HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
21 FEBRUARY, 1990
SUBJECT: Appeal of denial of V -89 -042; Applicant/Appellant: Jeff Hornung
and Cynthia McCulley. Location: 18651 Perego Way.
PROJECT
DESCRIPT: Two single story room additions on east and west sides of the
house extend the existing structure with a setback of 6' instead of
the required 7'. These additions extend the family room on the
west and the master bedroom on the east.
We are asking for a variance since it maintains the existing
architectural integrity and helps ensure the addition does not look
like an "add -on." Planning Department originally recommended
approval of the variance, though they changed their
recommendation based on the Planning Commission vote of 4 -3
to deny.
If the Council feels that they cannot grant the variance, we would
like to remodel with the exterior walls of the addition moved in 1'
so that it will not require a variance. The Planning Department
indicated to us that they would approve this plan, but we would
like to get the Council approval since the neighbor's concerns do
not relate to the variance.
NEIGHBOR
CONCERNS: 1. Unreasonable interference to adequate open space, light,
and view. -=
- Design was done to minimize reduction of view: Additions have
hip roofs and the peak of the extension is only 12' above the
grade. See Figure 1.
- We chose a skylight which is flush with the roof to minimize any
illumination at night, but we are willing to look into a skylight with
double glass and inset blinds to further reduce illumination.
2. Unreasonable loss of privacy.
- Addition will not add any windows and will, in fact, move our
entrance to the backyard from a position perpendicular to the
Loretz sliding glass doors to a point =inside the "U" shape of the
house, see Figure 2. We feel that this will increase the privacy for
both homes.
- We chose projected windows to minimize our view out of existing
windows, but would be willing to redesign if Council feels flush
windows are more appropriate.
- Recent storm knocked down the fence between the two
properties and this could be an opportunity to rebuild a more
substantial fence, further enhancing privacy.
- We have begun to plant shrubs between us and the fence, and
would be willing to submit a landscaping plan, as the Planning
Department originally recommended.
- Kitchen is actually being moved just 13" to get more space and
the exterior walls will be insulated. With modern day appliances,
we do not feel that there will be excessive noise from the kitchen.
- East side of the house is already a common area. Moving part of
the common area would result in suboptimal traffic flow through
the house.
SUMMARY: We have looked at other remodeling alternatives and they would
result in suboptimal floor plans and traffic flow through the house.
We understand the neighbors' concerns and empathize, but we
feel we have tried to take their concerns into account in coming up
with a remodeling plan.
Thank you,
Jeffrey Hornung and Cynthia McCulley
FIbURPE 1
,L _--
71
F16L)RE 2,
Ist.1160 •
- 1".
- .70 - -
r
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM -7/4-
MEETING DATE: February 21, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: E n i n e e r i n
SUBJECT: Continuation of Flood Control Benefit Assessments
Recommended Action:
Declare City's position on continuing the Flood Control Benefit -
Assessment Program in the North Central Zone and direct staff to
communicate City's position to the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Report Summary:
Santa Clara Valley Water District staff have developed a proposal
for continuing the Flood Control Benefit - Assessment Program in the
North Central Flood Control Zone. The proposal was endorsed by the
North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee in November,
1989. The Santa Clara Valley Water District Board must decide by
March 6 whether to place the question of continuing the Benefit -
Assessment Program before the voters in the zone on the June ballot.
Each city within the zone is being asked to consider the proposed
program and declare its position to the board.
Fiscal Impacts:
None directly. If the proposed Benefit Assessment Program is
approved by the voters, an initial Flood Control Benefit Assessment
of $14.06 per single family residential parcel would be collected
with annual property tax payments beginning June 30, 1992.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report.
2. SCVWD Report.
Motion and Vote:
11 AIRA A
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Mayor & City Council DATE: 2 -16 -90
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer `
SUBJECT: Continuation of Flood Control Benefit Assessment
Program in the North Central -Flood Control Zone
Summary: The current Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program
in the North - Central Flood Control Zone is due to expire on
June 30, 1991. Santa Clara Valley Water District staff have
evaluated the fiscal impacts of this on the Zone's future con-
struction and maintenance needs. The results of their evalua-
tion are contained in the attached report entitled, ''A Proposal
for Continuing the Benefit Assessment Program in the North-
Central Flood Control Zone.'' The report recommends continuing
a Benefit Assessment Program through June 30, 2000, which would
require a successful election in the Zone prior to July, 1991,
and presents a schedule for implementing the recommended program.
The recommended alternative in the report was unanimously sup-
ported by members of the North - Central Flood Control Zone Advi-
sory Committee at their November 8, 1989 meeting. Each City
within the Zone is now being asked to consider the proposed prog-
gram to declare its position to the Water District Board prior to
March 6, the last day the Board can call for an election on the
matter by the voters in the Zone on the upcoming June ballot.
The Zone: The North - Central Flood Control Zone is one of five
such Zones administered by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
The City of Saratoga is the only city to lie entirely within the
Zone. Other cities partially within the Zone include Campbell,
Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, San Jose, Santa Clara and
Sunnyvale. A portion of Santa Clara County is also within the
Zone. Approximately 46 miles of creek and flood control channels
in the North Central Zone are inadequate to convey the 1% or 100
year flood. As a result, the potential damage resulting from
such an event is estimated to be $200 million. To address this
problem over the long term, the District has identified $164
million of Flood Control projects in the North- Central Zone
(Table 2 - Page 6).
1
J
Current Financing: To meet the costs of providing flood protec-
tion, the North - Central Zone has two primary sources of revenue.
They are its allocated share of the countywide to ad- valorem
tax which accounts for approximately SS% of its re. %enue, and
flood control benefit assessments levied throughout the Zone.,
which account for roughly 42% of its revenue. The principal
method of financing its flood control projects has been on a
pay- a,_;:�-you -go basis although the Zone has used general Ogl,i<Ia --
tion bonds in the past. Lc)ng--terFri debt financing is another
method that could be used by the Zone to fund its projects,
The current. berefit assessment r:?rogram was initially levied
b'd t.1he- Water District, Board in and subse(iuent.ly approves,:
by more th. n 73% of the voters in the Zone in 1982 for nine
more years. It a`. pr-OVI ed funding for both an increased maiil--
tenance program anc-1 the construction program. The current
benefit assessment program is screduled to e:x. -pire on June 30,
1991 unless it is continued by the voters.
When the Board established the benefit, assessment program in
1931, they set initial. rates and imposed two restrictions, a
"cap'' and a ''sunset ''. The ''cap'' provision limited assessment rate
increases to 20 per year. Under the ''sunset'' provision, the pro-
gram cannot continue past 1990 -91 without voter approval.
During the current Benefit Assessment Program, the North- Central
Zone has met its goal of providing increased flood control main-
tenance and it has met its goal of constructing the channel.
improvements that were identified at the onset of the program in
1981. These projects are presented in Table 5 - Page 16. The
major accomplishment of the Zone during this period was the com-
pletion of the Saratoga Creek project.
Future Funding Alternatives: In 1986, the Water District re-
viewed several methods of providing supplemental funding to all
Zones to accelerate the flood control construction program and to
provide a method of generating revenue to meet the costs of flood
damage repair should they be excessive in any given year. The
Water District Board favored benefit assessments on a Zone by
Zone basis as a continued source of supplemental revenue.
Six alternatives have been analyzed for the North- Central Zone,
(pages 21 -24). They range from a do- nothing alternative, in
which the benefit assessment program is allowed to expire to a
doubling of the current benefit assessment rates. Most of the
alternatives consider pay -as- you -go financing, while one alter-
native assumes long -term debt financing. The six alternatives
are compared graphically in Figure 3, page 22 of the report.
Recommended Alternative: The recommended alternative is Alter-
native 4 which would continue with a Benefit Assessment Program
in the North - Central Zone beginning in FY- 1991 -92 that would have
the same first year rates as under a continuation of the current
program, would allow for annual increases in the rate to
keep up with the rate of inflation, and would provide for
2
extraordinary flood damage repair following declared disasters.
The use of $20 million in long -term debt would allow for comple-
tion of major projects by the year 2000.
The North- Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee con:�id-
ered the various alternatives at their November 8, 1989 meeting
and recommended Alternative 4 to the Water District Board as the
preferred alternative. The features that the Committee liked
were the fart that there would be no changes in rates and that
the hi_ihest priority projects, particularly Calabazas Creek,
,,rould be built in a timely manner.
Table 6, pace 26 compares the recommended alternative with the
benefit assessment programs in the other Zones as approved in
1986. All of the Zones would have the same sunset date, the
same annual cap limit, provisions for repair of extraordinary
flood damage, and long- -term debt. The North- Central zone rates
would be either 1/2 or 1/3 the rates in the other Zones and
would have until. the year 2000 to enter into long -term debt
instead of until June 30, 1995 as in the other Zones.
Table 7, page 29 lists the major dates that need to be met in
order to submit the recommended program to the voters of the
Zone in June of 1990. There is another general election date
available for submitting this matter to the voters before the
1981 program expires, namely in November 1990. Special elec-
tions could also be called in March and June 1991.
