HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-1989 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM ,..�
MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Extension of Utility User Tax
Recommended Action: Second reading and adoption of ordinance amending Sections
5- 30.140 and 5- 30.160 of the City Code.
Report Summary: The ordinance has been revised to incorporate the changes
made by the Council at the time the ordinance was introduced on November 1, 1989.
Section 5- 30.140 now states that the annual review will be conducted by the City
Council during January of each year. This review would constitute a separate public
hearing as distinguished from a review combined with the public hearing on the City's
budget. The stated purpose of the hearing is to determine the continuing need for the
utility user tax revenue, based upon past expenditures and projections of future costs.
The rate of tax may be adjusted downward by the adoption of an amending ordinance,
but the rate should not be increased above the current rate of 3 -1/2% (for which an
election might be required under Proposition 62).
The revised ordinance will amend rather than repeal Section 5-
30.160 by extending the sunset date to July 1, 1995.
Fiscal Impacts: Continuing receipt of tax revenues as described in the
Memorandum from the City Manager dated November 1, 1989.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance (Rev. 11/1/89). /il
Motion and Vote: Ordinance introduced on November 1, 1989, by a vote of 5 -0.
AGEKUL r=
C= Mt. APPROVAL dw
8II9.TEC1': Slurry Seal II, Cape Seal and Chip Seal on Various
City Streets. Grant Final Acceptance and file Notice of
completion.
RO==Mndid Motion:
Grant Final Acceptance and file Notice of Completion.
Report Sunu y:
The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on August 17,
1988, awarded the contract for the above project to C.P.M Company.
Due to additonal work and striping, the construction cost ran over
by $19,242.06. Under the Pavement Management Program there are suffi-
cient funds available to cover the total cost of this project. The
work on the above project has been satisfactorily completed and it
is recommended that this work be accepted.
liseal• Smoams =
Total cost: $265,291.32.
Attac m ants:
1. Notice of Completion.
!lotion and Vote:
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 11/15/89
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL 4-
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -065, V -89 -021 and LL -89 -005. Applicant:
Stephen Dymand; Location: 21116 Comer Drive; Appellants:
Bernard and Luanne Nieman
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission approval of DR -89 -065, V -89 -021, and LL -89 -005, and
deny the appeal.
Report Summary: The applicant proposed to construct a 9,555 sq. ft.
residence on an 8.25 acre parcel that will result after the lot line
adjustment is executed. The application requires the approval of
variances for its height above a major ridgeline, impervious coverage
and maximum floor area. The Planning Commission made findings to grant
the variance based on the unusually large lot size, and the variance
condition prohibiting further subdivision.
The appeal is based on an adjoining neighbor's request for an access
easement to serve their rear yard area. The appellants maintain that
because variance was granted to build the structure which prevents
vehicular access to the rear yard, the access across the applicant's
property from Comer Drive is necessary to allow reasonable use and
maintenance of this yard area. Staff feels that although the City
cannot require the applicant to dedicate a portion of his property for
access to the neighbors, an arrangement between the property owners can
be structured privately. The approval of the variance, design review or
lot line adjustment will not preclude access if a mutually agreeable
arrangement is made.
Fiscal Impacts:
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
None.
Memorandum from the
Planning Commission
Appeal
Correspondence
Planning Director
minutes 9/27/89
Resolution and subdivision restriction
Staff reports
Motion and Vote
11/15/89: Continued to 12/6.
• t
0919W 92 o °
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 11/8/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -085, V -89 -021 and LL -89 -005. Applicant: Stephen
Dymand; Location: 21116 Comer Drive; Appellants: Bernard and
Luanne Nieman
Overview
The Planning Commission approved the design review, variance, and
lot line adjustment applications for the construction of a 9,555 sq.
ft. residence on an 8.25 acre parcel located in the. NHR zone
district. The appeal was made by an adjoining neighbor who is
requesting the inclusion of access easement across the appellant's
property from Comer Drive to serve the rear of their property. The
appellants are located at 13217 Padero Court where access to the
residence is provided.
