HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-1989 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSStaff Report of Sept. 27, 1989
REPORT TO THEE
FROkk Martin Jacobson
DATE: September 27, 19 8 9 PLMM, DIR. A.PPRV
APPLICA11ON NO. & LOCAYIOR DR -89 °105; 20271 Merrick Drive
APPUCANY /OWNER: Espeseth
APN: 393 -42 -17 Q
(01
6Z
b 3 64 ir3 I " 67
r
a� >•03 6 » c1 a) c ►9) C2a� cal)
cat) r1,)o�
C12)
1;s 31i_o,_
ot9s ?otal 2047 20263 202 20223 Z�•
.
3654
�� -a- i
391-01 9Al-e/ 311.01- 311 -0 391 -01- 991 -a
�:
I'
1t -a-
149
I 140 139 138 137
13L
`
3'
(14)
SARATOGA VISTA
1!)
1367
13`'42
I1
.7r
391 -e1-
(11 ) Qm (1) C8i C7) 0L)
024(0 02130 o2fir4 20248 ?0211 ?0l =1Ca
J11-o1-
°!
41
C1)
91 -01- 391 -ot- :91 -01- 311 -01- an# -41
311 -01-
C9)
13b�e4
13685
174 1 7 198 191 196
179
s
. 28
14I s
13 690
11
34
;1 o
1364 5
39101-
O
CI)
13480
°°
391.01.
I
17
13cgSC1)
V
3111.32
13
.*I-
239
13709
13700 ite
341 -01-
391 -� -
1
C2)
391
"IIo7 �
C4) (3)
19(096
311 -01-
(g)
j2
13710 20251 20231
2021
I3
O1"
C1
391 -OI- '911 -101- 891 -of-
391 -01-
C3)
3`
1i715
1 Ib /be
1te7
O
13712
'z4
311 -e1-
140 W
ER RI C K DR.
Z
391-01 -
ISO
1�
.37
J
, C7) (a) 091 00
Cl)
4q
137208)
C
9
13725
`
20290 20270 2o25o 202 90 20210
!At-01-
o b
i91 49
311.01-162 11 -��3 391- g1 - 391%613-
39101-
V
t2
tj
6
13735
W (S) (4) C.3)
(2)
19744
t41)
311-01 -150
3754 13764 1'3772 1'97$2
13794
'J
391'CI-
I2
tc
.of-
}11.01- 341 -01- 391 -of- 391 -01-
391 -01
W
3'
299
1374540
16 160 igg I 6
1IS7
15760
'e
391-41-1131
CAL LE TACUBA
all-W-
127
1
sg4
C5) Cd C7) CSC
13755 13745 13770 137815
f9)
13715
C'
137613
3•
C3)
391 -01— 391.01- 391-e1- 391 •ol-
'991.01 -t
3RI-o(
233.
2 0 31 S
391 -01 -201
152 153 i 154 Igg
Zo213q 20275 202 (a1 20241
CIO)
20221 13811
iLb
CS)
13$10
1
Cq
:as45
ZJI-ol
2!t
391-0/- 311.01- 3Ml -61 391 -01 -257
"j-ol- 391 -a
391'
'3
%S91 2541 253
256
182
125
HER RI MAN
AVE.
File No. DR -89 -105; 26_,1 Merrick Dr.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
8/18/89
Application complete:
8/30/89
Notice published:
9/13/89
Mailing completed:
9/14/89
Posting completed:
9/7/89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Article 15- 45.080, a
request for design review approval to construct a one - story, 2,925
sq. ft. single - family dwelling in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district at
20271 Merrick Dr.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposal is consistent with all minimum
zoning ordinance standards with regard to setbacks, floor area, and
coverage. The project meets all conditions of the building site
approval, granted August 2, 1989. The design of the home is
compatible with existing residences in the neighborhood and
essentially identical to plans submitted during building site
approval. The grading reduces the building pad to an elevation
similar to adjacent homes. Staff is able to make all required
findings to recommend design review approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval by adopting Resolution DR -89 -105.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -89 -105
3. Plan, Exhibit A
4. Neighbor submitted landscape plan
MJ /dsc
File No. DR -89 -105; 2C .1 Merrick Dr.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10
PARCEL SIZE: 10,109 sq. ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:
GRADING REQUIRED:
7%
Cut: 833 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 6 Ft.