Prior to placing the question of continuing a flood control
benefit - assessment program in the North - Central Zone on the
June ballot, the Water District Board would like each City
within the Zone to declare their position on the matter. As
of this date, the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
Sunnyvale have all expressed their support for Alternative 4.
The other Cities within the Zone will be considering the
matter at their next regularly shceduled City Council meetings.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council:
1. Declare the City of Saratoga's position on continuing
a Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program in the
North- Central Flood Control Zone.
2. Direct City staff to communicate the City's position
to the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of
Directors.
3
a R
0.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ( 1 1
MEETING DATE:2 /21/90
ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY. MGR. APPROVAL,
SUBJECT: Appeal of denial of V -89 -042; Applicant /Appellant: Jeff
Hornung. Location: 18651 Perego Way.
Recommended Motion: Uphold the Planning Commission decision and
deny the appeal.
Report Summary:
The applicant is requesting the City Council to overturn a Planning
Commission decision to deny a variance request to reduce the
required 7 foot sideyard setback to 6 feet. The proposal was for a
room addition that would extend along an existing nonconforming
setback established by the residence on the site.
Staff had recommended approval of the project since the required
variance findings can be made and a one foot difference between
code requirements and the proposal is minimal. In addition the
variance application allows a higher degree of review and control
by imposing conditions on the project to minimize impacts. Such a
control would be limited with a code conforming alternative and
administrative review.
On a 4 -3 vote, the applicant's request was denied by the Commis-
sion, since the majority of the Commission was not able to make the
required findings.
The applicant had appealed the Planning Commission
grounds that the variance is necessary for the
proposal minimize the impact on the neighbors.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
1. Memo from Mayor and City Council
2. Letter of Appeal
3. Staff report of January 10, 1990
4. Minutes of January 10, 1990
5. Staff report of August 23, 1989
6. Minutes of August 23, 1989
Notion and Vote:
3 - C)
decision on the
design and the
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 2/21/90
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of Denial of V -89 -042; Applicant /Appellant: Jeff Hornung
Location: 18651 Perego Way
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overvi ew
The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request to con-
struct a room addition that would extend along a nonconforming
side yard setback, established by the existing residence. The
Planning Commission received input from adjacent neighbors who
stated concerns that the proposed one -story additions would be
intrusive and foster existing intolerable conditions due to the
closeness of the existing homes. A majority of the Planning
Commission were unable to make the required findings based on
concerns that the room additions would exacerbate the privacy
impacts to the adjoining neighbors.
Background
The Planning Commission has reviewed two recent requests for the
remodeling of this property. The first application which was
rejected by the Planning Commission proposed a two -story addition
to the single story residence. The Planning Commission findings
cited in denying this proposal included: incompatibility with the
single story neighborhood, privacy impact to surrounding neigh-
bors and inconsistency with the City's design objectives. subse-
quent to the Planning Commission denial, the applicants decided
not to pursue an appeal to the City Council.
Rather, the applicants downscaled their project to two, one -story
room additions adjacent to each side yard. The additions were
proposed to extend along the existing 6 foot side yard setback
which requires a variance since 7 foot setbacks are required.
The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing which resulted in additional comment from the neighbors.
In response to the one story additions, the neighbors cited the
proximity of the existing homes and the privacy impact of pro-
posed windows.
1
e
Staff recommended that the variance be granted. Since the pro-
posed setback is one foot less than the code required being 6
feet rather than 7 feet as required for a substandard lot, the
privacy impacts would be much the same as a proposal that did not
require a variance. Further, staff felt that an artificial one
foot offset between the existing structure and the additions
would detract from the architecture. Further, staff concluded
that since proposals similar to this in the past have been ap-
proved by the Planning Commission, staff felt that there was
minimal risk that precedent would be created. Lastly, staff felt
that a variance approval added a degree of review that would not
be otherwise present with a code conforming alternative. Specif-
ically, the variance would impose conditions restricting the
location of windows whereas a code conforming proposal would be
considered on an administrative basis where variance or design
review findings are not required.
Protect Description
Zoning: R -1- 10,000
Parcel Size: 9158 sq. ft.
General Plan Designation: M -10
Average Slope: 3%
Grading: None
Materials & Colors: Roof to be wood shakes; stucco siding painted
beige.
Proposal Code Requirement /Allowance
Lot Coverage: 4429 sq. ft.(44 %) 5495 sq. ft. (60 %)
Height: 15 ft. 26 ft.
Size of Structure:
Existing:
2332 sq.
ft.
Proposed:
464 sq.
ft.
Total:
2796 sq.
ft.
3200 sq. ft.
Setbacks: Front:
25 ft.
Front:
25
ft.
Rear:
41 ft.
Rear:
25
ft.
Right Side:
6 ft.*
Right
Side:
7
ft.
Left Side:
6 ft.*
Left
Side:
7
ft.
*Existing non - conforming setback
The applicant is requesting the Council's reversal of the Plan-
ning Commission denial of the variance to allow construction to
reduce the required 7 foot setback by one foot to facilitate
construction of 464 sq. ft. additions to enlarge a family room
and master bedroom. The proposal also includes interior floor
plan changes including reorientation of the kitchen to an exteri-
Fd
M
or wall and the addition of a breakfast nook.
The two room additions requiring variance approval are located at
the rear and to the end of the rear of the existing structure.
Each proposed room addition is 12 feet in height and would indi-
vidually extend 12 ft. and 16 ft. from the home along the exist-
ing 6 foot setback. The resulting home would become "H" shaped
where it is currently "U" shaped. Without the need for a vari-
ance, this type of construction would be subject to administra-
tive review and staff approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny
the appeal.
D:ws5 \steve \memocc \v -042
0
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: U�Xr
Address:
Telephone: 1�, , 4W,7
Date Recei.ved:l QD
Hearing Date:
Fee : 011 Sraa
CITY USE ON]
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address: 186 -
Project Description: atxEr
Decision Being Appealed: _VAZiAocx. it-
Grounds _
for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
��� � ��� a�� �%�- ,�U -G�it min, �/� ✓Q,co�
1a
E9
*Please do not-sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
TIIIS APPT.?CATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IVTTIIIN TEN
1` 1- DTrE U!� 'I'I� E UL� i S I n, (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
Letter of Appeal
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: V -89 -042; 18651 Perego Way
Applicant/ Owner: Hornung
Staff Planner: Martin Jacobson
Date: January 10, 1990 �.
APN: 389 -26 -62 Director Approval.
-11
18751 !87'4/
202 18731 6
201 3ql - �2- 18721
122 391- 18711 186!
too 39t- 1S7ol (b°) 31'
i 20 391.22 1869(
Cep) 119 391dz Owl �
187546 ((66) 118 18691
' 39122 1874 (�) 391.0-'
125 391.22 A� i ?I> 117
1Zro� � \�, �a ••/
(in '!°� \�� ' \� N A y� V► 058)
~ 18676
13750 i» \� , o
'At -4Q- 13762 `cb— 0 391(26-
09 391 -40- NO
b 06 13784 C9)
1861
,-40-
12 i
;46 (38) l
34, 18640 '.
391.22-
37
ASPES
V IsLec.
Z
,
/
�. ' ,
a4
392z-
1 {
3
1$d�A
391- Z2 -285
I$do8
391-40 - 0713796 39r -22 R7 396& CSS) csa)T— CSI)
v'
391-40- 18641 f 531 (52) 196
W t16 18631 18621 18611 391-1
Is(.Sl J (132 391 -22 391.22 V11-2k 104
ALLEND-
r p� 112 111 110
= 1S65o RE 4' 4s) W Y.
C 391.22 - I O/ I lgb9c (418 (47) 4
18(.40(42) 391 -tit 991 -2 18620 I V0 l 0 1 9 60
39/-22-(00 34WI.2 39) -22- 391.22-
102 10.3 104 log I
163
391 -22 -99 297 (31)
(40) 2 V
I13fo'� 03) 18559
891- t2. -9t3 034) 18571 �1r�- 9;
2810
1861 39 05°11 391•t.2-
391.22 -97
18611 91 l8
391 -z2- VI?- 1857 6) 391-
89►•
(38) (37 X36) o (15)
1863)
18661 1$645 18600
14) 0:
9t -22 1958! 18Sr;
3119 5 - 391 '14 - 93 39 391- -22-
Staff Report of 1/10/90
File No. V -89 -042; 18651 Perego Way
EXECUTIVE BIIIII�ARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
11 -3 -89
Application complete:
11 -17 -89
Notice published:
12 -27 -89
Mailing completed:
12 -28 -89
Posting completed:
12 -21 -89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code article 15.70.020, a
request for variance approval to reduce the required 10 ft. side
yard setback to 6 ft. to facilitate construction of room additions
to an existing single family dwelling in the R -1- 10,000 zone
district at 18651 Perego Way.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: Staff is able to make all required findings
to recommend conditional approval of this application. The
dwelling on the site currently maintains nonconforming, 6 ft. side
yard setbacks. The approval of the request would not result in an
increase in the discrepancy between existing conditions and
ordinance requirements. Approving the variance would not be a
grant of special privilege since the Planning Commission has
approved encroachments into required yards where nonconforming
setbacks exist. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to
public health, safety or welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Resolution V -89 -042.
