 Frniougle Avenue garatoga, CA NOR) Levin, DR-89712---- Opposizion to Appeal of Denial Qf Desigp Revie,- Appcoval zo'Conskpuc� a 637 sq. ft. Secanc Stoc- Addition to an Exisfing One Story Home a-, QRS! Ansley ?laue for a Total of SM in the R-1-10,000 Zcne Diszrict. Ladies aod Genilemen.- We, jamen 1, and Dnruzhy M 7eiwwcs, being ra4lapnnv �t 12150 Pupyx COUP-,- in,Sararags for rwenry years. wisn to makQ known our firm,upposilion W: 6nV pnsinjon other Than q compleve denial of Ehe 7he ha%is fop out position has KV the PenOWK facns 00"". ou7 pf the February 14, 1990 City of SaMrOga's PA009 f3mxissiOn nearing, duping which Kle the Levin, 18251 Ahsley 77ac? nolldlh requesc was Qnsidered. disqus _yd , and 5isapproved by thF Q.embers p-nsaP7 - five votis nowinst so one vwOO fOr nYPV0vs!-. Whar foked this overwhelmihM r0e&tion Vote? Please consioer following items from ;he vo�rnapK 11, szaEe6 b7 Ar, Scenhen Emslie4 the Planning DT"eclor, nni:. n written i his haff'reporo Pelaring to &A apnroxn! requesp, oh� Planning Comwissign Etaff's Wo to nonv approval this afney a review at the plapi and a sino aM inswevvion, one of the Planning Commisslon'z mqybery, go believe iz Nas �Y. JoAh he han, zonrn�i rho n-M501KON in zh-.- kajudlave area of 19STI AnSIVY Tjacp, and'oftnu absetvallon ni--, splaton was "in Y6, .. .. a vwn stary n0nhburh.W"- FJ 'A 1 c i i on 'n c) r o u e r a T. J Ull , I e n co min _L e e c: o Tit 1 -,1 j S. = 1 !Tj I'j 0 L L t V (z: Yl L J.' I t-t S C,, I i 111 L e, t e ^t r e c c) r o n s t_- motor c'-, - s e 0 C.;_ T e 1'e o 0, _th] "':_.. T. eCi a I 1 71;1 M(l'lyjr)el­-_ �. 0 m -he 1 Iii iii__ =. a e e T e re 1!t_ I C. r. 1. 7. To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission Site Review Committee From: Residents of Saratoga Woods Date: July 3, 1988 Re: DR -88 -027, Walker - 12469 Lolly Court Consider design review approval for a new 1,363 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling,, per section 15- 45.060 (A) (2) of the city code. The total proposed floor area is 3,366 sq. ft. The home is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. We the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga Planning Commission to prevent the proposed additions to the residence at 12469 Lolly Court on the grounds that • It is not consistent in size and structure with the rest of the neighborhood. • It violates the feeling of privacy and security of surrounding homes. • It obstructs the view from surrounding homes. • It unpredictably impacts the value of surrounding homes. • We do not want to set a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. Name Signature Address Date 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 v jr� 2 To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission Site Review Committee From: Residents of Saratoga Woods Date: July 3, 1988 Re: DR -88 -027, Walker - 12469 Lolly Court Consider design review approval for a new 1,363 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling, per section 15- 45.060 (A) (2) of the city code. The total proposed floor area is 3,366 sq. ft. The home is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. We the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga Planning Commission to prevent the proposed additions to the residence at 12469 Lolly Court on the grounds that: • It is not consistent in size and structure with the rest of the neighborhood. • It violates the feeling of privacy and security of surrounding homes. • It obstructs the view from surrounding homes. • It unpredictably impacts the value of surrounding homes. • We do not want to set a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. Name Signature Address Date 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ME 'b Lw To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission Site Review Committee From: Residents of Saratoga Woods Date: July 3, 1988 Re: DR -88 -027, Walker - 12469 Lolly Court Consider design review approval for a new 1,363 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling, per section 15- 45.060 (A) (2) of the city code. The total proposed floor area is 3,366 sq. ft. The home is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. We the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga Planning Commission to prevent the proposed additions to the residence at 12469 Lolly Court on the grounds that: • It is not consistent in size and structure with the rest of the neighborhood. • It violates the feeling of privacy and security of surrounding homes. • It obstructs the view from surrounding homes. • It unpredictably impacts the value of surrounding homes. • We do not want to set a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. Name Signature Address Date AV 4 pArI�IC;A L, PLOC�eit 9 Y -7) ,- >1 7(5�8� L.)QS-�v,.cw j�2i �, �✓� �l � �j 5 k 11- v 12 13 14 15 To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission Site Review Committee From: Residents of Saratoga Woods Date: July 3, 1988 Re: DR -88 -027, Walker - 12469 Lolly Court Consider design review approval for a new 1,363 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling, per section 15- 45.060 (A) (2) of the city code. The total proposed floor area is 3,366 sq. ft. The home is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. We the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga Planning Commission to prevent the proposed additions to the residence at 12469 Lolly Court on the grounds that: • It is not consistent in size and structure with the rest of the neighborhood. • It violates the feeling of privacy and security of surrounding homes. • It obstructs the view from surrounding homes. • It unpredictably impacts the value of surrounding homes. • We do not want to set a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. Name Signature Address Date ICh ri 13 14 13 To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission Site Review Committee From: Residents of Saratoga Woods Date: July 3, 1988 Re: DR -88 -027, Walker - 12469 Lolly Court Consider design review approval for a new 1,363 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling, per section 15- 45.060 (A) (2) of the city code. The total proposed floor area is 3,366 sq. ft. The home is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. We the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga Planning Commission to prevent the proposed additions to the residence at 12469 Lolly Court on the grounds that: • It is not consistent in size and structure with the rest of the neighborhood. • It violates the feeling of privacy and security of surrounding homes. • It obstructs the view from surrounding homes. • It unpredictably impacts the value of surrounding homes. • We do not want to set a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. 1 2, 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 Name Signature Address Date V Z� r� 71-- To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission Site Review Committee From: Residents of Saratoga Woods Date: Ju ly 3, 1988 Re: DR -88 -027, Walker - 12469 Lolly Court Consider design review approval for a new 1,363 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling, per section 15- 45.060 (A) (2) of the city code. The total proposed floor area is 3,366 sq. ft. The home is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. We the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga Planning Commission to prevent the proposed additions to the residence at 12469 Lolly Court on the grounds that: • It is not consistent in size and structure with the rest of the neighborhood. • It violates the feeling of privacy and security of surrounding homes. • It obstructs the view from surrounding homes. • It unpredictably impacts the value of surrounding homes. • We do not want to set a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. 