Background
The project is located on a previously graded building pad located
on the south side of Comer Drive. The relatively flat building pad
is located atop of a "major ridgeline" as defined in Section 15-
14.020 of the City Code. The remainder of the property slopes away
in all directions downward with slopes as great as 30 %. This pad
was graded over 20 years ago which includes completed improvements
to Comer Drive, retaining walls for slope retention and a driveway.
The properties adjacent to the southeast are developed with
residences. The property to the south is part of the Chadwick Place
Subdivision currently under construction. The properties to the
west and north are currently vacant.
The applicant's parcel currently measures 4.93 acres but is proposed
to be increased in size by this application for a lot line
adjustment. The applicants proposed to obtain 3.32 acres from the
adjacent property resulting in an 8.25 acre parcel. The adjacent
lot is unique in that it is bisected by Comer Drive. The applicant
will acquire the entire portion of the site southwest of Comer Drive
leaving a conforming building site entirely northeast of Comer
Drive.
The proposal deviates from the City's development criteria in
several respects. First, the structure is higher than 8 ft. above
1
r
a major ridgeline; second the development exceeds the impervious
coverage by proposing 17,605 (13 %) sq. ft. when 15,000 sq. ft. (11 %)
is the maximum allowed; third, the application proposes to construct
a 9,555 sq. 'ft. residence when 8,940 is the maximum floor area
allowed. After reviewing site conditions and receiving testimony
from affected neighbors, the Planning Commission was able to make
the necessary findings to grant each of the requested variances
subject to conditions of approval.
The height above a major ridgeline was justified since the
previously authorized grading creates the most logical building
location. Alternative building sites would be excessively steep and
would be visually obtrusive.
The Planning Commission found that the large size of the property
off -set the effect of the increased impervious coverage. As the
Council may be aware, in the NHR zone district the maximum coverage
is 25% and is frozen at 15,000 sq.ft. regardless of the lot size.
The Planning Commission concluded that the amount of impervious
coverage will not create an adverse visual or drainage impacts. To
ensure the retention of the large lot size the Planning Commission
required the applicant to enter into an agreement restricting future
subdivision of this parcel.
The increased floor area beyond the code limit was similarly found
by the Planning Commission to be off -set by the extraordinary size
of the lot. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the
square footage included in the calculation involved several patios
and porches which served the architectural interest of the building
exterior.
The staff report presented to the Planning Commission was able to
make findings to extend above the major ridgeline, but could not make
findings for the impervious coverage and floor area variances.
Staff felt that alternatives which included reducing the impervious
coverage and floor area were available to the applicant, since staff
found no physical impracticalities preventing code compliance.
Appeal
The appellants request the City Council's consideration of an access
easement across the applicant's property to serve the appellant's
rear yard. Staff understands the appellant's concern for access to
the rear of their property to be an issue with some history.
The appellant's home was constructed in the mid 1970's by a prior
owner who applied for and was granted variances to locate the home
closer to the front and side property lines than the minimum setback
required. The variances were requested due to a drainage way that
bisected the property and limited the accessible building area. The
Planning Commission, who granted the variance, found that
constructing a bridge to access a building pad on the far side of
the " drainage way which conformed with the setbacks was an
unnecessary hardship that prevented reasonable development of the
property.
2-
The appellants, now feel that in granting the .variances, the City
has disallowed access to the rear portion of the property since
side yards are not sufficient width allow vehicles to pass. The
appellants conclude that the rear yard cannot be used for routine
maintenance or for typical recreation since the vehicles necessary
to institute these uses do not have access. The appellants position
is that reasonable access from adjoining applicant's property is
necessary so that their property may be maintained and used to
the extent of other properties in the neighborhood.
Staff was aware of the appellants concern prior to the application
currently before the council. Staff assistated the appellants in
locating parcels where access may be possible. Staff also committed
to informing the appellants of development proposals at initial
stages so development proposals could be designed to facilitate
access if mutually agreed upon.
Staff informed the applicant of the access concerns and understood
that access across the applicant's property for yearly maintenance
of the appellant's property was offered by the applicant. This
information was presented to the Planning Commission who concluded
that the implementation of the access was a private matter to be
determined by the property owners without City intervention.