Fill: 10 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 1.5 Ft.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Cedar shingle roof; horizontal, 1 x 8
lap siding painted "Dunsmuir" (tan) with red brick accent.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 4,566 sq. ft. (46 %)
HEIGHT:
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
16 ft.
1st Floor:
TOTAL:
SETBACKS: Front:
Rear:
Right Side:
Left Side:
2,925 sq. ft.
2,925 sq. ft.
25 ft.
26 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
A T T ^T.T T XT/�T:
6,011 sq. ft. (60 %)
26 ft.
3,200 sq. ft.
Front:
25
ft.
Rear:
25
ft.
Right Side:
10
ft.
Left Side:.
10
ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the Planning
Commission's design review approval to construct a one - story, 2,925
sq. ft. home in the R -1- 10,000 zone district at 20271 Merrick Drive,
350 ft. east of E1 Camino Rico.
As the Planning Commission may recall, the project site is the
product of a lot line adjustment and building site approval upheld
by the City Council, on appeal from the Commission, August 2, 1989.
Conditions of the approval include a structure with a maximum height
of 18 ft. and a home to be designed essentially the same as the
preliminary drawings submitted with the application. Design review
approval is also required as a condition of the building site
approval.
The neighborhood is predominately characterized by single story, low
profile homes on 9,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. lots. To the rear of the
subject parcel is the Pollard Ranch House dating from 1880; homes on
either side are one -story designs.
Design Review
Staff is able to make all required findings to recommend design
File No. DR -89 -105; 2L .1 Merrick Dr.
review approval of this application.
The California ranch style theme of the proposed home is consistent
with existing homes throughout the neighborhood. The proposal has a
hipped roof finished with wood cedar shingles. Horizontal, 1 x 8
lapped wood siding painted tan with brick and wood shutter accents
complete the exterior finishing.
Grading amounts to a total of 843 cu. yds. with a 6 ft. maximum
depth of cut. 833 cu. yds. of the materials are for export to
result in a building pad with a similar elevation as surrounding
homes.
To accommodate the project, the existing driveway to the Pollard
House needs to be relocated. To buffer the impact of the new
driveway on the adjacent neighbor, the applicant has submitted a
landscaping plan showing 15 gal. pittosporium planted along the
shared property line. The affected neighbor has reviewed the plans
and submitted a revised plan requesting an additional 12, 36 -inch
box Brazilian pepper trees spaced 10 ft. apart. 'The trees would be
located between the driveway and the property line to the north of
the neighbor. While staff agrees that additional evergreen
landscaping is needed to reduce the privacy impact, it seems that
36 -inch box trees are excessive. Furthermore, according to the
"Sunset Western Garden Book," the Brazilian pepper reaches a spread
of 30 feet. Staff has conditioned the resolution to provide 12, 24
inch box trees. The neighbor's plan is attached for reference.
Staff has also conditioned the project to install shrubs along the
west property line prior to final occupancy.
The landscape plan also shows a chain link fence surrounding the
proposed dwelling. A hedge planting is proposed to conceal the
fence. It is staff's opinion that chain link is inappropriate in a
residential setting. For this reason, a condition has been added
limiting fencing to a solid board variety. The applicant is in
agreement on this issue.
By reducing the elevation of the building pad, the project would
preserve existing views and avoid interfering with the privacy of
adjacent neighbors. The project incorporates techniques suggested
in the residential design handbook to reduce mass and bulk by
limiting the area of maximum height, varying rooflines and
horizontal, articulation of the building profile. The design is
compatible to existing homes by not attracting undue attention,
proposing a similar style to homes in the neighborhood and not
overwhelming existing residences.
Two ordinance size trees are proposed to be removed. The remaining
and proposed landscaping is sufficient to compensate for the loss of
the two trees.
RECOMMENDATION•
DR -89 -105.
Approval of the application by adopting Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. �D "
I , 89` ZO
F�
RECEIVED
UOT
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PLANNING DEPT
ESPESETH - 27:1A; Mtw, RR,MCKsDRI =�
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application for design review approval of plans to
construct a one -story 2,925 sq. ft. single - family dwelling; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required
to support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site
does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding
residences in that proposed grading reduces the building pad
elevation. The result will be the preservation of existing
views from adjacent homes.
-The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences in that the one -story design and
proposed landscaping will preserve the neighbor's privacy.