12 1� 14 15 /c7-1,1D % 7 -3 -�4 1 3 -Xfi Name Signature Address Date 1 i -, i YS 3 4 7- 3- n _ 3 ,- , 6 ' 7 8 OA ^� 9 -77 UAo :e _L 12 1� 14 15 /c7-1,1D % 7 -3 -�4 1 3 -Xfi -EGG - MAR 2 71990 -� Judith R. Gremer 12388 Radoyka Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Saratoga City Council 1377 Frui teal a Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Counci 1 members, As a resident of Saratoga Woods, I would like to address the issue of the approval of a second story addition to an existing one story home located at 18851 Ansley Place (Appellant /Applicant, Levin) (DR -89 -124). Saratoga Woods is a predominantly one story neighborhood. The lots are of average size. Most homes in the neighborhood need a variance when adding a second story because the square footage of the proposed house will exceed the amount allowed for the size tot. These lots cannot support massive two story houses. I contested a two story addition proposed behind my own house in the the summer of 1988. (Please fine enclosed a copy of a "Notice of Hearing" sent to me concerning the addition behind my house.) Fortunately, after canvassing the affected area most of my neighbors agreed and signed a petition against the proposed addition. (Please find enclosed copies of these petitions.) The people who wanted the addition have since moved, but I would hate to think 1 will have to fight this issue everyti me the house is sold. That two story addition would have ruined my privacy, my view, the country -like feeling i n my backyard, and the resale value of my property. I believe allowing two story additions is unfair to neighbors whose property will beer the full impact of a second story addition. Saratoga Woods is a very special place to live. Pl ease don't allow the country -tike feeling to be destroyed by allowing massive houses to be built. Sincerely, Judith R. Gremer utcy'jvtD F BB 6 1990 Pl_P'W41SC DEPT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 CGV fv G ;277" February 3, 1990 18931 Cyril Place, Saratoga, CA 95070 :?%TTN: Steve Emsli -, Planning Director of Planning Commission /Site Review Committee Dear Mr. Emslie, In reference to your Notice of Hearing DR -89 -124 LEVIN, 18851 Ansley Place APN 386 -20 -20 request for Design Review Approval to construck a 637 Sq. Ft. Second Story Addition to an existing one -story home for a total of 3367 Sq. Ft. in the R- 1- 10,000 Zone District per Chapter 15 of the City Code, we are very much opposed to having a 2 -story structure in our immediate area. U There are no 2 -story structures in our area, and this would be interferring with the rights of all the residents around us. When we moved to Saratoga Woods approximately 23 years ago, we were advised that this was a single family one -story residential area, and Saratoga Woods was not designed for 2 -story structures. We are very much opposed to having a 2 -story structure in our area which could possibly block our view of the surrounding foothills. Yours tru y, "may Alfred C. Enfantino Mr. & Mrs. Richard C. Stroud 18911 Ansley Place Saratoga, CA 95070 February 1990 y 1tEGEVED City of Saratoga FED - 9 IGISO 13777 Fruitvale Avenue P!_ANNING DEPT Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Steve Emslie Planning Director Subject: 386/20/023 DR 89 -124 Levin 18851 Ansley Dear Commission: This letter is written to challenge the second story addition on the Levin resident at 18851 Ansley Place. We strongly fear approval of this design request will set a precident for second story designs in Saratoga Woods. Several residents have made 600+ sq. ft. additions without using the second story design and, thereby, have maintained the original 'Ranch Style' look of the neighborhood. This Ranch -style motiff was one of the characteristics that lead us to our decision to live in Saratoga Woods. We appeal 'Co the commission to deny this request. Sincerely, Richard Stroud k� L97 M. Su?6n Stroud Michael S. & Susan E. Millhollan 18910 Ansley Place Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 446 -0756 Planning Commission / Site Review Board City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 USCEiv ED FEB 13 -a -'O PLANNING DEPT February 9, 1990 Re: DR -89 -124 - LEVIN, 18851 Ansley Place APN 386 -20 -20 Gentlemen; We strongly oppose the above request for a second story addition, scheduled for review February 14. If it is approved it will set an unwanted precedent for future additions in Saratoga Woods. Many of us have applied for and obtained permits for the addition of equal or greater square footage and still maintained the ambiance of the single story ranch style homes in the neighborhood. We urge you to deny this request. Sincerely, V - 0 0 " Michael S. & Susan E. Millhollan 12776 Saratoga Glen Court Saratoga, CA 95070 February 10, 1990 408 252 2240 Chairman Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Chairman: I� F -\IF 9LAN41NG pEpT Reference: DR -89 -124- Leven, 18851 Ansley Place APN 386 -20 -20 It is urged that the referenced second story addition be denied. The affected parcel is in Saratoga Woods which prides itself in maintaining an area of beautiful single family homes and a desirable place to live. The overall age of homes in Saratoga Woods has led to some remodelling which has improved property without impinging on neighbors' rights or establishing architectural deviations incompatible with existing homes. The existing square footage of the Leven house is already in excess of the median square footage of houses in Saratoga Woods. Therefore, there appears to be no justification to increase the square footage to accomodate the average size single family. More often we have seen in Saratoga, an increase in house size has led to multifamily occupancy and /or "cottage" industries or businesses in R -1 zones. Whether the current owner has any of these ultimate uses in mind is not known but even if he does not a future owner may have. Saratoga Woods has already been adversely affected by the commercial developments along Saratoga Avenue and will be further impacted by the Paul Masson development and the Highway 85 and its interchange construction. Let's not further the proliferation of overcrowding and increased traffic which is the incipient stage of slum creation. This can only result in Saratoga being the loser. Sincerely, James G. Russell Margaret M. Russell 11E�CEl�v 10 , 1990 Planning Commission /Site Review Committee VEB 1 Planning Director, Mr. Steve Lmslie City of Saratoga PLANNING DEPT Re: DR 89 -124 Levin, 18851 Ansley P1. APN 386 -20 -20 Tract No. 2032, commonly known as Saratoga, Woods, was primarily planned as a single dwelling one story ranch type home development. This development was approved by previous Planning Commissions and City Councils. Now some want to ruin the original concept. I purchased my home in this area because I wanted this style and liked the whole area. The homes adjacent are also single story ranch type homes. This area has attractive homes and affords a high degree of privacy. Now this is being, challenged. There are areas that have been planned with a mix of single story and two story homes. Buyers of these hones knew what the mix was going to be before purchase. They knew what they were buying in advance. I purchased my home because this was a planned single story ranch style development and that it would remain as originally approved. I am not against enlargement of homes. The size of lots in this area allows for increasing square footage and keeping the design on one level. Many neighbors have increased the size of their homes and still kept the ranch style single story profile. Some of them are even more beautiful. It can be done with proper planning. Two or three homes in this area have been modified into two stories and they look like a "big box" was stacked on to one