Conclusion
The findings of the Planning Commission rely strongly on the size of
the property as an extraordinary circumstance which justifies the
granting of the impervious coverage and floor area variances. The
Planning -Commission conditions preventing further subdivision will
ensure the preservation of scenic hillsides which staff finds as a
strong reason to support variances for coverage and floor area.
Additionally, the location of the home on the graded pad provides
the added benefit of restricting views from sites below the
residence. Because the home is substantially set back from the
slope, the lines of sight from lower sites partially screen the view
of the structure. Lastly, the home will be visible from developed
properties above the site in the Parker Ranch. The applicant has
oriented the narrow portion of the building toward these residences
to minimize the visual impact in this direction.
Staff concurs with the findings of the Planning Commission and
recommends that the decision of this decision be upheld without
modification. Staff will continue to be available to assist the
appellants in facilitating the provisions of access they desire but
does not recommend conditioning of this project to provide such
access.
In determining the validity of a suggested condition the City is
required by law to prove that the requested exaction is in direct
response to an effect of the proposal. In this case staff cannot
find a direct relationship to the application and the access
request. Therefore, staff concludes that the imposition of such a
requirement will be contrary to accepted planning policies.
3
Therefore, effecutation of an
agreed to by the property owners
city.
ep en IF slie
Planning Director
4
access easement must be mutually
and cannot be imposed by the
r�
MINUTES 9 -27 -89
PLANNING COM USSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 Page 8
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Harris stepped down on the following Item.
16. LL -89 -005 Dymand, 21116 Comer Dr., request for a lot line adjustment to transfer
DR -89 -085 3.32 acres from Flynn to Dymand, resulting in a parcel size of 8.25 acres.
V 89 -021 Also, a request for design review and variance to allow the construction of a
10,850 +/- sq. ft., two -story residence, in the NHR zone district, per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval would allow exceptions to
the "floor area", impervious coverage" and "height above a major ridge"
standards of the NHR district.
- - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- _____________ -----------
Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. - ' " -'- --"
Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated September 27, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:17 P.M.
Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Applicant's Representative, commented as follows:
- Called attention to her letter and reviewed the Application.
- With respect to a Variance for "a height above a major ridge ", Staff was able to make a Finding
- With respect to the Variance for the floor area, this house was specifically designed to maintain
the required square footage; it was not until plans were submitted that the Applicants were told
the enclosed patio interpretation added approximately 900 sq. ft. to the home
- Applicants did not feel that the Ordinance required the inclusion of the patio and balconies, but
in an effort to comply, some balcony roofs were removed
- Only a 624 sq. ft. balcony area on the south side of the property remained
- This balcony was viewed as very important, protected the home from the sun and allowed the
use of a patio similar to that enjoyed by other residents of the City
- The site faced away from any adjacent neighbors, did not add to the bulk or size of the home
and provided the solar element recommended in the Design Review Ordinance
With respect to the Variance required for impervious coverage, this house was designed in one -
story and two -story elements intended to reduce the perceived bulk and impact of the design
- In using this design, the house was spread over a greater part of the lot; in combination with the
driveway, tennis court and pool area caused the allowable impervious coverage to be exceeded
- Applicants reduced the impervious coverage by turning the tennis court into a grass court and
putting the entry way in turf block; only the house, driveway, pool and walkways remained
- This was an unusual lot; the average lot in the zoning district had 14 -25 %% lot coverage while
this one had only 5% coverage; Staff acknowledged that this lot was larger than average
- Applicants believed that the size of the lot created an exceptional circumstance
- The major element of this mission style home was placed east and west so that the view of the
house was the narrow portion, not the elongated part, reducing the impact an any neighbor
- Neighbors were pleased with the orientation of the house
- The cut of 3,500 Cu. Yds. did not pose the same problem as on a hillside; this site was flat
- Applicant agreed to move the house 14 -16 ft. to the south; by doing so the retaining wall could
be eliminated and the living room element could be pulled away from Comer Dr.; renderings
were presented to show the shifting of the house
The intent was to remain within the applicable Ordinance requirements and to design a home
compatible with the hillside
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 9
Ms. Fanelli stated that further subdivision was not intended, per Commissioner Tucker's question.
The City Attorney added that such would be recorded; however, the Commission could add a
Condition to read, "The site shall not be subject to any further subdivision ", if they so wished.