ATTACHMENTS:
mj /d
Approve the application by adopting
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution V -89 -042
3. Plans, Exhibit 'A'
File No. V -89 -042; 18651 Perego Way
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10
PARCEL SIZE: 9158 sq. ft., net
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3%
GRADING REQUIRED: None
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Roof to be wood shakes; stucco siding
painted beige.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 4429 sq. ft. (44 %)
HEIGHT: 15 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE: Existing: 2332 sq. ft.
Proposed: 464 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 2796 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft.
Rear: 41 ft.
Right Side: 6 ft.*
Left Side: 6 ft.*
*Existing, nonconforming setback.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
5495 sq. ft. (60 %)
26 ft.
3200 sq. ft.
Front:
25
ft.
Rear:
25
ft.
Right Side:
10
ft.
Left Side:
10
ft.
The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's variance
approval to reduce the required 10 ft. side yard setbacks to 6 ft.,
to facilitate construction of a 464 sq. ft. addition to an existing
single family dwelling. The site is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zone
district at 18651 Perego Way, 50 ft. east of Harleigh Drive.
The Commission may recall that the applicant recently applied for
design review and variance approvals to construct a second story
addition and reduce the required side yard setback from 10 ft. to
6 feet. The applicants' request was subsequently denied based on
the issue of incompatibility of the project to the neighborhood.
The current application does not involve a second story addition
but does request approval for encroachment into both of the
required side yards. Where 10 ft. is required, the home presently
maintains nonconforming, 6 ft. side yard setbacks on both sides of
the structure. The two additions requiring variance approval for
6 ft. side yard setbacks are located at the rear, and to either
end, of the dwelling. Each proposed building wing measures 12 ft.
in height and would individually extend 12 ft. and 16 ft. from the
home, and continue the nonconforming, 6 ft. setback. The project
does not increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and
setback requirements. The resulting home would be "H" shaped where
it is currently "U" shaped. Without the variance, an addition of
this type would only require administrative review and approval.
The design of the addition will preserve the existing the privacy
of adjacent properties because no new windows will be oriented
toward the nearest neighbors. As a result of the hipped roof and
12 ft. height, the project will not exhibit excessive mass or bulk
or interfere with views from adjacent parcels.
Variance Findings
Staff is able to make all required findings to recommend condition-
al variance approval of this application.
Strict interpretation of the setback requirement would not allow
the applicant to construct an addition to the home which would be
architecturally compatible with the existing structure. Any
addition without the variance approval would involve an awkward
offset in the exterior of the home which may be inconsistent with
the residential design guidelines.
Exceptional physical conditions are present on the property in the
form of the existing nonconforming, 6 ft. side yard setbacks the
dwelling maintains. Approving the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege based on the Planning Commission's past
approvals of encroachments in required yards where nonconforming
setbacks exist.
Denial of the variance request would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the neighborhood
who are able to make room additions to their homes, while contin-
uing the existing setbacks, without the necessity of a variance.
Approval of the variance will not result in at threat to public
health, safety or welfare because the 6 ft. setback to the property
lines insures adequate light, air and solar access.
Public Contact
Three adjacent neighbors of the project have reviewed the plans.
The neighbor to the east commented that he had no objections to the
addition. A neighbor to the rear also raised no objections to the
project. However, the resident to the west is concerned over a
potential loss of privacy due to the room addition. Staff is in
agreement with this concern and has conditioned the project to
eliminate the proposed bay windows on the west elevation and
provide dense, evergreen shrubs along the shared property line.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of this
application by adopting Resolution V -89 -042.
FILE NO:
Variance Findings
(Supplement to Variance Application)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance.
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance would require the applicant to inset the exterior wall line
of the proposed addition 12" from the current exterior wall location
on each side of the house to comply with a 10% side yard set back
requirement. Being required to inset the wall would result in a
practical difficulty because it would create a condition inside the
affected rooms where the walls would not be straight. This would
profoundly affect the way that interior space can be utilized, how it
can be furnished, and would greatly limit the room "s aesthetic
potential. Strict enforcement would require a deviation from the
context of the established architecture of the house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zoning district.
The existing home is currently 6' -0" away from the side property
lines rather than the currently required 7' -0" setback. The existing
home was constructed prior to the adoption of the more stringent
setback requirements for this zoning district.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Strict or Literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the
same zoning district
The Hornungs would be prevented from using their property in a manner
that is consistent with the current setbacks for their existing home,
and many other properties which exist in the immediate neighborhood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Granting the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in
the same zoning district.
The granting of this variance, will allow the Hornung family to
obtain the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners. It would
allow the Hornungs to build to the same 6' -0" sideyard setback that
currently exits for their parcel, and most of the surrounding
properties. Granting this variance would allow the construction of
improvements which conform to the character and scale of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Page - 1 Applicants Findings
SARATOGA
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
10th Day of January, 1990
Re: Case Number DR -89 -042, HORNUNG - PEREGO WAY
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL TO REDUCE 10 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK
- CHALLENGE AND COMMENTS -
I. UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE TO ADE�UA_TB OPEN SPACE,
LIGHT AND VIEW. (Ref. Article 15- 12.010 {b) and
15-45.080 {a) , (d))
a) Lots are side -to -back, not side -to -side.
b) Each lot is non - conforming with current
zoning regulations. (Ref. Article 15- 12.070
and 15- 12.090)
Perego Lot:
o side yard is 6 feet where 10
feet is required
o width is 70 feet where 85 feet
is required
Harleigh Lot:
o width is 85 feet average where
115 feet is required
Reference
(Attch. I)
Correspondence
c) My house is positioned to the rear of the lot.
Raingutter to raingutter distance varies from
14 to 22 feet.
d) Harleigh lot is already "walled -in ", facing 55
feet of house. Adding another 12 feet of wall,
roof and chimney would exacerbate the problem.
e) Large imposing chimney further restricts light
and view. Large skylight will constantly
illuminate my backyard at night.
Conclusion:
These homes could not be built by today's
standards. A bowling -alley backyard is made even more
claustrophobic by the 12 foot extension and chimney.
II. UNREASONABLE LOSS OF PRIVACY. (Ref. Article 15- 12.010
(b) and 15 -45. 080 (a))
a) These homes have a history of privacy problems
(lighting, noise). Previous property owners
have constructed an 8 foot high fence in an
attempt to maintain privacy.
Reference
<Attch. I)
Picture
<Attch. I )
(Attch. II>
See Picture
b) Relocation of kitchen and greenhouse windows
accentuates the privacy issue. Kitchen sink,
kitchen counter, trash compactor, refrigerator,
disposal and dishwasher are being relocated to
the west side of the house plus existing
windows are being enlarged to protruding
cantilever style.
Conclusion:
The kitchen area, the busiest and
Reference
(Attch III)
noisiest part of the house, is just 17 feet from our
bedroom windows. The compromise in privacy is uncorrectable.
(no room to plant trees, etc.)
III. SUMMARY
The proposed addition merely enhances
one property at the expense of another property,
causing a material loss to utility and market value.
IV. SIMPLE ALTERNATIVE!
Urge the commission to request that applicant return
with revised plans for an appropriate single -story
addition to the front and /or easterly side of the
property.
Sincerely,
Richard & Kathleen Loretz
18660 Harleigh Dr Saratoga
Har Leigh
TI TL
per -
ego
L- �r--F i
(W��
a
i .
`1
y , � x
�— III N, 4
i
I�
WArr- mllowc -f kvTpo -IUT
�
-ULirr �
LAV i �J -1 RcroM
OL
l
r--1
!- I S I � p� iKor- C,�i7i :..v.1• � -.�- 1"%��y�/ i
I� I `� � .. � .. fvwlvP✓ — - --
T � /• /
I'—LAZY 51X2AW _ -- - -
/� t ovpdb Li
__-V lwJld el VIC
- -- dam- � ►gar tNr,,,u,,o�„',
I.
- I
k
18640 Aspesi Ct.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
February 14, 1990
City of Saratoga's Planning Commission
1377 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
Dear Planning Commission,
Re: Hornung Prego Way Appeal of Denial
We have received notice of Appeal of denial of variance.
We are against any variance to the back of the lot, along
Wildcat Creek. Much of our privacy has been lost because
of their deck and removal of large trees. The Hornung added
a deck that extends over the creek. At the August 23, 1989
meeting, it was brought out that no permit was ever issued
for this very large deck. We are still waiting to hear
of the outcome of a deck of that size without a permit.
We feel any additional building over the variance would be
determental to our privacy and property value.
Vistors to our home cannot believe how much privacy we have
lost due to the tree removal on the back of their lot next
to the creek. Their backyard and home has been completely
opened up to our view - which is not desirable. We invite
you to come view.
Thank you,
Dr. and Mrs. Allen,/6. Riggle
18640 Aspesi Ct.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
(408) 379 -3951
18640 Aspesi Ct.
Saratoga, Calif.
January 9, 1990
City of Saratoga's Planning Commission
1377 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
Dear Planning Commission,
Re: DR -89 -042 Hornung Prego Way
95070
We have received notice of a variance approval on the lot
across the creek from ours.
We are against any variance to the back of the lot, along
Wildcat Creek. Much of our privacy has been lost because of
their deck. Large trees have already been removed when
the Hornung added a deck that extends over the creek. At
the August 23, 1989 meeting, it was brought out that no permit
was ever issued for this large deck. We would like to know the
outcome of a deck of that size, with no permit.