-The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree
removal, soil removal,.and grade changes in that when grading is
completed, the property will appear harmonious to adjacent
parcels. Replacement trees will be planted for two ordinance
size trees to be removed.
-The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in
relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the project uses
a one -story design and techniques in the Residential Design
Handbook such as limiting areas of maximum height and varied
rooflines.
-The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with
those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning
district in that the proposal is one -story home, 16 ft. high and
similar in architectural style to the neighborhood. The project
does not exceed the maximum allowed floor area.
-The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar
access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks to the
property lines are proposed.
-The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion
control standards in that the project proposes grading required
by building site approval from the City Council. Erosion
DR -89 -105; 20271 Mer: k Dr.
control measures will be required by the Building Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Sam Espeseth
for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject
to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a
zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department.
3. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5
ft.
4. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 3:1 slope.
5. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
6. Landscaping for screening along the driveway to the Pollard
House shall be installed prior to final occupancy.
The pittosporum hedge (15 gal.) shall be extended 50'
northeast and several Brazilian pepper trees (15 gal.) shall
be installed between the Pollard House driveway and the Wilson
property. The applicant shall include these items on a
revised landscape plan subject to the Planning Director's
review and approval prior to zone clearance.
7. Applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation and report
by licensed professional to include details on:
a.) Soils
b.) Foundation
8. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall
be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of
a zone clearance:
a..) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross-
- sections, existing and proposed elevations,
earthwork quantities)
b.) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall,
location, etc.)
C.) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or
R.C.E. for walls 4 feet or higher.
d.) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or
DR -E9 -105; 20271 Mer k Dr.
be removed.
e.) Erosion control measures
f.) Standard information to include titleblock, plot
plan using record data, location map, north arrow,
sheet no's. owner's name, etc.
9. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage. (City
of Saratoga Code 16- 15:110).
10. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one
ft. shoulders.
a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of o &
S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to
the proposed dwelling.
b. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of
A.C. or better on 6" aggregate base from a public street
to proposed dwelling.
c. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 32
ft.
11. Construction hours shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday. No construction activities shall
take place on Sundays.
12. Prior to zone clearance approval, the parcel map required as
an approval of SD -89 -005 shall be filed with and approved by
the City Engineer.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this
resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted
to the Building-Division when applying for a building permit.
Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
rR °89-105; 20271 Mei :k Dr.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27th day of September
by the following roll call vote: 1989
AYES: Commissioners Siegfried, Tucker, Harris, Burger, Kolstad, Tappar
and Moran
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
airperson, anning ommission
ATTEST:
ecr ary, anning Commission
The forgoing condition are hereby accepted.
la
ture of Applicant D e
20251 Merrick Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 28, 1989
Dr. Stutzman, Vice Mayor
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Dr. Stutzman:
J
Having to write this letter and attend yet another City Council meeting
in regard to the Espeseth property is extremely stressful but it is too
important to us to not do it.
The Planning Department has been telling us all of this time that there is
no way Mr. Espeseth could build this winter because he didn't have his
grading permit by Oct. 1 - -it seems there are exceptions to everything.
We were so unhappy with the small amount of landscaping that Mr. Espeseth
offered that we paid Mr. Schoppet, a landscape architect, to come and look
at the yard and draw a plan that would be both attractive for the Espeseths
as well as give us privacy. He has also drawn plans to redesign our back yard
because in the last few months we lost two giant pine trees due to disease.
We thought we would be able to plant our trees this fall and by next spring
would have at least a small amount of growth which would give us a very
minimum amount of privacy before the driveway was moved next to our property
line.
Unfortunately the driveway is now next to our fence and it is even worse than
we thought it would be. We do not think the landscaping that we are
requesting is unreasonable. Although Mr. Schoppet requested 12 36'' box
Brazilian Pepper Trees, we would be happy with 12 24" trees or 9 36" trees.
It is true that they grow to a 30' span -- however, that takes 30 years. The
tree is listed as only producing moderate growth each year so it will be many,
many years before they are full grown trees. If only 15 gallon trees are
planted, they offer no privacy at all for at least 2 or 3 years. We are not
complaining about the 15 gallon pittosporum although they will offer no
privacy above the fence for at least 3 years.
We would like the pittosporum to go back from the street and around the corner
at least 10 feet but preferably 50 feet - -we do not want the pittosporum across
the back yard where our pool is. In addition, we are requesting that 12
Brazilian Pepper Trees in the 24" box be planted in a zigzag manner across
the back 100 feet that separates our property from the Espeseth.