side of the home. They even look like "add -ons." These homes appear out of balance and do not add to the beauty of the neighborhood. There is also a matter of privacy. Most home owners have en- closed Fear yards Homeowners with swimming pool; and hot tubs are denied their privAcy they thought they had when they purchased their homes in this neighborhood of single stork- homes. It has proven many times in this area that additions to homes can be made to accommodate increase in family size without going "high rise." With proper review and attention to design, there are ways of increasing the size of homes in this area and still stay with the single level ranch style profile. Therefore, I strongly urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to take all possible action to '_keep our neighborhood as originally planned, designed and approved. -3 ate- Z r�; J dich ��esident of Saratoga V• ods Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. �tB Saratoga, CA 95070 Regarding the attached notice of hearing: As long time residents of Saratoga Woods, we the undersigned would like to go on record as being in favor of limiting home additions in our neighborhood to one story. Name r r.\ J Adress T� a --= - - - - -- 3�� _ _ -------------- ---------------- - -1 _ -04 ------------ _ s� = --- --- - - - - -- Planning Commission City of Saratoga E�EI`��� 13777 Fruitvale Ave. FEB Saratoga, CA 95070 PLANNING DEPT Regarding the attached notice of hearing: As 25 year residents of Saratoga Woods, my wife Barbara and I would like to go on record as being in favor of limiting home additions in our neighborhood to one story. Yours Truly, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Larsen 18725 Westview Drive �G�1 I z T, Saratoga, February 12, 1990 TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL; The undersigned residents of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood object to any two story additions to homes in our neighborhood. 1-7 1 �ewl It 'Ca �Lei/ %89u (6 P-X V1 W2e J Gl 12--��rl e4eal & ✓,E Cp tE, 12--��rl e4eal & ✓,E C, RECEIVED FEB - 91990 PLANNING DEPT -67 fi -12 )-z-- Cll Q Ze ee c t. Saratoga City Council March 38, 1990 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: DR -89 -124 Dr. and Mrs. David Levin's addition. Dear Council person: I have no objection to the Levin family adding a second story bedroom onto their home on Ansley Place. I think that more homes should have improvements. Most of the homes in this area were built by George Day in 1958 and are in need of updaing. The Levin's additon is very samll, one 600 SF bedroom and looks very nice on the side over the bedrooms. I know that the Levins have been very involved in the community on the swim club board and with the public schools. We need young families like these to move into and to stay in 'Saratoga Woods. If we get too restrictive, we'll just push these families out as they'll have no alternative. The plans should be approved as submitted as they are done in good tasdte and do not infringe in any way on their immediate neighbors. Thank you. Sincerely, C�--0 Joan Rodriguez 12.580 Rado.yka Drive 29 March, 1990 U To: The Saratoga City Council Subject: Second Story Addition to the Home of Dr. and Mrs. David Levin Ladies and Gentlemen: We are neighbors of the Levins and regularly walk and drive by their home. They maintain one of the nicest homes in the area. It enhances the neighborhood. I have had the opportunity the review the architect's drawings for their second story addition, in relation to their home, landscaping, their immediate neighbors and our overall neigh- borhood. I believe that the addition will enhance the appearance of their home and will be an asset to the neighborhood. I think the architect did a superb job in designing an addition that is very pleasing in appearance, actually makes the house more attractive from all angles, and is unobtrusive. I am particularly impressed with the way the architect considered and provided for appearance and privacy for all the adjacent homes. There are other two story homes in the neighborhood. Some are visible from the Levin's property. I do not find any of them offensive, but none of them improve the appearance of the property or the neighborhood as will the Levin's plan. 1 Very truly yours, .1, 41 , adu_ JANICE M. LENSKE,MORTON D. LEN KE 18940 Easton Place Saratoga, Ca 95070 0 / PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 16 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 12. AZO -90 -001 City of Saratoga, wall height in Commercial Zone Districts. The. City of Saratoga Planning Commission is considering enacting a revision to the existing commercial zone districts to permit a solid wall or fence to exceed the 6 ft. height limit to a maximum of 8 ft. when conditions require additional visual and acoustic screening. ------------------------------------------------------------- City Attorney Toppel suggested that in view of the lateness of the hour and the number of applications on the agenda this item be continued to the next meeting. TUCKER /TAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -90 -001 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1990. Passed 7 -0. 13. DR -89 -124 Levin, 18851 Ansley Place, request for design review approval to construct a 637 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one -story home for a total of 3,367 sq. ft. in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Siegfried noted several letters and petitions have been received in opposition to this project. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He cited a memo he sent to the Planning Department clarifying the design of the second floor. He also cited other two story homes in the vicinity and circulated photographs. Mrs. Susan Levin, Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. She circulated several letters and petitions in support of her project. Mrs. Levin described the proposal in detail and circulated photographs of the house. Mr. Art Bliss, 12430 Curry Court, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Bliss stated that the concept of maintaining a ranch style home does not strike him as being compatible with a box on box design. He also expressed concern about the lights shining from the second story windows at night. di , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 17 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The neighbor from 12451 Curry Court addressed the Planning Commission. He voiced his opposition to the proposal because it changes the character of the neighborhood, will impact on his openness and privacy in his back yard, and feels it will lower the value of his property. In addition to the night light, he also expressed concern about the burning of fires in the winter because some of the smoke will be going against the house. A neighbor from Cyril Place addressed the Planning Commission. She said a two story addition offends the neighbors and offends her personally. She stated she spoke with her immediate neighbors and circulated a petition in opposition to the proposal which signed by those neighbors. Mr. John Lindell, 18951 Ansley Place, addressed the Planning Commission. He said the project does not impact him directly and cited the precedence of two story homes in the neighborhood. He expressed concern that the character of the neighborhood is changing with the two story additions and not only is the style of the house changing but the balance between the size of the house and the size of the lot is being destroyed. Mr. Richard Much, 18830 Ansley Place, addressed the Planning Commission. He cited a letter which he sent to the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposal. He expressed concern regarding the precedent being set to the extent that privacy and architectural designs are