We feel any additional building over the variance would be
determental to our privacy and property value.
Thank you, RECEIVED
JAN - 91990
Dr. and Mrs. Allen C. Riggle
18640 Aspesi Ct . PLANNING DEPT
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
(408) 379 -3951
a
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14
January 10, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
C HEARINGS Continued
appr riate. The major issue is that the second story appears o
have a Ong line to it and tends to be a bit imposing He
indicate hat might be what the neighbors are concerned out.
Chairperson S1 fried said he was not too concerned a ut the home
and in looking a the plans again he felt that with ft. setbacks
on each side an then 30+ ft. for the mast bedroom those
concerns are well dressed. He said he id not have any
particular problem wit the circular drivew
Commissioner Harris stated a is not c cerned about the circular
driveway. She said that C issi er Tucker's comments about
enclosing the carport to make a a ge for the second unit is well
taken, and there would need to a ome square footage adjustment
so that a variance would not nee d on the square footage.
Planning Director Emslie ated that staf is suggesting additional
landscaping be added a condition and a nowledges the concern
of the adjoining ne' bor.
It was the con sus of the Commission that the A licant address
the porte -c0 ere and the adjustment for the garage.
MORAN /H IS MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -89 -106 TO JANUARX1990.
Passe 7 -0.
eak 9:35 p.m. - 9:50 p.m.
12. V -89 -042 Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, request for variance
approval to reduce the required 10 ft. side yard
setback to about 6 ft. in order to construct a room
addition to an existing home in the R-1-10, 000 zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning
Commission dated January 10, 1990. He reported that this is a
nonconforming lot and corrected the Staff Report to indicate the
side yard setback is 7 ft. not 10 ft.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:51 p.m.
Mr. Jeff Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, Applicant, addressed the
Planning Commission. He agreed with the Staff Report and stated
he is willing to compromise on the conditions of the Report.
Minutes of 1/lo/go
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 15
January 10, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The property owner to the west of the Applicant addressed the
Planning Commission. He objected to the setback and the design
plans. He distributed and reviewed a handout for the Commission.
His concerns also included the chimney, the skylight and the fact
that the kitchen of the Hornung home would be so close to the
bedroom of his home. He said he felt the enhancements to the
Applicant's home are being done to the expense of his home.
Mr. Harold Unger, 18670 Harley Drive, addressed the Planning
Commission. He objected to the request to reduce the 10 ft.
setback.
BURGER /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:08 P.M.
Passed 7 -0.
Commissioner Kolstad stated he had no problems with the
application.
Commissioner Harris expressed her concerns regarding the
reorientation of the kitchen.
Commissioner Burger said she was concerned that the existing
problem is being compounded and, in her view, the compounding
consists of increasing a nonconforming setback by allowing an
addition.
Chairperson Siegfried stated he did not feel there was any
significant impact on the property.
Commissioner Tucker expressed concern about the family room being
put right next to the back yard and felt that the family room and
dining room positions could be switched.
Commissioner Tappan said he had no problems with the application.
Commissioner Moran stated she felt some compromise might be
possible and suggested taking out both window extensions. She also
thought perhaps something could be done with windows in the back
which would protect the privacy of the neighbors.
Commissioner Burger expressed concern that whatever the Planning
Commission does with this application would be the wrong thing.
If the Applicant chooses to build the family room and move it back
1 ft., he would not have to request a variance and does not have
to appear before the Planning Commission. She felt that would not
be any better than the present proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 16
January 10, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
MORAN /HARRIS MOVED TO DENY V -89 -042 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Motion
passed by roll call vote 4 -3; Chairman Siegfried and Commissioners
Kolstad and Tappan opposed.
. DR -89 -100 Briggs, 20540 Komina Ave., request for desi/to review approval for a two -story additiexisting one -story single family dwellinR -1- 10,000 zone district. The total propoarea including proposed detached garage
sq. ft.
Commissioned Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Adar p esented the Report to the Planning Cqfhmission dated
January 10, 199 A correction was made to the S ff Report under
Technical Informa ion. The .rear yard setbacks a 71 ft. not 7 ft.
Another issue that arose after the Staff Rep t was written was
regarding dedication equired for Komina Aven The City Engineer
determined after recon idering the issue th he would like to have
a 5 ft. dedication for mina Avenue. Eve though it does not look
like the street will b widened in t near future, the City
Engineer feels there may b some issues ecause of parking for the
school and the tennis club. That wil deduct 285 sq. ft. from the
size of the lot and will redu a the llowable floor area to 2,880
and will bring the proposed o area 122 sq. ft. above the
allowable.
Chairperson Siegfried noted t at st ff is recommending continuing
this item to a Study Session on the i ues of reduction of height,
possible changes in roofli e, use of g ass, and a sunlight study.
The Public Hearing was p(pened at 10:24 p.X
/nhad Scott Cunningha , 14375 Saratoga Aven , appeared for the
cant. He r orted that the issue o the 5 ft. street
ation had b n discussed previously, and a had understood
was not go' g to be required and requested a be allowed to
view that ssue. Regarding the issue of bulk, r. Cunningham
ated th the issue stated in the Staff Report p -tains to the
andar conditions of the adjacent properties an the Report
s to he bulk based on those properties being cl se to theck. He said the Applicant is working to maintain the equired
ac and it is frustrating to be penalized for the c dition
adjacent properties. Privacy is another issue that ha been
d, and he said that Mr. Briggs is not opposed to the ob ure
oves. There is, however, a concern that staff is suggest' g
the windows be fixed. From a ventilation standpoint the
REPORT TO THE PLANNING. COMMISSION
FROM: Martin Jacobson
DATE: August 23, 19 8 9 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. 8 LOCATION: DR -89 -060, V -89 -017; 18651 Perego flay
APPLICANT /OWNER: Hornung
APN: 389 -26 -62 Q
18751 1874/ 19731
202 201
391 -22- 18721
-"I -2 122 391= 18711
to 391- I8,701 (/dol 3'
i 20 391 -z2 18641
(b7) 19 39142 (Sw
187546 ((ob) (69) (18 18691
35152 1874 j? f ) 391-22
391.22 A p ) 117
375
9'11-40 (» 391.22-
09 ►37062 (b) \3q� `'' 116
391-4
Og 13784 C5) _ (S7)
391-40 -07 1$1e`I 137940 b 18660
391 -40- 39f -22 z 391.21
115
(13) C14� '� Ot0 18651 J le
1864 6 (38) l
31t- /8640
3fc
a41.22.-
37
`_ 18f�26 `?�
V
391-22- IS570b, 391 -22 -7�
13604)
391 -z2-
346 40
\lb ti
y y e
18630
A
A` �
341 -2z-
41
"� 4
39
w Y.
la'
r86w
39t -22
1�a
391- 22 -285
10608
C55) C51) _
0541 153 X52% ($601
(86 41 184631 18`21, 184611 391-x' i8
3!1.22 391-22 391.22 311 -22 tog '
37(03 13795
391-22- IS570b, 391 -22 -7�
13604)
391-12*
92
Ilte r13
112 Ill Ito
�4�'
391 -2
2. 391 -41- -13
X36)
,3'1- 40
IS3
Q
43) ^
v a
w Y.
la'
39194 -
�
3y 391 -22- 39161
1%641
=.
IBfe5o
391.22 -101
911
4
kis
19 807
.4
C3)-
13810
3)I-ZZ-
I S4
1 186
18(640C 2) 391.22 34)1-Zt
(4Q (47)
m4zo 16610
1 6 (000
391 -40- 14
C
391-40-o4
391-22-100
391 -2 391 -22- 3`1.22-
18631
102 103
104 toy
1 3$19
391-22-
1
1863
C300 )
3'11-40 -15
C)
(3922
135
311- 22. -99
,
39/-40 -03
7e
18621
(40)
297 _
•4
1)
391-22-
I$,to2o
(�D) 1855°)
� Cb Q
131334
136
39r-t2 -913 C34)
18571 371.22-
87
Iflbll
391 -40
18610 39 I %591
391 -4z- 28(0
391
391-22-
391.22.97 C`i5� 1 -2>' i0
)=
/87 7 f
137
18611 91
t8S5o
17
391-40 -(v
/8691
391-40-01
ALLENDALE
AVENUE
18700 I 1 863
397-02 -a-5 397-02 - /o4
03
105;�an 1 IR560
Staff Report of 8,/23/89
391-22- IS570b, 391 -22 -7�
891.6
92
991-22 -
�38)
137
X36)
Ctg) (t
03)
I866f
18645
18631
91_�
14)
18600 IBg81 1856916!
39195 -
39194 -
93
3y 391 -22- 39161
03
105;�an 1 IR560
Staff Report of 8,/23/89
File No. DR -89 -060, V -89 -017; 18651 Perego Way
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
6 -02 -89
Application complete:
6 -30 -89
Notice published:
6 -09 -89
Mailing completed:
6 -10 -89
Posting completed:
6 -03 -89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code articles 15- 45.080 and
15- 70.060, a request for design review and variance approval to
construct a 1026 sq. ft. first and second floor addition to an
existing one -story home for a total of 3358 sq. ft. in the R -1-
10,000 zone district at 18651 Perego Way. A variance is requested
to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 158 sq. ft. and to
maintain a non - conforming side yard setback.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: Though a two -story home is adjacent to the
proposal, the neighborhood is characterized almost exclusively by
one -story homes. Staff is unable to make findings to recommend
approval of the request to exceed the allowable floor area. Denying
the floor area variance does not deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by other property owners nor impose a hardship and may be a
grant of special privilege. The property has no unique physical
characteristics with regard to shape or topography. Steps can be
explored to improve the compatibility of the design of the addition
with the adjacent one -story residences. An issue involving
additional shading of property to the west would result from the
second story addition. No privacy impacts are anticipated based on
proposed window placement and distances to adjacent homes.