The Espeseths property behind us is from 4' to 6' higher than ours. if
pittosporum are planted in back of our fence, they would have to grow about 6'
higher than the fence in order to give us privacy (the driveway is 6' higher
in back and when cars or people are in that area, they add another 5' or
more). Therefore, trees are the only logical choice for privacy in the back
because they are taller and spread out more but don't give the closed in
feeling.
If you recall, when the motion was made by the City Council to allow this
house to be built, it was stated that it was under the condition that MATURE
EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING be provided to allow us privacy. This was also included
in the motion by the City Planners. Somewhere along the way, the MATURE part
has been forgotten. We are not requesting that full size trees be planted
but are asking -for some compensation for having to have the driveway next to
our property line as well as having additional traffic go all the way around
our house to the back.
In addition to the landscaping above, we are requesting that the landscaping
be installed within the next 30 days. The Espeseths are already using their
new driveway and we have been told that if trees and shrubs are planted in the
fall, they have a better root system in order to have more growth in the
spring and summer.
There is nothing that could make up for the stress caused by watching the
bulldozer knock down most of the trees next door and having trucks lining the
street for 2 days solid taking away load after load of dirt from the site. If
you have not lived next door to a construction site, you have no idea how
awful the noise is and this is something that we will be living with for the
next 9 months or so.
Would you please consider having Mr. Espeseth install the landscaping as we
have requested and immediately. So far he has won all of the battles but
would you please allow us to win this small concession.
Very truly yours,
Lela S. Wilson
Enclosures
U
-This dump truck in on the new
driveway next-to our fence. As
You can see, anyone driving on
-t.hat side of our home looks into
.,)ur yard, family room, and the
.ide window of our master bedroom
01
Although my camera causes the
pickup to look far away, it is
only about 15 feet the other
side of our fence. This was
taken while standing in our
bedroom door. Anyone walking or
driving in their driveway can
look down into our master bedroom.
This is a wall of pittosporum
that is at the East and of our
back yard. We keep it rimmed
so that we don't feel like it
is a giant wall. We do not want
to be surrounded on 3 sides in
our back yard by pittosporum
which are straight up and down.
We would feel like we lived in a
cave. Trees give much more depth
and not such a hemmed in feeling.
My neighbor has her right hand
an a 15 gallon Brazilian P.,,.-
Mee .
My neighbor standing
Pittosporum. Please
that all of the roots
will be in the ground
the plants are bushy,
be about 2' above the
Planted.
by 15 gallon
keep in mind
in the can
and although
they will on]
ground when
My neighbor standing-by a 24"
Brazilian tree. Although box
did not come out Al gh the picture
that the 24" Y well, You can tell
according size is much fuller and has,
2 9 to the horticulturist, about
Years more growth.
AS/72
Richard I. Dowell
13730 Calle Tacuba
Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 867 -0298
October 25, 1989
Marty Clevenger, Mayor
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Espeseth Building Proposal (DR -89 -105)
Dear Ms Clevenger,
I am a concerned, now getting disturbed, neighbor (across the
street) of this project. I demand to learn what is really going
on. It is my understanding that there is an appeal on the design
review of September 27, 1989 because of changes made to the
original design plan without our knowledge (chain link fence,
asphalt driveway, and landscaping trees not in original plan). I
also understand a grading permit was to be issued on approval of
said plan. However, because the appeal was made, the no permit
was to be given. Now I understand that it was issued by mistake.
If this is true, how is it possible for the contractor to break
ground without a valid permit on modified plans that are being
appealed?
I am concerned that the commission and city council rules are not
being adhered to properly. It has been my assumption that your
agencies, not the contractor calls the shots! I do expect to see
these issues properly clarified and the plans properly approved
before any further construction continues.
Please let myself or Mr. and Mrs. Kenrich know what exactly is
going on here.
Sincerely,
Richard Dowell
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
SEPTEMBER 27,1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Harris thought that the design was bulky for the neighborhood in question; she had
no objection to a second story addition, per se, but wished to see a more sensitive treatment. Her
greatest concern was the significant increase in the footprint of the home as well as the addition of a
second story. In addition, the relocation of a porch area and placement of the master bedroom and
family room living area closer to the Hylands would greatly impact these neighbors; for these
reasons she would not be voting in favor of this Application.