compromised and reiterated his opposition to this proposal. Mr. James Reimers, 12450 Curry Court, addressed the Planning Commission. He cited a letter he sent to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reimers stated Mrs. Levin spoke with him and showed him the plans. Since that time he developed his thoughts on the proposal which were outlined in his letter. Ms. Susan Millhollan addressed the Planning Commission. She noted that there are a number of people in the neighborhood who have added additions to their homes of the same square footage and larger who have maintained single level homes. A neighbor from 12415 Saratoga Creek Drive addressed the Planning Commission in support of the proposal. Mr. Heid addressed the comments of the neighbors. He stated the lot would not accept a one story house and in his opinion a one story house would do far more damage to the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 18 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:05 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger noted that the Planning Commission is receiving a number of requests for second story additions and feels the issue should be addressed. She said she views the flavor of this neighborhood as one of one story California ranch style homes and is not comfortable with approving the second story addition. Chairperson Siegfried indicated he is not necessarily opposed to a second story addition but would prefer to see second stories which are tucked into the roof. Commissioner Kolstad stated he had no problem with the design and privacy issues are not a concern but feels the neighborhood should remain one of one story homes and would vote that way. Commissioner Moran said she feels a two story is incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Heid requested a continuance. He said there is no direct policy regarding two story homes, the neighborhood is split on the issue of two story homes, and the Levins have a right to build their two story. He requested the opportunity to present additional information to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tappan indicated he is in agreement with Mr. Heid and that the Applicant should be given the benefit of extending the hearing and perhaps coming up with some ideas that would work for the neighborhood and the Applicant. Commissioner Kolstad said he agrees with Mr. Heid but did not see what purpose additional time would serve. Commissioner Harris stated that the Planning Commission is well aware of the problem but also felt additional time for this proposal would not convince her otherwise. TUCKER /HARRIS MOVED TO DENY DR -89 -124 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 6 -1; Commissioner Tappan dissenting. r� �::- 0 I. File No. DR -89 -124, 18851 Ansley Place EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 11 -30 -89 Application complete: 12 -28 -89 Notice published: 1 -31 -90 Mailing completed: 1 -25 -90 Posting completed: 2 -1 -90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code article 15- 45.080, a request for design review approval to construct a 637 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 3367 sq. ft. in the R -1- 10,000 zone district at 18851 Ansley Place. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Though the project meets all minimum ordinance standards with regard to setbacks, site coverage, floor area and height, staff is not able to make all required findings to recommend design review approval of this project. Staff finds the project incompatible with the immediate neighbor- hood since it would be the only two story home on the block which would disrupt the horizontal, low profile nature of the area. The project also exhibits excessive bulk by proposing a two story wall, broken by a narrow roof structure, located at the minimum side yard setback. The design also presents an unbalanced appearance with the addition located above one end of the home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application without prejudice. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -89 -124 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" 4. Letter from Warren Heid, AIA 5. Correspondence mj /adisc File No. DR -89 -124, 18851 Ansley Place STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10 PARCEL SIZE: 11,000 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1% GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Cedar shingle roof; horizontal wood siding to match the existing home. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 5356 sq. ft. (49 %) 6050 sq. ft. (55 %) HEIGHT: 22 ft. 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 2730 sq. ft. (existing) 2nd Floor: 637 sq. ft. (proposed) TOTAL: 3367 sq. ft. 3370 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Right Side: 10 ft. Left Side: 10 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Front: 25 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Right Side: 10 ft. Left Side: 10 ft. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's design review approval to construct a 637 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 3367 square feet. The property is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district at 18851 Ansley Place, approximately 80 ft. west of Radoyka Drive. Design Review Findings The current California ranch style, one story home on the subject site measures 2730 square feet; typical of the entire neighborhood. The addition proposes similar finished materials that are presently found on the home and throughout the community. The proposed second story exhibits both hipped and gable end roof features with horizontal wood siding. Staff is unable to make all required findings to recommend design review approval of this project. Staff does not consider the second story addition compatible to the architectural fabric of the immediate neighborhood. If approved, this home would be the only two story structure in the area. The addition disrupts the horizontal, low profile emphasis of the residential block to which this home is an ingredient. If this addition were approved, staff is concerned with the incremen- tal change the project induces and the future direction of the neighborhood's character. The addition demonstrates an excessively bulky, and unbalanced appearance as a result of the addition being isolated to a single end of the structure. The west elevation is particularly troubling to staff in that a two story high wall, broken by only a narrow roof extension, is located at the minimum setback from the property line (10 feet) . The second floor is not setback, to provide relief, from the perimeter of the home in this area. Though the existing floor plan is not available for staff review, it appears the option for an addition to the first floor could be accomplished and meet required setbacks. An addition of this nature would be more in harmony with neighborhood qualities. The applicant's architect is aware of staff's concerns and recommendation. He has presented a letter attached to this report explaining their position. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this application for design review be denied without prejudice by adopting Resolution DR -89- 124. RESOLUTION NO. DR -89 -124 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Levin - 18851 Ansley Place WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans for a 637 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one story home; 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 not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that a two story wall, broken by only a narrow roof feature, is located at the minimum side yard setback line. The addition is also un- balanced, isolating the addition to a single end of the structure. The project is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that if approved, this would be the only two story home in the immediate area. The entire character of the block would be altered and affect the future identity of the neigh- borhood. 