Taking into account the combined effect of the second story addition
and the non - conforming setback, staff believes the findings can be
made to recommend approval of the request to make the first floor
addition and continue the non - conforming setback.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue
1989, to permit the applicant to
reduction in floor area and to
Study Session.
mj
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Applicant's Findings
3. Plans, Exhibit `A'
the application to September 27,
submit revised plans reflecting a
consider design alternatives at a
DR -89 -060, V -89 -017; 18651 Perego Way
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10
PARCEL SIZE: 9158 sq. ft. Net; 10,011 sq. ft. Gross
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:- 3%
GRADING REQUIRED: None
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Finish roof of cedar shingles; siding
to be 1x8 horizontal redwood and stucco both painted medium tan.
LOT COVERAGE:
HEIGHT•
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
nnnn^0 T T.
4153 sq. ft. (40 %)
23 ft.
1st Floor: 2522 sq. ft.
2nd Floor: 836
TOTAL: 3358 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft.
Rear: 36
Right Side: 6
Left Side: 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CODE REQUIREMENT/
A T T ^T TA Mf/ 'V
6007 sq. ft. (60 %)
26 ft.
3200 sq. ft.
Front: 25 ft.
Rear: 35
Right Side: 7
Left Side: 7
The applicant is requesting design review and variance approval to
construct a 1026 sq. ft. first and second floor addition to an
existing one -story home for a total of 3358 square feet. The
variance request is to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 158
sq. ft. and to continue a non - conforming, 6 ft. side yard setback
where 7 ft. is required. The site is located in the R -1- 10,000 zone
district at 18651 Perego Way, 50 ft. east of Harleigh Drive.
The property is a non - conforming lot measuring 70 ft.'in width where
85 ft. is required. The lot backs up to Wildcat Creek with an 854
sq. ft. Santa Clara Valley Water District easement crossing the rear
of the parcel. Two -story homes are located directly east of the
subject site and at the end of Harleigh Drive. The remainder of the
neighborhood is exclusively one -story in design.
DR -89 -060, V -89 -017; 18651 Perego Way
VariAnrA
The variance request contains two elements: a proposal.to exceed the
maximum allowed floor area by 158 sq. ft. and construction of a 190
sq. ft. first floor addition maintaining an existing 6 ft. side yard
setback where 7 ft. is requried (the 7 ft. setback is allowed due to
the non - conforming width of the lot).
Staff is not able to make all required findings to recommend
approval of the project as submitted.
Allowable floor area of homes in Saratoga is based on the net site
area of the lot. To determine net site area, the Water District
easement on the rear of the property is required to be deducted (15-
06.620(b)). The deduction results in a parcel of 9158 sq. ft.
allowing a floor area of 3200 square feet. If the easement were not
subtracted, the proposed addition would not require a variance
because the net site area would be greater, 10,011 sq. ft., thus
permitting a home of 3370 sq. ft. in size. Since Water District
easements cross numerous properties throughout the city, staff does
not consider the situation an exceptional of extraordinary physical
circumstance unique to the property. All properties would require
the Water District easement subtracted to determine net site area.
Denial of the variance request does not deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The applicant still
has the opportunity to make a second story addition to the home - -but
not at the intensity (i.e., floor area) of this proposal. Approval
of this request would constitute a grant of special privilege to the
applicant since applications similar to this have been denied by the
Planning Commission.
Denial of the variance would not impose a physical hardship on the
applicant. The Commission would not be denying further development
but over development of the property that the added floor area would
introduce.
Considering the second element of the variance request, maintaining
a non - conforming 6 ft. side yard setback, staff's opinion is that
the required findings for approval can by made. The combined effect
of the second story addition and the non - conforming setback is also
considered an issue by staff. Design techniques to reduce the
impact can be incorporated into the final house plans. However,
taking the variance application as a whole, staff's recommendation
for denial stands.
Design Review
Since the findings for the variance request cannot be made, staff is
unable to make all required findings to recommend design review
approval.
DR -89 -060, V -89 -017: 18651 Perego Way
Due to the excessive floor area of the project, the dwelling will
appear excessively bulky and massive in comparision to residences in
the neighborhood. The proposed addition does not conform to the
Residential Design Handbook by exceeding the maximum allowed floor
area.
Alternatives
The applicant should consider revising the roof pitch to improve the
first to second story transition; i.e., reduce the exterior height
of the second story walls. The second floor should use a complete
hipped roof to reduce the bulk of the project. Lowering the overall
height of the project could be accomplished by 8 ft. ceilings on the
first floor. In order to avoid the variance for the first floor
addition, the applicant would only have to shift the addition away
from the property line by one -foot.
Conclusion
Because the floor area exceeds the maximum allowed by only 158 sq.
ft. and the design of the addition is generally acceptable by step-
ping back from the perimeter of the existing home, and proposing a
hip /gable roof, staff is likely to make findings for approval if the
floor area issue were resolved. Therefore, staff recommends the
applicant be given the option to redesign the submittal by reducing
the floor area while keeping the proposed architectural design but
exploring design alternatives which staff has described.
Public Contact
Staff has notified the applicant of our concerns and our
recommendation. The applicant wishes to open the public hearing and
solicate the Planning Commission's comments on this project.
One neighbor of the project has contacted staff and expressed their
opposition to the proposed second floor citing a loss of privacy and
the excessive mass of the addition. Though the second story
addition is setback 13 ft. from the property line, the neighbor is
concerned the addition would cast a long, morning shadow onto their
rear yard.
Because the addition is located to the east of the neighbor, late
morning to sunset solar access will be unaffected. Staff agrees
that morning shading is likely to increase as a result of the
addition. However, staff believes the privacy impacts are minimal
because second floor windows do not face adjacent properties.
1
DR -89 -060, V -89 -017; 18651 Perego Way
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission open the
public hearing, accept testimony, consider the application as
submitted and encourage the applicant to submit revised plans to
reflect a maximum floor area of 3200 square feet. The hearing
should be continued to September 27, 1989, to allow the applicant to
complete the revisions with a Study Session prior to the hearing to
review the revised plans.
18640 Aspesi Ct.
Saratoga, Calif.
August 17, 1989
City of Saratoga's Planning Commission
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
95070
Dear Planning Commission, p`" �
Re: DR -89 -060, V -89 -017, Hornung - Prego Way
We have re.oeived a letter from Mr & Mrs Hornung along with the
plans for their second floor addition requesting a variance from
the planning commission.
We are very much against this addition for the following reasons:
This has been our home, where our five children were raised, since
July 1, 1962. The primary reason we purchased this home" was
for our lovely back yard privacy. The greatest asset of our
property is our unique park like atmosphere of our back yard.
We feel our privacy would be greatly invaded and our property
value would deeply decrease. A two story addition would
completely overlook our yard and the trees that have been
planted for 28 years would not shield their addition. The lights
and house are now very visible at night.
A deck was added at the Prego Way property recently, extending
over Wildcat Creek. At that time, trees must have been removed,
as we now have a full view of their backyard, deck and house.
There may have been four large pine trees once, but there seem
to be less now. Our trees do not block the view of this house
as it now stands as their lot is on higher ground. A second
story would be unsightly, not in keeping with the ranch type
homes of this area and our back yard and patio privacy would be
completely gone. These homes were built in ranch style of about
average 2000 square feet.
We do not feel this addition they are requesting a variance for
will blend but will completely dominate the area of primary one
story homes and be exceptionally determental to us.
We are the primary and only people this addition will affect
as we are directly across the creek from this site. The removal
of their trees, building of a deck, moving the fence closer into
the creek has already changed our view. An addition of a second
story addition would greatly affect us both personally and
financial.
Correspondence
2
My husband spends most of his free time, working and enjoying
the privacy of our back yard. This privacy is extremely important
to both of us and our family.
We too, have enjoyed our years in Saratoga with a country setting
and would like to continue with what we thought the planning
commission was also enforcing.
We invite the planning commission to view this site from our
backyard.
We highly recommend this request be denied.
Thank you,
Dr and Mrs. Allen
18640 Aspesi Cour
Saratoga, Calif.
(408) 379 -3951
C. Riggle
t
95070
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
Re: Case Number DR -89 -060, V -89 -017, HORNUNG - PEREGO WAY
REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPROVAL
- CHALLENGE AND COMMENTS -
Picture
Ref.
I. UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE TO ADEQUATE OPEN SPACE, 2,3,4
LIGHT AND VIEW. <Ref . Article 15-12.010 (b) and
15- 45.080 (a), (d))
a) Lots are side -to- back, not side -to -side. See Map
b) Each lot is non - conforming with current
zoning regulations.(Ref. Article 15- 12.070
and 15- 12.090)
Perego Lot:
Harleigh Lot:
o side yard is 6 feet where 10
feet is required
o width is 70 feet where 85 feet
is required
o width is 85 feet average where
115 feet is required
Picture
Ref.
c) My house is positioned to the rear of the lot. 1
Raingutter to raingutter distance varies from See Map
14 to 22 feet. Proposed second story height 2,3,4
of 23 1/2 feet is marked on the enclosed
picture. First sunlight to patio would be at
9:30 A. M. at a angle of 40 degrees.
d) Proposed second story is even visible from my 6
frontyard.
Conclusion:
These homes could not be built by today's
standards even as single -story structures, let alone
as two -story structures. A bowling -alley backyard is
made even more claustrophobic.
o material loss to both utility
value and market value
II. UNREASONABLE LOSS OF PRIVACY.<Ref. Article 15- 12.010 4,5
(b) and 15- 45.080 (a))
a) These homes have a history of privacy problems.
(lighting, noise, fence extension)
b) Rear windows visible to my backyard and front
windows to my master bedroom. Other properties
would also be affected.
Picture
Ref.
c> Relocation of kitchen and greenhouse windows See Map
accentuates the privacy issue.
Conclusion:
The compromise in privacy is uncorrectable.
(no room to plant trees, etc.>
III. SUMMARY
a) The proposed addition merely expands
one house at the expense of other properties.
b> The proposed second -story addition is not in
character with the predominance of single -story
ranch type homes.
IV. HAPPY ENDING
Build out, not up! Lot coverage can be 60% , allowing
room for the proposed addition. Urge the commission
to request that applicant return with revised plans
for an appropriate single -story addition.
Har Leigh
Mom
per
ego
/
.f�vo
`M1I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 8
. Alan Grebene, 15479 Belmap Dr., Saratoga, stated that there was no way to prevent vis
im is from a 65 ft. tower; he presented a packet with photographs entitled, "Grebene/Th as
Exhibi August 23, 1989, Subject: AR -89- 019 ".
Mr. Phil Si Attorney for Mr. Grebene and Mr. Thomas, reviewed several cou " ases which
demonstrated t cities could regulate satellite and radio antennas; he discussed City's recent
Ordinance enact this topic.
Mr. Michael Thomas sta that the subject property looked like a comma center; the four exist-
ing antennas created a grid- ' e appearance. The photographs presente earlier clearly showed the
visual impacts; he contended t t granting the Applicant's request w ,941d devalue his property.
Planning Director Emslie reviewed ffs original rec
request. Staff had since considered tw lternative lc
would require a variance; testimony givNors ell as
locations had the same visual impact as tnal to
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE
0 -1, Chairperson Siegfried being absent.
.
n on not to approve the Applicant's
s,Tor the radio antenna, both of which
s observation was that the alternative
proposed.
HEARING AT 9:27 P.M. Passed 5-
Commissioner Burger noted the difficul of this issue and h attempts to balance the needs of the
Applicant and the adjacent property hers; she had concluded at Staff Recommendation to deny
this request was the appropriates ution. While she understoo e FCC's position, it was. her
understanding that Mr. Sawye access to the airwaves had not n denied and that he had
adequate access. She could t approve a variance, since the alternativ ocations for the antenna
would make a bad situati worse; all the proposals reviewed were very in sive.
Commissioners Har ' and Tappan concurred.
Commissioner stad felt this request was a question of efficiency; the Applican as trying to
super tune hisjoddio reception; he had reservations whether the FCC stated that a 100 efficiency
was require despite the influence of one's location. He agreed with Mr. Sims' evaluation nd felt
the App ' ant had reasonable reception considering his contacts with countries as far a as
Russi , the proposed antenna would affect the value of adjacent property owners.
GER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY AR -89 -019. Passed 5 -0 -1, Chairperson Siegfried absent.
12. DR -89 -060 Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, request for design review and variance ap-
V -89 -017 proval to construct a 1,026 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an exist-
ing one story home for a total of 3,358 sq. ft. The Variance is to exceed
the maximum allowed floor area by 158 sq. ft. in the R -1- 10,000 zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 23, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:40 P.M.
Minutes of 8/23/89
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 9
Mr. Jeff Hornung, Applicant presented a series of view graphs titled "Situation, Proposed Design,
and Variance" and discussed the Application to remodel his home. He noted their attempts to
minimize the impact of the proposed addition and felt this was a sensitive design.
Mr. Rick Morreitz, 18660 Harleigh Dr., Saratoga, noted that his rear yard abutted the Applicant's
side yard; if the proposed second story addition were approved, he would sell his home. A series
of photographs were presented. He added that the subject property was a non - conforming lot; the
interference to light, open space and view from the proposed addition would be unreasonable. He
contended that the property would be devalued and his privacy lost if this request were granted.
Mr. Howard Unger, 18670 Harleigh Dr., Saratoga, commented that a lattice fence constructed
around the Applicant's hot tub was unsightly when viewed from his yard; his attempts to encour-
age the landscaping to grow sufficiently to cover it had met with marginal success. The Appli-
cants would have a clear view of his yard from the proposed second story addition.
Mr. Allen Riggle, Aspesi Ct., Saratoga, felt that with the proposed addition, there would be too
much house for the lot; his view would be reduced to a two -story stucco wall.
Ms. Kathleen Morreitz, 18660 Harleigh Dr., Saratoga, felt that smoke from the Applicant's
chimney would infiltrate their home; in addition, privacy impacts would result.
Ms. Riggle, 18640 Aspesi Ct., Saratoga, opposed the second story addition and favored an ex-
pansion of the existing first floor.
Mr. Hornung responded that there was only a limited rear yard that could be used for an extension
of the existing one -story home; the loss of a rear yard area would severely impact them. In
addition, the existing landscaping would prevent privacy impacts to some of the neighbors.
KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. Passed 5-
0-1, Chairperson Siegfried absent.
Commissioner Harris stated that a review of the plans and the lot configuration showed that this
was not the right structure for this site. This was a non - conforming lot and yet the proposed
addition extended the entire width of the home; such would add bulk and appear very unattractive.
The neighbors had good reason for their concerns.
Commissioner Burger agreed; a second story addition would be devastating to the residents of
18660 Harleigh Dr.; both the second story element as well as the size an any addition would have
to be reconsidered. A one - story, smaller expansion was in order.
Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioners Harris and Burger; he noted that Staff recom-
mended the Application be Continued to allow the Applicant to submit a project redesign.
Commissioner Kolstad agreed the proposed addition was too close to the Harleigh Dr. residence;
he suggested an alternative design which would create less privacy intrusion for these neighbors.
The proposed design was consistent with the existing home and the neighborhood; however, this
was a neighborhood in which only two homes had second story elements. The Commission would
need to consider these transition neighborhoods as a separate issue.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
6 i SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM r�
MEETING DATE: February 21, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
4 �
ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Fencing Within Hillside Districts - Area of Enclosure
Recommended Motion: Approval of negative declaration; introduction of
ordinance, with adoption at next regular Council meeting.
Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will amend Subsection 15- 29.020(c) of
the zoning regulations, pertaining to the area of enclosure of sites located within
hillside districts. The ordinance will establish a special exemption from the normal
regulations where a "designated neighborhood area" is established in response to a
petition from the occupants of such area. The ordinance is explained in more detail in
the memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith.
The ordinance was initiated by a request from the Parker Ranch
Homeowners Association to modify the zoning regulations concerning fencing within
hillside districts. The Association requested a repeal or amendment of the restriction
against fencing which encloses an area in excess of 4,000 square feet on a single site.
Following the conduct of several study sessions and public hearings on the proposed
ordinance, the Commission has unanimously recommended adoption by the City
Council of the draft dated December 7, 1989.
Fiscal Impacts: None. A fee should be established for processing applications
for establishments of a designated neighborhood area.
Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council;
(b) Proposed ordinance;
(c) Negative declaration; (to be distributed at meeting)
(d) Existing provisions of Section 15- 29.020.
(e) Correspondence received.
Motion and Vote:
2/21: Notion to introduce failed 2 -1 (Stutznan opposed); continued to 3/7.
3/7: Public hearing set again for 4/4.
4/4: Introduced.
4/18: Adopted.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HAROLD S. TOPPEL
City Attorney
DATE: January 29, 1990
RE: Hillside Fencing - Enclosure of Sites
J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
A. Legislative History:
The restriction against fencing which encloses an
area exceeding 4,000 square feet originally appeared in the zoning
regulations for the HC -RD District adopted on April 7, 1976. At
this point in time, the HC -RD District covered all of the
northwestern hillside area which is now zoned NHR. Following the
passage of Measure A in 1980, new zoning regulations for the NHR
area were adopted on April 27, 1982. These regulations did not
contain the restriction against enclosure of more than 4,000 square
feet on a single site. The subject was briefly discussed when the
new City Code was adopted in 1986. It was then decided to delete
the restriction from the HC -RD District in order to have conformity
with the NHR District.