Commissioner Tucker stated she was not have as many concerns with the bulk; the Applicant had
followed the Design Review Guidelines in breaking up the roof line. She agreed that certain
second story windows should be modified in consideration for the neighbors.
Commissioner Burger commented that the addition of a second story did not concern her as much
as expected; however, she was concerned that the new home would be located closer to the prop-
erty line adjacent to the neighbors. She agreed that a rather active living area was being traded for
the existing, secluded patio area which increased the possibility of noise impacts; she wished to see
a modification of certain, second story windows as well as a Condition requiring the installation of
significant landscaping along the property line abutting the Hyland's site.
Commissioner Tappan stated he was sensitive to the neighbor's concerns and had walked the prop-
erty. While he did not have major concerns about the proposed design and did not object to the
addition of a second story, his major concern was how the Hyland property would be shielded
from the new house. A detailed and complete landscaping plan could be used to address this
concern. He agreed that a modification of certain, second story windows was desirable. He
would vote in favor of the Application with the provision that a detailed landscaping plan be
submitted which addressed the concerns raised.
Commissioner Kolstad observed that installation of landscaping sufficiently dense to prevent visual
impacts between the Applicant's and the Hyland's residence also reduced the natural light on both
sites; he favored shifting the house, rather than relying on landscape screening to shield the homes.
Commissioner Moran stated she had reservations whether the proposed design was compatible
with the existing neighborhood; in addition, she had concerns regarding the privacy impacts to
residents of one story homes. Finally, she questioned whether landscaping could be relied upon to
screen either the first or the second story elevations of these homes; the scheduled removal of two
Oak trees and trimming the shrubbery would significantly change the appearance of the area; the
impacts from a future second story addition to the Hyland's home had not been considered.
Chairperson Siegfried felt the proposed design was incompatible with the existing neighborhood; it
was too tall and only met the 26 ft. height limitation because the roof had been abruptly terminated.
TAPPANBURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -076 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN BE
SUBMITTED AND INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE FENCING DESIGNS, THAT THE WINDOW
IN BEDROOM 3 BE EITHER REMOVED OR A FIXED OPAQUE WINDOW INSTALLED,
AND THAT THE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION BE LIMITED TO 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.,
MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY ONLY. Passed 4 -3, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners
Harris and Moran dissenting.
Break 9:05 - 9:15 P.M.
Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Page 5
Commissioner Tappan found the design pleasing and did not appear to be at great variance with the
neighborhood. He suggested a Continuance to allow him an opportunity to make a site visit.
Commissioner Kolstad felt the design was somewhat out of the ordinary; however, if it were not
for the opinions pro and con, he would vote in favor of the Application. The photographs pre-
sented showed that plenty of vegetation existed; impacts to privacy may be anticipated rather than a
reality. A site visit as suggested by Commissioner Tappan, would be appropriate.
Commissioner Harris concurred and asked that a report on the Oak trees be provided; if necessary,
additional landscaping screening could be required. The neighbor's concerns were valid.
Commissioner Burger agreed a site visit should be made by members of the Commission.
Chairperson Siegfried was not concerned about the addition of a second story element per se; how-
ever, cutting into the roof of a Tudor style home, to meet the 26 ft. height limitation, would not be
compatible with the neighborhood. He preferred a 23 -24 ft.high roof with a natural slope. He had
no objection to a Continuance of this Application for a two -week period of time.
Commissioner Harris suggested the Application be Continued to a Study Session as usually done;
the Applicant would then have an opportunity to present design alternatives. Homes by the rail-
road tracks appeared to have been chopped off, similar to the proposal for this home.
Commissioners Kolstad and Burger did not have concerns about the second story elevation.
Chairperson Siegfried agreed the home was well designed; the question was whether this two story
home, with a steep roof pitch, and a cut of up to four or five feet was compatible with the neigh-
borhood. He agreed that the trees on -site required extensive trimming in order to save them.
Mr. Cunningham cited the report entitled An Analysis of the Expected Affects by the Proposed
Construction on the Two Significant Coast Live Oak Trees at the Young Residence. 15185 Pepper
Lane. Saratona, by Barrie D. Coate; the Applicant was agreeable to the Continuance suggested.
Chairperson Siegfried commented that he did not hear that the majority of the Commission wished
to see a redesign of the project; Commissioners simply wished to make a site visit.
TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -89 -076 TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1989. Passed
7 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
13. SD -88 -008 Rogers and Brooks, Gypsy Hill /Crisp Avenue, request for approval of a
34 -lot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R -1-
40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The
property is located at the Odd Fellows property between Gypsy Hill sub-
division and Crisp Avenue. A Final Environmental Impact Report was
prepared for the project. Continued from August 23, 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated September 13th.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27,1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Page 6
14. DR -89 -104 Brozda /Carlson, 14503 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval
UP -89 -013 to remodel and expand an existing restaurant into the an adjacent vacant
commercial space (14501 Big Basin Way) in the C -C zoning district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. Use permit approval is also requested for an
existing outdoor dining patio. Continued from September 13, 1989.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M.
Mr. Bill Carlson, Applicant, agreed with Staff Recommendation.
TUCKER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 PM. Passed 7 -0.
TAPPAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -104 AND UP -89 -013 PER THE MODEL
RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0.
15. DR -89 -076 Young, 15185 Pepper Lane, request for design review to allow the demoli-
tion of an existing single story residence and the construction of a new,
4,079 sq. ft., two story residence, in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from September 13, 1989.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:32 P.M.
Mrs. Hyland, 19852 Park Dr., Saratoga, stated she appreciated the site visit made to her property.
Mr. Scott Cunningham, Designer, presented correspondence from the Helmuths, 19831 Robin
Wy., Saratoga. He added that they had responded to the concerns raised at the Public Hearing.
He provided technical information on the varying roof heights per Chairperson Siegfried's request
and the view from the second story windows per Commissioner Harris' question.
Commissioner Burger suggested the windows in Bedroom 3 be the same as those in Bedroom 2.
Mr. Cunningham responded that this was a possibility; they could work with Staff on this issue.
Ms. Hyland reviewed her concerns regarding some of the second story windows and questioned if
there was a limitation on the hours that construction would be allowed.
MORAN/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 7 -0.
Commissioner Kolstad agreed the neighbors had a legitimate concern regarding the second story
side windows; he suggested the use of a fixed window and /or obscure glass. He felt that the
height proposed was acceptable and would not present the problem perceived. With respect to the
design, this was a transition neighborhood with mixed architectural styles; this was one of the first
homes to come in for a renovation. He was favorable to the Application with a modification to
certain, second story windows.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: planning Commission DATE: 9/27/89
FROM: planning Department
SUBJECT: DR -89 -076, Young, 15185 Pepper Lane
This item was continued from the 9/13/89 public hearing to allow the
Planning Commission the opportunity to visit the site. Any Planning
Commissioners who have not visited the site can arrange to do so by
calling David or Nikki Young at 354 -0920.
The 9/13/89 staff report, presented at the previous meeting, is
attached for the Planning Commission's review.
eoll-c
C. Todd Graff
Associate Planner
1
0
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: C. Todd Graf f
DATE; September ,13, 1989
APPLJCATION NO.B uOGATION: DR-89-076,
APPLICANT /OWNER: David & Nikki Young
AM 510 -01 -033
15185 Pepper Lane
e
File No. DR -89 -076 'oung, 15185 Pepper Lane
EXECUTIVE SIIMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
6/21/89
Application complete:
7/27/89
Notice published:
8/30/89
Mailing completed:
8/31/89
Posting completed:
8/23/89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for design review,to allow the demolition of an existing one
story residence and construct a 4,079 square foot, two story
residence in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City
Code.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Park
Drive and Pepper Lane. The property is relatively level and is
occupied by a single story residence which has approximately 2,580
square feet of floor area. Numerous mature trees exist on the
property. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of one and two
story residences with a wide range of floor areas.
The proposed residence would be two stories and 26 feet -in height.
The applicant's proposed design incorporates:_techniques discussed ir.
the Residential Design Handbook in order to reduce perceived mass
and bulk. The design includes variations- in the roofline,
articulation of the building walls and the.area of maximum height is
limited. Staff- feels that the size of thw--home will make it
compatible with 'surrounding. homes. Staff . does not anticipate
privacy impacts since second story windows are.oriented away from
the residence adjacent to the west. In addition; a dense row of
trees exists along the property line which'will'further enhance the
privacy. between the', two- residences. Only`;one window presents
potential privacy ..-impacts. ..Due to the proximity of the foundation
to the Oak trees on the west side:..°cfthe property- the City
Horticulturist . hAp- prepared a report assessing,;the health of these
trees. -.That . rsport -As attached and appropriati"conditions have been
included''n' the: resolution.