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 Dr. and Mrs. David Levin for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of February 1990, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Siegfried, Tucker, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Moran NOES: Tappan ABSENT: None erson, Pla;M-Wg Commission ATTEST: - � Jt� Secretary, Planning Commission LETTERS AND PEITIIONS IN FAVOR OF DR -89 -124 vim Michael and Suzanne Weber February 14, 1990 12415 Saratoga Creek Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 To The City of Saratoga: Dear Gentlepersons, We have reviewed the plans of David and Sue Levin for the second story addition to their house on 18851 Ansley Place in Saratoga. We have also carefully looked at their home, their lot, their neighbors' homes and the surrounding neighborhood. Having done this, we believe their planned addition is appropriate for their home, their lot and the neighborhood. We believe it will not be a negative esthetically and is clearly a better alternative than building out into the front yard and changing the feeling of openess created by the set backs along their street. We do not believe a second story addition will work in each house in Saratoga but we do believe that in some circumstances such as the Levins,i£` -sthe best alternative and will to some extent reduce the "tract" house look in the Saratoga neighbor- hood.. Thank you for your kind. consideration of this letter. Very truly yours, Michael C Weber Suzanne M Weber WARREN B. A N D A S S A R C H I T E C T S HEIR •AIA O C I A T E S PLANNERS 1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • SARATOGA . CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867 -9365 Memo: Planning.Department City of Saratoga Re: Design Review Application Addition and Alterations to Residence Dr. and Mrs. David Levin 18851 Ansley Place, Saratoga, CA Date: January 19, 1990 This memo is presented to clarify the design of the second floor addition for the subject project. The second floor was added at it location for several reasons, but mainly for architectural and structural integrity with the existing conditions. The existing Living Room is vaulted and the owners wish to maintain this appearance. Structurally, the foundation is con - structed to support a second floor at the bedroom wing, *7ith simple floor /wall construction. Architecturally the front elevation maintains the horizontal roof line for the full width. The second floor is added to be rear so that this horizontal provides a lower appearance and less bulk. The roof at the side to the west is maintained to break to two story appearance full height. Only one window has been added at the west elevation to provide pri- vacy for the neighbors at that side. The main area for windows is to the front for both appearance and privacy. It is the opinion of this office that this existing residence will have an addition harmonious to both this building, and to the neigh- borhood. The second floor is approximately 10' to the rear of the front setback, which gives the balance required. � r Warren B. Heid AIA Architect JAN 2 3 P!_ANN!I K', DEPT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. oaratoga, CA 95070 Re : DIi- 39 - -124 Dear City Council Persons, 1.2304 Saratoga Creek Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 i1arch 2:1., 1990 MAR 2" 1440 W We are residents of Saratoga Woods and very active in t:ie neighborhood. We have seen the plans for the one bedroom addition to the Levin's home and have no objection to them. This neighborhood needs improvements and the livin- style has changed since 1953. As their plans have no windows tacing any neighbors we cannot see any negative impact on their immediate neighbors. 'de feel this addition would enhance the neighborhood and we support it. If. this addition is denied, it would be the first major step to the neighborhood stagnating. We need young active families moving into Saratoga Woods; but this kind. of restriction would definitely turn people away from our neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 1 Vic Cas,i.o " Debbie Castello City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Fe: DR -89 -124 Levin Addition To wham it may concern: We are residents of Saratoga Woods and live at 18681 Kosich Drive and are neighbors of the Levin family. After reviewing the plans for their second story addit7:an, we see no reason why their plans should not be approved. They have followed all of the guidelines set for an approval of their plans: architectural design is pleasing and blends well with other ranch homes in the neighborhood; windows have been strategically set so as not to irpose on neighbors direct- ly beside or behind them, and the windows they do have in the bathroam are set up so high that you cannot see out of them; the additmmn is not excessively large and follows the rules for the allowable square footage. Presently we are building a second story addition to our hcane in Saratoga Woods. We have had nothing but compliments and encourage- ment frcan the neighbors in this cm=nity. The remodel has enhanced the appearance of the neighborhood as well as increased property values and I am sure the ge Levin's property will be the same. It would be inappropriate for the Council to deny the plan as they have submitted it. Sin ly trici� ,, Patricia He th 18681 Kosich Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. aratoga, CA 95070 March 28, 1990 Re: Dr, and Mrs. David Levin's addition: DR -89 -1214 Dear Mayor and City Council persons, We have viewed the plans for a second story remodel for Dr. and firs. David Levin who live at 13851 Ansley Pl. and think they are very well done and appropriate for this neighborhood. We think Saratoga Woods is a wonderful family- oriented neighborhood and like to see families moving in and improving their properties. We don't think that a second story will work in every case, and most people who have added onto their homes have been fortunate enough to have enough land to be able to do it without adding up. But as the Levin's cannot add on on the ground floor, they have done a wonderful job incorporating the extra bedroom upstairs without disturbing the rest of their home. We feel improvements must be allowed to keep this neighborhood from becoming stagnant. Many homes need updating, and many need just painting and a little sprucing up. But when an involved and concerned family such as the Levins need extra space, they should be able to4'"what they want as they seem to have taken into consideration their neighbors privacy, views, and the location of their homes on their lots when designing the addition. Saratoga needs yours.- iamili.es, the schools need young tamilies, and by allowing residents to fix up their homes is one way to keep Okse young families from moving out of our neighborhood. Most of our neighbors have grown children and someday will want to sell their homes. But if we become too restricting and controlling, young families will be forced to look elsewhere, and this would be disastrous to Saratoga Woods. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Nancy and Martin -Newman 18967 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga March 283. 