On February 18, 1987, a new Article 15 -29 was
adopted which revised and consolidated all of the zoning
regulations concerning fences. This article included Section 15-
29.020 pertaining to fencing within hillside districts. During the
Planning Commission discussion of this ordinance, it was decided
to restore the restriction against fencing on a single site that
encloses an area exceeding 4,000 square feet. Initially,
exceptions from the restriction could be granted by the Planning
Director, but the Section was later amended on March 1, 1989, to
require approval of exceptions by the Planning Commission. At that
time, a further restriction was added to prohibit fences which
unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife over an-: established
trail or migratory route.
B. Requested Modification:
The main problem communicated by the residents of
the Parker Ranch Subdivision is the destruction of expensive
-1-
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
PAUL B. SMITH
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
P.O. BOX 279
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR.
STEVEN G. BAIRD
(415) 967 -6941
PAUL K. ROBERTSON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HAROLD S. TOPPEL
City Attorney
DATE: January 29, 1990
RE: Hillside Fencing - Enclosure of Sites
J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
A. Legislative History:
The restriction against fencing which encloses an
area exceeding 4,000 square feet originally appeared in the zoning
regulations for the HC -RD District adopted on April 7, 1976. At
this point in time, the HC -RD District covered all of the
northwestern hillside area which is now zoned NHR. Following the
passage of Measure A in 1980, new zoning regulations for the NHR
area were adopted on April 27, 1982. These regulations did not
contain the restriction against enclosure of more than 4,000 square
feet on a single site. The subject was briefly discussed when the
new City Code was adopted in 1986. It was then decided to delete
the restriction from the HC -RD District in order to have conformity
with the NHR District.
On February 18, 1987, a new Article 15 -29 was
adopted which revised and consolidated all of the zoning
regulations concerning fences. This article included Section 15-
29.020 pertaining to fencing within hillside districts. During the
Planning Commission discussion of this ordinance, it was decided
to restore the restriction against fencing on a single site that
encloses an area exceeding 4,000 square feet. Initially,
exceptions from the restriction could be granted by the Planning
Director, but the Section was later amended on March 1, 1989, to
require approval of exceptions by the Planning Commission. At that
time, a further restriction was added to prohibit fences which
unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife over an-: established
trail or migratory route.
B. Requested Modification:
The main problem communicated by the residents of
the Parker Ranch Subdivision is the destruction of expensive
-1-
landscaping by deer and other animals that freely roam on the
property due to the absence of any fencing. Since there is no
established landscaping already in existence, the animals feed on
newly planted vegetation which makes it extremely difficult to
achieve long term growth. The homeowners also indicated concern
over the loss of security from the limitation on the fencing of
their properties. In addition, a considerable amount of resentment
has been expressed over the fact that solid fencing was installed
throughout the Beauchamps Subdivision, which is visible from Parker
Ranch. Most of this fencing apparently was approved and installed
during the interim period described above when there was no
restriction against the area that could be enclosed by a fence.
The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association requested
a modification of the existing rule to allow enclosure of an area
exceeding 4,000 square feet so that landscaping may be installed
and permanently maintained. After discussing various alternatives
suggested by the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association and by the
Planning Staff, the Commission decided to deal with the issue on
a localized neighborhood basis by allowing a special exemption in
response to a petition from property owners representing 60% of the
area affected by the exemption (the same percentage as often needed
to initiate an assessment district) . This process would be
analogous to a special use permit, but such permit would be
applicable to a specific geographic area as opposed to a single
site.
C. Proposed Ordinance:
Under the existing Code, the Planning Commission may
approve fencing which encloses an area in excess of 4,000 square
feet where: (i) the Commission determines that the visibility of
the fence will be substantially reduced by topography, landscaping
or other features of the site; or (ii) the Commission determines
that the fence is required for safety reasons. The proposed
ordinance will establish a third basis for exemption in the case
of a "designated neighborhood area." Such area is defined in the
ordinance as a geographic portion of a hillside zoning district,
consisting of not less than 10 lots which are contiguous to each
other. Where any of the lots constitute part of a subdivision
shown on a recorded map, the Planning Commission may require that
the entire subdivision be included within the designated
neighborhood area.
The establishment of an exemption must be initiated
by a petition signed by the owners of lots comprising not less than
60% of the proposed area to be designated. A public hearing is
conducted by the Planning Commission, with notice thereof being
sent to every property owner within the proposed area and within
500 feet from the boundaries of such area. If the petition for
exemption is granted, the Planning Commission may establish
alternative rules for the enclosure of individual sites, including
rules pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type
of fencing, and mitigation of visual impacts.
-2-
Following the establishment of a designated
neighborhood area, additional contiguous lots may be annexed to
such area upon approval by the Planning Director, if he finds that
the lot to be annexed has features or characteristics shared by the
lots within the designated neighborhood area.
The proposed ordinance is intended to provide
greater flexibility in dealing with the increasing demands from
persons who reside in the hillside districts to install fencing on
their properties, while at the same time preserving the objective
of keeping the hillsides visually open and free from obstructions
such as solid fences. The Commission felt this objective could
best be achieved by establishing uniform rules applicable to an
entire subdivision or geographically defined area, rather than
through the granting of variances or exceptions for single lots.
NOTE: Since the adoption of the new zoning ordinance in
1986, we have been establishing a number of special rules for
various subjects, particularly fencing and accessory structures.
It is our intention to consolidate these rules into a single
"special use permit" process. This item will be added to the
Legislative Calendar and discussed with the Planning Commission
within the near future. In the meantime, we did not wish to delay
this ordinance because of the immediate concerns expressed by the
Parker Ranch Homeowners Association. Also, we are proceeding with
the ordinance requested by Jack Mallory to allow higher fences
which separate commercial and residential uses. However, we expect
that these new regulations, if adopted, wil] be incorporated into
the special use permit ordinance to be ini ated by,staff.
Saratoga City Attorney
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING SECTION 15- 29.020 OF THE CITY
CODE CONCERNING FENCING WITHIN HILLSIDE
DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 29.020 in Article 15 -29 of the City
Code is amended to read as follows:
"(c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and
fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall
encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the
area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission, which approval may
be granted in any of the following cases:
(1) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the
visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties
will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or
other features of the site.
(2) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the
fence is required for safety reasons.
(3) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure
has been granted by the Planning Commission for a "designated
neighborhood area," as hereinafter defined, in response to a
petition for such exemption signed by the owners of lots comprising
not less than sixty percent of the designated area. Before granting
such exemption, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public
hearing on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least
ten days prior to the date of the hearing to all persons owning
property located within the designated neighborhood area and
within 500 feet from the boundaries of such area. As a condition
for granting an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish
alternative rules concerning the enclosure of sites in the
designated neighborhood area, including, but not limited to, rules
pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of
fencing, and mitigation of visual impacts.
The term "designated neighborhood area," as used in Subparagraph (3) above, means
a geographic portion of a hillside zoning district, as designated by the Planning
Commission, consisting of not less than ten lots which are contiguous to each other.
Lots which are separated only by a street shall be considered contiguous. If a
petition for exemption is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded
subdivision or tract map, the Planning Commission may, in its discretion, require
Rev. 12/07/89 -1-
that all of the lots shown on such map be included within the designated
neighborhood area. Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to an existing
designated neighborhood area upon application by the proprty owner and approval
by the Planning Director, based upon his determination that the additional lot has
similar topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within the
designated neighborhood area."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Rev. 12/07/89 -2-
MAYOR
RES -NO
Saratoga
C
File No. Fencing in NHR, HC -RD
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
FENCING WITHIN HILLSIDE DISTRICTS - AREA OF ENCLOSURE
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 1S063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Amendment of Subsection 15- 29.020(c) of the zoning regulatipn pertaining
to the area of enclosure of sites located within hillside districts. The
Ordinance will establish a special exemption for established designated
neighborhood area.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Initiated by request from Parker Ranch Homeowners Association.
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The area of enclosure, under the new regulation will still be restricted
and subject to the City approval and will not interfere with wildlife
migration or movement. The amendment will not result in impact on the natural
environment or resources.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of W, 19 0.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY)
PROJECT:, fqa (�
�j --'-� �1 FILE NO: C�y� 1N 1�lItY� Nc -R�
LOCATION: 1 k e eSkae.,' ;,_j _Dj kk% i5
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: ��,4 �� CQQ -Y� D , nul 1 � I1
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1t ke }Q
C' 0. 9 50 0 lo-T-7
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 2�16�q p
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: C'i S�
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:p,��
CA,er— _ _ .Q,.. 0__.1 _ -o
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached
sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-
crowding of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of a lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or region-
ally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements in fresh water?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
YES MAYBE NO
— L
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
d. Change in the amount of surface water or any
water in any water body?
YES MAYBE NO
— X
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
\,
ground waters?
x
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
i.
Exposure of people or property to water related
`
hazards such as flooding?
X
j.
Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
\`
chemical content of surface thermal springs?
x
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass
crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
YES MAYBE NO
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? _
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (birds, land animals includ-
ing reptiles, fish, or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement \
of animals? ]�
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: Y
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light �/
or glare? _
YES MAYBE NC
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural \?
resources? ]�
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions? 1�
b. Possible interference with an emergency response \,
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? x
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human \�
population of an area? J`
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular Y
movement? n
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new parking?