STAFF RECONDATION:•
Approve the;application by adopting Resolut om DR -89 -076.
ATTACHMENTS: -
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -89 -076
3. City Horticulturist's Report
4. Plans, Exhibit A
Vile No. DR -89 -076, Young, 15185 Pepper Lane
ZONING: R- 1- 20,000
PARCEL SIZE: 25,008 sq. ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4%
STAFF ANALYSIS
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD
GRADING REQUIRED: None (except for trenching for footings)
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco siding painted "Light Grey"
(Benjamin Moore #1552), wood trim painted "Egret" (Benjamin Moore
#2H14P), brick accents and wood shingle or slate roofing.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 5,649 sq. ft. (23 %)
HEIGHT: 26 ft.
SIZE OF 1st Floor: 2,309 sq. ft.
STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 1,260 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 4,079 sq. ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
12,504 sq. ft. (50 %)
26 ft.
4,980 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front:
50
ft.
Front:
30
ft.
Rear:
90
ft.
Rear:
15
ft.
Right Side:
15
ft.
Right Side:
15
ft.
Left Side:
25
ft.
Left Side:
25
ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Park
Drive and Pepper Lane. The property is relatively level and is
occupied by a single story residence which has approximately 2,580
square feet of floor area. Numerous mature trees exist on the
property. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of one and two
story residences with a wide range of floor areas.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and
construct a new residence that would be two stories and 26 feet in
height. The proposed residence would be constructed in the same
general location as the existing residence.
All of the living areas would be located on the lower floor while
only three bedrooms would be located on the upper floor. Therefore,
the upper floor would cover approximately 55% of the footprint of
the lower floor. The exterior of the structure would be covered in
stucco painted light grey. The window and door trim would be wood,
painted an off - white. Brick accents would be used on colums on the
lower floor. The roof would be wood shingles or slate.
File No. DR -89 -076, ioung, 15185 Pepper Lane
ISSUES:
Compatibility: Since the majority of surrounding homes are one
story, compatibility is an issue. However, the design of the
proposed home is sensitive to the reduction of perceived mass and
bulk. In terms of floor area, the proposed home is consistent with
other homes in the area, many of which are two story. Staff is able
to make the required finding of compatibility.
Privacy: In general, second story windows have been oriented away
from the residence adjacent to the west, which is the closest
residence. One second story window (on the west side of Bedroom #3)
faces the residence to the west. However, this window is
approximately 40 feet from the property line. In addition, a dense
row of trees exists along the property line which provides a
significant landscape screen between the two residences. The
Planning Commission may consider requiring translucent glass for
this window or removing this window entirely.
Tree Preservation: Due to the proximity of the proposed foundation
to the Oak trees on the west side of the property, the City
Horticulturist has prepared a report assessing the health of these
trees. The City Horticulturist has recommended the removal of two
small Oaks (a 5" and a 6" diameter) so that the other two Oaks (a
10" and a 16" diameter) will not need to compete for light and air.
In addition, the City Horticulturist has required that a pier and
grade beam foundation be used on the west side and a 10 -foot section
on the north side. These conditions have been included in the
resolution. A condition has also been included that requires a
construction fence in the location shown on the City
Horticulturist's sketch.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant's proposed design incorporates techniques discussed in
the Residential Design Handbook in order to reduce perceived mass
and bulk. The design includes variations in the roofline,
articulation of the building walls and the area of maximum height
has been limited. Although the proposed home is two stories, it is
not significantly larger than surrounding homes. Staff is able to
make all required design review findings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -89 -076.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXPECTED AFFECTS BY THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ON THE TWO SIGNIFICANT COAST LIVE OAK TREES
AT THE YOUNG RESIDENCE
15185 PEPPER LANE
SARATOGA
In summary, there are 4 Coast Live Oak trees along the west property line, or near it, on this
property.
Only 2 of those are significant and the other two are not only smaller than permit size but are
contributing nothing to the tree canopy and are actually competing with the adjacent 2 Coast
Live Oaks which are of some value.