1990 Ke; C) R- 539 -IA q Dear Members of the Saratoga City Council, I am writing in support of David and Susie Levin. Properly planned second story additions can be an asset to a neighborhood by providing a degree of diversity. I do not support massive second story additions that would infringe on the existing privacy of immediate neighbors. I strongly feel that sprawling first story additions can provide a much greater deterrence to the quality of living, than can well planned and designed second story additions. The Saratoga City Council has traditionally provided excellent safeguard measures to protect the charm and individuality of this city. This city has continued to protect its quality of life, and by doing so has continued to remain attractive and inviting to individuals seeking a more restful atmosphere to live in and raise children in. I want to go on record as not supporting massive second story additions that could undermine a neighborhoods character. I propose that the council should suggest compromises that would protect the existing privacy of immediate neighbors. These compromises could protect existing privacy of immediate neighbors by possibly requiring the planting of additional screening trees, the relocation of proposed windows, restricting the size and height of proposed windows or prehaps more extensive use of skylights. I am sure modifications can be agreed on between the city, the contractor, and Dr. and Mrs. Levin that would allow them the additional space they wish without destroying the character of the neighborhood. Every proposed addition should be approved or not approved on its own merits, one proposed addition does not necessarily open the flood gates to the approval by the city council of massive overbuilding and complete destruction of neighborhood and individual privacy. wve�rul x-� �2� Mary Jane Karas 12752 Saratoga Creek Drive Saratoga, California 95070 0000 **s R. K. RichARdSON CONSTRUCTION (408) 247.3450 March 28, 1990 City of Saratoga Li��7- - E.i -►ay) To Whom It May Concern, As a General Contractor, and more importantly, as a neighbor of the Tevin famil--, I believe the plans for the second story addition would add an aesthetic appeal to our neighborhood. In reviewing the plans they seem to blend architecturally with the Saratoga Woods neighborhood and do not infringe on the bordering properties. I would welcome the improvement in my area. I would also like to state,as a resident of the Saratoga Woods.Association, that we do not approve any appointment to ban second story additions to our area. "Y\ We believe we have the right to strove our homes as we wish, with as few restrictions as possible. If you have any questions please call. S' ere y, L .^ Randy & Jean Richardson 12508 Radoyka Drive Saratoga (408) 253 -0603 381 S. f3nv�� cinrl �r� ,vnr C.�� InSr, CA `J 5 1 2 A Li( . # 3 9 1 5 5) City of Saratoga offices 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mayor Clevendjer and City Council members, We are residents of Saratoga Woods and love this neighborhood. But as the hones are getting older, we see the need for improvements to be done. We also see that the lifestyle of 1990 is very much different than that of 1958 when these homes were built. People have c cuputer roans and offices in their hones, and the idea of master bedroom suites and larger bathrooms have cane about. We see no reason why the Levin family cannot add an addition bedroom upstairs on their Saratoga Woods house. We would like to see these plans approved (DR -89 -124) as we believe they would improve not just their hone or street, but the entire neighborhood. We cannot see how approving these plans can possibly hurt their neighbors or other people in Saratoga Woods. It would increase property values, and increase pride in the area. As a property Owner they have the right to improve their hone and the ordinances allow for second story additions in this zoning area. We already have around 30 2 -story homes in Saratoga Woods, and most of them have been done tastefully, and add a lot to those streets.l believe the Levin's addition will do the same. We hope that you approve the design as shown on their plans and can see how this improvement can only benefit the entire neighborhood. Sincere1v Tcal��t, Randy Billing Jill BiQings 12285 Saratoga Creek Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 MAR 2 71990 :L Z. _7j j e s, . i � i n -4 Levin 's sc-conc: -r r 'ir'y :ou n c e e n,7• c 7 C. rc- w C, -'evII-I vle C) T_, j +-j cl r. Cs 1-1 C.� e: I Y- h 0 Tfl C- Fj a V T:. 1 C -) V -. DU c-. t. t er r L T _t' r - r- e - tie tje a 1 j:Iyj TfleE_:'LSS r 1.e t cl! 'L owi nq cr -itti!ri a. t, 11 e '3'_1 e- s t s r, o 1_1 -1 C `:,r- a -.) r, r Ov e c! .L Z !-,.rie C a r nas no aavearse atz-fects c!n r-Ine S C'r I, 7acv Or ot.j-jE_rL,j_ -,verseiy :.mi:,actzx, tne-ir e. a L 7 f E c,., e %-'Y t ,, e t d ci i ii e de!:ii-�n meets I.rtE City bui i aing cOcle reaua rment—a has j-:e2.,-7nbc­_­c-oa, *as manv or-hers lflUat conr_'nuts! Zo be unaraaea; 17 It.a% criaracter. :fe=e!iinr4 T-r-a7- Per' a ID I On -'c u n c 2 1 ir,Du a -c e,:a r a 1 n c' t q :-I c, TTI ti. h a t, encT, �C- coni& -:ounc a 1L Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Proposed Second Story Addition to the Levin Residence at 18851 Ansley Place Dear Sir: As a home owner residing in the neighborhood community known as Saratoga Woods, I whole - heartedly support and approve the requested second story addition to the Levin house located at 18851 Ansley Place. As you already know there are several homes within the Saratoga Woods community boundaries that have either been enlarged by the addition of a second story or were originally built as a two story home. The request for the addition to the Levin home should therefore in no way detract from the current style of homes in this community. Sincerely, Paul E. Rahmer 12711 Saratoga Creek Drive Saratoga, California 95070 To the City of Saratoga 4 Attention: City Council =, Re: Addition at 18851 Ansley pl. DR -89 -124 The Levin residence We are appalled over the possibility of the,Levin's seo md, story one bedroom addition being rejected because it has become a neighborhood issue. There are many of us in this neighborhodd who want to see hone improvements and do not mind second story additions as long as they are done in good taste and do not bother the neighbors directly. We need more residents in Saratoga Woods, Like the bevins, who show pride in their hone and their cam=ity. They have already done an incredible amount of work improving their home. It has made the whole street look better. We feel that as hone owners, we should be able to improve our praperties- staying within the limits of the laws, ordinances, and CC7Rs. Fran what we have seen of the levin's plans, they have stayed within theee guidelines and oone up with a beautiful plan that looks very liveable and very attractive frcin the street. The hcme will still be a ranch style design with an extra master bedroom on the second level. It will not be bigger than many of the homes in this neighborhood. This addition can only be good for Saratoga Woods, as many of our hones need improving and updating. We cannot see any legitimate reason that the addition. They pay their taxes like the res t volved in this cc munity. They have a lot o f hood, and we think that this addition will ,Sincerely, Rich Harley Cindy Marley 18911 Cyril Place Saratoga, CA 95070 Levin family cannot build this of us, and have been very in- pride in their home and neighbor - be an asset to all of us. Sciubba 18960 Ea 5 t o n P7ao~ Saratoqa. CA 95070 (408)725-02 Maroh 28. 199O Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA 9507O RE: Levin addition (DR-89-124) Dear Sir5 We have 5 e e n the plan5 for the propoaed oC- oond story addition to the Levin home. In our opinion the style will blend In with *xisting homes, in the neighborhond. and the second story will not b out of plaoe. We feel that home ownors .5hould have oome :5cretion in the improvement of the ir homes a long as the d�: sign doeo not infringe upon tho right S of th - ir nC.