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and /or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
Y-
-
X-
�1
x
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development of
new sources of energy?
YES MAYBE NO
Y
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities: �(
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
C. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health �(
hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion oTany scenic vista or view open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing recreational �[
opportunities? X.
YES
MAYBE NO
20. Cultural Resources.
a.
Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
r
archeological site?
�(
b.
Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
C.
Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d.
Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
V
of California history or prehistory?
b.
Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long -term impacts will endure well into the
v
future.)
/�
YES MAYBE NO
C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi-
dually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
"V. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
�j I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
OI find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
OI find the proposed project MAY have a siqnificant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRON14ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE: 1.11b 190
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
ISf« A &,,
SIGNATURE
For: 9rle e. &S1�
S15- 29.020 Fencing within hillside districts
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article,
fences and walls located within an HC-RD or NHR district shall comply with the
following regulations:
(a) Length of solid fences and walls. Solid fences and walls, having no
openings to permit visibility through the same, shall not have a length exceeding
sixty feet, as viewed from any street or adjacent property. This restriction shall not
apply to retaining walls.
(b) Parallel fences and walls. Parallel fences and walls shall be separated by
a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more fences or walls
are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of
thirty feet or less, the combined height of such fences or walls shall not exceed ten
f eet.
...00M,
(c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and
fencing which constitutes Dart of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall
encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the
area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission, which approval may
be granted if either of the following findings are made:
(1) The visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent
properties will substantially be reduced by the topography,
landscaping or other features of the site; or
(2) The fence is required for safety reasons.
(d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonabiv impede the movement of
":wildlii e animas utilizing an established trail or mid atory route v; nich crosses the
site.
(e) Wire fences. Wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or
alvanized wire, shall be permitted only if the space between the wire is sufficient
to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inches and
the wire is black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. Chain link fencing
shall be Dermitted only for recreational courts and shall similarly be colored to
blend with the terrain. No barbed wire fencing shall be allowed except as permitted
by Section 15- 29.050 of this Article.
Ex is+i V%
�ro v i S i ors
Parker Ranch Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 3077
Saratoga, CA 95070 -1077
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear City Council Members:
The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association has been working with the City of
Saratoga Planning Commission for the past year in order to find a process which
would permit our homeowners to legally enclose their landscaping with fences on lots
of one to three acres. The current hillside fencing ordinance limits the fenced
enclosure to 4000 square feet, which corresponds to between 1 /30th and 1 /10th of a
Parker Ranch lot. Since foraging deer eat nearly all newly planted landscaping, it is
very difficult for our homeowners to fill in the bare hillsides with plantings unless
they can fence them. We have lost the possibility of enforcing our CC &R's since
many residents have constructed fences without City or Association approval in order
to protect large investments in landscaping. We would rather see the landscaping than
eliminate the fences, which are mostly very attractive. We would like to develop
neighborhood fencing standards, limiting fencing to no more than 60% of each lot,
requiring setbacks from the street and adjoining lots, and specifying open styles of
fences, including wrought iron and wire mesh. Our goal is to regain control as an
Association, establish standards acceptable to the majority of our homeowners, and
make our hillsides as attractive as possible through the installation of appropriate
landscaping. Since the proposed new ordinance will permit us to do all these things,
we enthusiastically support it. Moreover, it would allow each hillside neighborhood
to meet its own needs in the best manner for that neighborhood.
The Board of the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association hopes that you will
follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission by passing the proposed
hillside fencing ordinance.
Sincerely,
Ronni Lacroute, Secretary
F xe,
J'Aa� cz/.?, //?D
February 21, 1990
Saratoga City Council
City Hall
Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Hon. Council Members: RE: Hillside Fencing Ordinance
We write to you in opposition to fencing of any kind in
the hillsides.
The population explosion in Santa Clara County has pushed
the native flora and fauna into the hills and out of the valley.
Expanding human habitat into the hills, the valleys, ravines
and ridgetops increases the pressure on our natural ecosystem.
To fence these sensitive hills will have the effect of absolute
destruction of habitat for deer, opossum, raccoon, bobcat, rab-
bits, and many other creatures with whom we share our environ-
ment.
It is most critical that Saratoga express its genuine
desire to protect our hills by allowing no exemptions and no
exemption procedure to the Hillside Fencing Ordinance.
Sincerely yours,
COAL ION -.FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION
Wanda _Alexander
Lti- LJ k.
J
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 21, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL2
e
ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Vehicle Repairs on Residential Properties
Recommended Motion: Introduction of ordinance, with adoption at next regular
Council meeting.
Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will amend Section 9- 50.010 of the City
Code to strengthen the regulations concerning repair of vehicles on residential
properties. The ordinance is explained in more detail in the Memorandum from the
City Attorney submitted herewith.
Even though the ordinance is not an amendment to the zoning
regulations, the initial draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission because the
subject of vehicle repairs is related to a group of ordinances currently being studied by
the Commission under the general topic of neighborhood preservation. After making
several revisions to the ordinance in response to public comments, the Commission
unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. Some
additional revisions were subsequently requested by the City Manager, and these
revisions have been incorporated into the latest draft dated February 7, 1990.
Fiscal Impacts:
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
None.
(a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council;
(b) Proposed ordinance.
(c) Existing provisions of Section 9- 50.010
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL B. SMITH 660 WEST DANA STREET
LEONARD J. SIEGAL P.O. BOX 279
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOOTHTH, , JR. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
STEVEN G. BAIRD (415) 967 -6941
PAUL K. ROBERTSON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HAROLD S. TOPPEL
DATE: February 7, 1990
RE: Vehicle Repair Ordinance
J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
The proposed ordinance will add language to Section 9-
50.010 in order to strengthen the existing regulations concerning
vehicle repairs on residential properties.
Under the existing Code, emergency repairs performed on
any public street must be completed within 48 hours from the time
of breakdown, and repairs performed on private property within
public view must be completed within 120 consecutive hours. The
proposed ordinance will reduce the time for completing emergency
repairs on private property from 120 hours to 48 hours. [Paragraph
(b) (2) ]
A new restriction has been added to regulate the conduct
of vehicle repair activity within a "front area" and "exterior side
area," as defined in Paragraphs (a) (1) and (a) (2) (generally being
the space between the house and the street) . Except for emergency
repairs, no vechicle repairs may be conducted on private property
within public view (anywhere on the site) or within a front area
or exterior side area. In addition, emergency repairs may not be
conducted on a "regular basis." The reoccurrence of any repair
activity within a period of 15 days shall give rise to a
presumption of regularity. The effect of a legal presumption is
to shift the burden of proof to the person charged with the
violation to establish that repair activity was not being conducted
on a regular basis. This language is intended to cover the
occupant who is repeatedly performing vehicle repairs on his
property, but each occurrence of such activity is completed in less
than 48 hours.
The existing Code requires that vehicle repairs on
private property be "completely screened from public view." We are
-1-
i
aware of at least one instance where the screening is being
provided by a large tarp, which is almost as unsightly as the
repair activity itself. Under the proposed ordinance, non -
emergency vehicle repairs on private property may only be conducted
within the "rear area" of the site, as defined in Paragraph (a)(3),
and such repairs must be confined within an enclosed structure or
completely screened from public view by a permanent solid fence or
wall which complies with the zoning regulations.
Finally, the ordinance will add a new paragraph to
prohibit vehicle repairs conducted on residential sites for the
purpose of sale or rental of such vehicles. he sale of not more
than one vehicle within any 12 month pe�{od/would bo exempted.
-2-
Harold' S . Toppel
Saratoga City Attorney
i .
Motor Vehicles and Traffic §9- 50.010
ARTICLE 9-50
REPAIR OF VEHICLES
Sections:
9- 50.010 Repairs in residential districts
9- 50.020 Enforcement of Article
sss
S9- 50.010 Repairs in residential districts
No person shall engage in the repair of any motor vehicle, trailer, camper unit
or boat in any residential district within the City except in accord with the
following regulations:
(a) The vehicle, trailer, camper unit or boat must be currently registered to
a person resident at the site at which it is being repaired at the time it is being
repaired.
(b) Except for emergency repairs performed within 48 hours from the time
of breakdown, no such repairs shall be permitted on any public street, public trail, or
other public right -of -way.
(c) Such repairs that are performed on private property within public view
shall be completed within 120 consecutive hours. There is no limit of time to
perform repairs on private property when the repair activity, and the storage of all
repair equipment, supplies, vehicles and parts, are completely screened from the
public view.
(d) No such repairs shall be permitted if it creates a volume of noise in
excess of the levels permitted under this Code or any other applicable ordinance,
rule or regulation of the City or the State.
(e) No such repairs shall be permitted if it creates any smoke or noxious
fumes or odors which are discernable to occupants of adjoining real property or to
members of the general public using an adjoining public street or public right -of-
way.
S9- 50.020 Enforcement of Article
It shall be the duty of all policemen and Community Service Officers
appointed for such purpose, all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police
services in the City, the City Manager, the Planning Director and the Maintenance
Director to enforce all of the regulations set forth in this Article.
Page 9 -46