The northern -most of these useful Coast Live Oaks is 10" in trunk diameter and the other 16"
in trunk diameter at chest height. The smaller of the two trees is approximately 18' tall and
25' in spread. The larger of the two, which is right on the property line is approximtely 30'
tall and 35' in spread.
This latter tree is badly infected by Cryptociine, a twig blight, but removal of the adjacent
smaller trees on either side of it will reduce the competition for light with its foliage and allow
a better air movement around Its canopy and by that means reduce the infection by this disease
in this canopy.
If a construction period fence is placed around the canopies, or at the construction margin as
shown on the plan, before any clearing or rough grading is done and the portions of the
construction closest to the tree trunks is done of pier and beam construction there should be no
significant damage to these trees.
Respectfully submitted,
4�-
Barrie D. Coate
BDC:la
:J q� t :� i. i',d"�'?i� ~I•j\ -' ::0.•:n '•� -4':;!�Sl �`�},, t 4.�, ,'.�c.�1'`,;• -`,; -TA �,. •'. - .. ! "�•'�' .., +'
,• y ` t,��_ _'. �•` L ." -�^ 's' � ' ` • .. '. �• CFA" � • lh �' � � � i ��' - � '. ".'..' ! xM / �' r r.
.r'
Wi
— �-
OAKS
a ` a
r AK D
�` `'.
`-
i ce
ce-
Her A ' � I
`� P'+� , ,
F&ce R*' ad co 4jp
BABRIE D. COATS
r. ` 23535 Summit Road S1
Fe v
�. Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 1
4- (408) 353 -1052 ►.
DATE: — r
* HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT
CONgULTING ARBORIS"T SCALE: t • [
RESOLUTION NO. DR -89 -076
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Young, 15185 Pepper Lane
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application for design review approval of a 4,079 square
foot, two story residence in the R -1- 20,000 zone district, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required
to support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site
does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding
residences in that the location of the proposed home is
essentially the same as the existing home and mature landscaping
currently screens the proposed home.
-The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences in that second floor windows are
oriented away from adjacent homes and mature landscaping will
screen the proposed home.
-The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree
removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no grading or
tree removal, is necessary (except to enhance the health of
larger trees).
-The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in
relation to the immediate neighborhood in that techniques listed
in the Residential Design Handbook have been employed.
-The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with
those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning
district in that the height and floor area are within zoning
ordinance restrictions. The proposed home will be similar, in
terms of floor area, to other homes in the surrounding
neighborhood.
-The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar
access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are
maintained.
-The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion
control standards in that no grading, except for trenching for
footing, is required.
File No. DR -89 -076, Young, 15185 Pepper Lane
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Young for design
review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a
zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department.
3. Height of structure shall not exceed 26 feet.
4. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not
exceed 4,079 sq. ft.
5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first
obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
6. Exterior colors shall be "light gray" stucco and "Egret" trim
as submitted by the applicant. The roof shall be either wood
shingles or slate.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shal_
submit a letter submitted by licensed professional to include
details on:
a.) Soils
b.) Foundation
8. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall
be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of
a zone clearance:
a.) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross -
sections, existing and proposed elevations,
earthwork quantities)
b.) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall,
location, etc.)
C.) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or
R.C.E. for walls 4 feet or higher.
d.) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or
be removed.
e.) Erosion control measures
f.) Standard information to include titleblock, plot
plan using record data, location map, north arrow,
File No. DR -89 -076, iounq, 15185 Pepper Lane
sheet no's. owner's name, etc.
9. The applicant shall submit evidence of a permit from the
appropriate sewer district prior to the issuance of a Plumbing
Permit.
10. Prior to issuance of a zone clearance, a 6' chain link or
welded wire mesh protective fence shall be placed in the
location shown on the City Horticulturist's diagram. This
fence shall remain in place during the entire construction
period.
11. Prior to issuance of a zone clearance, the applicant shall
note on the plans that the two small Oaks (one 5" diameter and
one 6" diameter) along the west side of the proposed residence
shall be removed prior to final inspection of the residence.
12. Prior to issuance of a zone clearance, the applicant shall
note on the plans that a pier and grade beam foundation shall
be used in the location shown on the City Horticulturist's
diagram.
13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garages according
to the regulations contained in City Code Section 16- 15:110.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this
resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted
to the Building Division when applying for a building permit.
Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 13th day of September, 1989 by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chairperson, Planning Commission
File No. DR -89 -076. ioung, 15185 Pepper Lane
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date