-ighbor:5. It appears that the proposod Levin addition will not be "overlooking" th: immediate. neighbors. and wc- fe. e7 that the Levins should be allowed to build their second 5tor�. Sinoer:ly. Fr*d � Kathy Soiubba Mark and Linda Cristol 18993 Palo Oaks Court Saratoga, California 95070 March 28, 1990 Dear Mayor Clevenger and Councilpersons, We are residents of Saratoga Woods and have been very active in this community. We know Dr. and Mrs. David Levin who are also very involved and committed members of this community. They are interested in adding a second story one bedroom addition to their home which we wholly approve of. This neighborhood needs improvements and families must have the opportunity to improve their homes when and how they want., as long as they are within the ordinances of the City of Saratoga. Their design (DR -89 -124) is very pleasing and done in good taste. For such a small addition they have used the space well. The residents of this community have the right to turn their houses into homes, and add onto them in the best way that they see possible. The Levins have no land that they can push out into, so therefore to be able to add any space to their 2200 SF home they are forced into adding an upstairs. They are only adding one bedroom which will give them a total of four bedrooms which is reasonable for our neighborhood. We are sorry to see this become a neighborhood issue, it should be between the owner and the planning commission's design review. We, as home owners, must not lose our rights to be able to improve our properties (within reason and good taste) and we urge you to approve the plans for the Levin's addition as they have been submitted. Yours truly, Mark Cristol Linda Cristol 4 L aYL� -tk�r(ljl J8 /Mi �51 1 ay - -T�t& 6, l ao /��1� c�� -2 wp Pq$ ag, j 90 to 18 7l / Cq . gso�o �ares� 3a, 1�9� T r see."s- a sad Cas��•�►ef, s�n� oh fvo�a�y s Soc�e 1`y ui`i� Q ytou�,q �m. /iy 6vQizfs 7b a/ Clectsso Ulw .- Ome"7e" 7 �yLif7 q C/ T %ZQ/!s `lisl /G � e uJ J�/L�CIO!/S //l�iii�ll�I S s,�ve seems >��e P /ar-rs fh� adai Doti mot" Aid 4w,; de..r7 �e���� 7"a.;- aid pus- � i q��arhaaa� _ c% 1*7 e 1�4vQ City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 25, 1913'0 Re: DR -89 -124 Dear City Councilpersons, We have seen the plans for the Levin's one bedroom addition and think they fit in well with the neighborhood. As there are no windows in the uack, we don't see any negative impact on their neighbors. Many homes in Saratoga Woods need improving, and we believe that it is an owner's right to be able to improve his home if it is done reasonably and in good taste. As the Levin's cannot add on the ground level, we think they've done an excellent job with their plans to get the extra needed bedroom. We do not want to see restrictions put on Saratoga Woods such as "no two story addi- tions will be allowed," as this would destroy the value in our homes and the rights as owners to improve our home in this manner when there is no other feasible way to add on. We would like you to approve the Levin's plans as we feral. it will enhancc, t_h^ borhood in general, and that it is their right as home owners. Sincerely, i e Kevin Walsh Chris Walsh 12314 Kosich Court Saratoga, CA 95070 "90/ /9 el-o )ze) 46 O From: Mr. and Mrs. Charles P.Little March 29,1990 12526 Radoyka Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 To: Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed addition to Levin residence at 18551 Ansley P1. Dear Sirs, We are writing to support the proposed addition to the Levin home in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. We live only three houses from the Levin's so we are concerned about the appearance and impact of their plans on both our immediate area, and our neighborhood. Because of this, we have reviewed the plans for the proposed addition and find it handsome, and an improvement to our neighborhood. The proposed addition is a special design which takes the overall height of the house to less than that of a normal two story house. This type of design lacks the bulk and height normally associated with the addition of a second story. The original neighborhood contained approximately five two story homes of a similar height, built in the late 50's by George Day. These homes fit quite comfortably in our neighborhood and do not stand out as odd, unusual, or unsightly. The planning commission, when hearing this matter, decided against any more two story homes in this neighborhood on the basis of a few complaints about setting a precedent. If all two story additions are to be stopped, then this prohibition should be passed into zoning law by you, our city council. Making a general rule against all second story additions after someone has started the approval process is patently unfair, and possibly illegal. We believe the zoning laws of the city of Saratoga are sufficient to protect our neighborhoods. The Planning Commission should only rule on the appearance and acceptability to the neighbors of individual additions. No one I am aware of has objected to the appearance of the proposed addition; in fact I believe it improves the appearance of the Levin's home. No precedents are being set and no health or safety issues have been raised. Therefore, for these reasons, and in the interest of fairness, we urge you to approve the building plans proposed by Dr. and Mrs. Levin. Sincerely, Charles "Little Norrine Little March 29, 1990 Saratoga City Council Dear Sirs: As residents of Saratoga Woods, we would like to express our support of the Levin's proposed addition at 18851 Ansley Place. After a review of the plans, we see that they have taken great care to maintain the character of the neighborhood as well as the privacy of their immediate neighbors. The Levins have not proposed an obtrusive monstrosity to capitalize on the addition of every possible square foot. Instead, they have tastefully and carefully designed additional space to improve the value and usefulness of their home without disrupting the flow of the neighborhood. Addition- ally, the accompanying improvements to the home's exterior will benefit the neighborhood home values. Second -story additions are A precedent has already been set of such additions. A denial of They have spent a great deal of project which could only enhance Woods. /ta not uncommon to Saratoga Woods. in the past regarding the approval the Levin's proposal would be unjust. time and money to ensure a quality the aesthetic appeal of Saratoga Respectfully submitted, Chris Anderson 1J UnLol Terri Anderson 12810 Saratoga Glen Ct. March 27, 1990 Dear City Council of Saratoga, We live at 18981 Hargrave Way, Saratoga, one block away from Ansley Place, Saratoga. We are writing to state our approval of the second story addition to the home of Susan and David Levin at 18851 Ansley Place. We have seen the plans and think the design Is very attractive and will enhance the over all appearance of our neighborhood. Anytime people try to make changes for improvement, a few will always complain on a whim because they are reluctant to be part of change. We would ask that the Council look at the benefits of the Levin's second story addition to the over all good of our neighborhood. Thank you for your sincere consideration. Sincerely yours, Johnny E. Melvin Pamela S. Melvin l -7 7 P_ --v_;4 1 e Avenue Ca ':45T70 Mayoi- !_ 1 evenger ai-101 -Y t'OLJnCi 1 MeMbe- We I i Vi e on the W(--.-,-t S i ( "le o-;,- the Horne cwnc:�c! by Dr- ancl Dav j C! �t'v [-j. We h;ave -seen the ji:)Ians which show --opc - e a�ddi.;'-.ior) .1orne—whic-h W 1 1 be constl­ucted cm c)ur- .3;�de I-he ii- house. i 'C i S ncli= a FU 1 1 SeCOFId StC)t-'Y, Cl (7) cai­ry over the whole house an(-_j i-aises the i-(:>o' i i r " le cippi- oximateiv six a pr-oblem­as the `�-ees t n e :� i - e rrtuc-ii highet- than that. We, cincl wrl(:) flavo 1 Ive(-.l f:or- S the fact e, h'3ve g f I t (j f Grow, 'the oid i-eaction HfaS -to move into w i t1) Llhe tremenclOUS incT-e---se In housing inci-easecl ­ax triis ma' es and add it. economic.,.il l vlable option. many in thal: aS Tafrll i i a larc )er- hou-5e. WI.., 1- pr;:ces piuS the ion a rnuc-h mor(_ We a So (Ilon't be i i eve tl-)at nel ghlbor-s o!- cl i scant. hom(:.' shouldl C,y M. joi-Ity vote be able to subjugate ones home anci pi­,Dper1-.y to r)r-ec 1_ _j i i ect i,,:,n, persona 11 i ty conf-I i c- soo-t- I -i 5.3y i n g s w e T- e s u c h mod i i 1 t 3 1:0 1:1-le al-e n0t. abject. Fnon,3tr-osity or- othei-s in the irrime�d;,I,jte (ai-ea. )CI ir1 that vein W( re For - the L vin's dddition. . i . I -n .. I.- I �.j i i ltj I . J I 1� I (J j I J L y C E B'/ , D I'l B /', J March Z9,1990 John and Kathy Baker 12 ^1 r5 Saratoga Creek Dr. Saratoga, California Saratoga Planning Commision Saratoga City Council D r. ra „a *nv _szo_ i 1 \L. -UUM, "AA. U K ALa Second floor addition to the Levin home 18851 Ansley Place It is our opinion that the proposed addition to the home'tisted above should be permitted. Ve found the p tares to be. both twteful avid vractive. in <iacign. ThP farni1 has chosen plans which will keep their homes appearance in line with the neighborhood. The homes in this neighborhood are of a "Californina ranch style” of architecture. Their addition gill not deter from this flavor. Rattier, it gill enchance the beauty of the area. Vhile we do acknowledge the concerns about the addition of a second story to a home, we believe that an addition such as this one is not a negative. It is a positive. Positive in its appearance, of course, but also, in the appreaction of real estate values for all people in Saratoga Voods. The Levins have definitely considered these concerns when designing their addition. They have used good taste and judgement. It is our hope that you gill approve their plans for remodeling. Sincerely.. .John a.d Kathy Baker Homeowners 0`7 - cj I' FEBRUARY 13, 1990 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ATTENTION: STEVE EMSLIE PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: DR -89- 124- LEVIN, 18851 ANSLEY PLACE APPLICATION 386 -20 -20 DEAR MR. EMSLIE: MY NAME IS JAMES L. REIMERS. MY WIFE, DOROTHY, AND I WILL HAVE LIVED AT 12450 CURRY COURT, SARATOGA, CA. TWENTY YEARS COME NEXT YEAR. BEING A BACKYARD NEIGHBOR TO THE 18851 ANSLEY PLACE LOCATION, THIS LETTER IS WRITTEN IN CHALLENGE TO THE REFERENCED APPLICATION. IN GENERAL, WE FEEL SUCH A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WILL AMOUNT TO AN "INVASION OF OUR PRIVACY" AND WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION TO THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY. OUR STREET, CURRY COURT, RUNS OFF WESTVIEW DRIVE IN A SOUTHERN DIRECTION AND TERMINATES IN A CUL -DE -SAC. OUR PROPERTY IS ON THE CUL -DE -SAC AND FACES UP CURRY COURT IN A NORTHLY DIRECTION. OUR BACKYARD IS A PIE - SHAPED SECTION, A PORTION OF WHICH HAS A COMMON BORDER WITH THE BACKYARD OF 18851 ANSLEY PLACE. OUR BACKYARD IS A VERY SPECIAL ASSET TO OUR PROPERTY. IT IS A PLACE OF PRIVACY, TRANQUILLITY AND SPACE. A RARE CONDITION EXISTING TODAY IN THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY. WE ESSENTLY USE OUR BACKYARD EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR AND IN MANY PARTS OF OUR BACKYARD YOU WOULD LOOK UP AND HAVE YOUR PRIVACITY IMPACTED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ITS BATHTUB INDOOR /OUTDOOR WINDOW COMPLEX. OUR BACKYARD GRASS AREA IS AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR A SWIMMING POOL /SPA INSTALLATION. SUCH AN ADDITION, WHICH WE HAVE CON- TEMPLATED FOR THESE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WOULD COME DIRECTLY IN SIGHT OF THE SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ITS BATHROOM WINDOWS. FROM THE FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY, AS YOU APPROACH DOWN CURRY COURT TOWARD OUR HOUSE, THE PROPOSED ADDITION WOULD BE CLEARLY VISABLE WITH THE BATHTUB WINDOWS FACING DIRECTLY YOUR APPROACH AND WOULD CLEARLY DOWN —GRADE THE APPEARANCE OF OUR HOUSE IN PARTICULAR AND THE GENERAL ATMOSPHERE OF SINGLE —STORY RANCH— STYLE HOMES IN OUR AREA. SUCH AN ADDITION, INVADING UPON OUR PERSONAL PRIVACY AND DETRAC- TING FROM THE AMBIENCE OF THIS LOVELY HOME AND ITS UNIQUE BACKYARD SITUATION, WILL SURLY RESULT IN LOWERING ITS PROPERTY VALUE. FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED, WE STRONGLY REQUEST A REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO 18851 ANSLEY PLACE. RESPECTFULLY, ' -•..._ ys c. . - ;�i � mot_ -�- � :>� _�; � > -= c. JAMES -L . REIMERS DOROTHY M. REIMER9 HIV SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Telephone: (408) 867 -9001 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Clevenger, Qf 4eW �9 F ML�� L� FEB 1 u 1990 CITY OF SARATOGA CI T 17 ?;IANNAGER'Sa OFF ICE 02/08/90 I will be unable to attend the regular scheduled City Council meeting, 21 February 1990, due to a prior commitment, Which is out of the area. I have read the minutes of the 3 January 1990 meeting and have visited the site and have a clear understanding of the issues. This letter I hope, will clarify the issues raised at the 3 January 1990 meeting regarding life safety, and access to the Bernard and Luanne Nieman property. 'In doing a code research, article 3, sec. 3.101 of the 1985 Uniform Fire Code and sec. 16.20.030 of the Saratoga City Code. Clearly addresses the issue of life Safety (abatement of hazard). Access from adjacent properties would not.be necessary if the use of safe herbicides and weed eating equipment were used, thus creating fire breaks for the property in question. This approach would alleviate the permanent access issue. Also During an emergency, access would be gained through the employment of good firefighting practices. Sincerel rnes ` 0. Cra MZ - -- Fire Chief c.c. City Council: Karen Anderson David Moyles Don Peterson F.L. Stutzman Harry Peacock, City Manager Hal Toppel, City Attorney SENATE BILL No. 2503 Introduced by Senator Leonard Fcbruary 28, 1990 An act to amend Section 8731 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to engineers. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 2$03, as introduced, Leonard. Engineers. Existing law provides that a civil engineer may engage in the practice of land surveying unless he or she was registered after January 1, 1982, in which event he or she is required to take a part of the land surveying examination and obtain a land surveyor's license. This bill would provide that the provision shall not be construed to prohibit a civil engineer acting in the capacity of a city engineer from completing certificates required by the Subdivision Map Act, regardless of the date of his or her registration. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. fiscal committee: no. State- mandated local program, no. The people of the State of California do enact as folloics: 1 SECTION 1. Section 8731 of the Business and 2 Professions Code is amended to read: 3 8731. A registered civil engineer and a civil engineer 4 exempt from registration under Chapter 7 (commencing 5 with Section 6700) of Division 3 are exempt from 6 licensing under this chapter and may engage in the 7 practice of land surveying with the same rights and 8 and the same duties and responsibilities of a 9 Frivtleges, censed land surveyor, provided that for civil engineers 10 who become registered after January 1, 1982, thev shall 11 pass the second division examination provided for in 99 00 SB 2503 —2— 1 Section 8741 and obtain a land surveyor's license, before 2 practicing land surveying as defined in this chapter. 3 Nothin in this section or this chapter shall be 4 construelto prohibit a registered civil engineer acting in 5 the capacity of city engineer from completing certificates 6 required by the Subdivision Map Act, regardless of the 7 date of his or her registration. 99 70