Mr. Don Norling, 21000 Comer Dr., Saratoga, was generally favorable to this proposal although
he had not been contacted by either the Applicant or Ms. Fanelli. He was very much opposed to
Mrs. Nieman's (adjacent neighbor) request for an access easement across a portion of the subject
site. As a property owner to the east, he was very concerned about potential privacy impacts; it
appeared to him that the proposed development would spill over the flat portion of the site. He
urged that Staff Recommendation be followed; there were on -going problems with drainage.
Mr. Robert Yager, 21020 Comer Dr., Saratoga, was impressed by the proposed design. He
confirmed for the record that this site would not be further subdivided; such would preserve the
hillside. He felt that the area was beginning to look like a concrete jungle; the use of palm trees on
the subject site was very undesirable. Any landscaping should be compatible with the area.
Ms. Janet Harris, 21083 Comer Dr., Saratoga, asked to see color samples and noted that homes in
the area were much too light in color and were inadequately landscaped; she wished to see land-
scaping on the west and north sides of the subject site. Finally, she asked that all debris be
removed from this property.
Mr. Doug Adams, Attorney representing Mrs. Nieman, reviewed the topography of the Nieman
site and stated that the only access between the lower and upper property was a walking bridge; he
noted his client's need for an easement for vehicular traffic. Mrs. Nieman was assured in July,
1987, that when the subject site was developed access would be a consideration of the City.
Ms. Norling, 21000 Comer Dr., Saratoga, stated that she had been approached by the Nieman's
wishing to obtain an easement, but she told them she was not interested; however, she also told
Mrs. Nieman that when the disking was done by the immediate neighbors, she could use the same
person and access could be obtained over the Norling property.
Mr. Darrell Snffen, 21072 Comer Dr., Saratoga, agreed that he did not wish to see a road (access
easement) across the properties; he added that drainage had been a problem in the past.
Ms. Fanelli stated that the Applicants shared the concerns of the neighbors regarding an access
easement since they would have no control over such; however, the Applicants were willing to
work with the Niemans to reach an agreement for access of maintenance equipment. In addition,
they were willing to work with the neighbors regarding the type of landscaping installed.
BURGER/TUCKER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Burger stated she did not have any problem approving the square footage requested;
this was an eight acre lot. She favored shifting the house to the west and south, which should
address any concerns regarding privacy impacts. She wished to see additional landscaping on site.
The necessary Findings to approve this Application could be made.
Commissioner Tucker stated she was having difficulty making some of the necessary Findings;
however, she agreed that shifting the home was desirable.
PLANNING COMiVIISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 Page 10
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Kolstad also favored shifting the home. He did not object to the proposed grading;
this was a beautiful site and should be developed properly.
Commissioner Moran stated she appreciated the sensitivity of the Applicant in attempting to work
within the Ordinances but there were things other than the patio that could be changed in order to
conform to Ordinance requirements. She was favorable to shifting the house and asked that the
structure be relocated on the building pad, even if more than the 10 ft. shift proposed was required.
Commissioner Tappan had nothing to add, except that he did like the palm trees.
Chairperson Siegfried commented that he had wished to see this site developed for a long time; this
was a sensitive design and the drainage concerns would be addressed in completing the project.
This was an eight acre site; the square footage proposed was inconsequential in comparison to the
overall site area. He could make the necessary Findings to approve this Application and asked that
a detailed landscaping plan be submitted.
Commissioner Burger added that the difference in the allowed square footage verses that proposed
was one patio area; she questioned whether the impact of the home would be reduced at all by
removing the roof of the covered patio area. Such would provide some shade for the living
portions of the home.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE LL -89 -005 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6 -0.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE V 89 -021 MAKING THE FINDINGS FOR THE
FLOOR AREA AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE PROPOSED AS FOLLOWS: THAT
THE BUILDING PAD WAS FLAT, THAT THIS LOT WAS IN EXCESS OF EIGHT ACRES
AND THAT A WAS 17,000 SQ. FT. OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE WAS REQUESTED WHERE
15,000 SQ. FT. ALLOWED, ON A SITE IN EXCESS OF 350,000 SQ. FT.; SUCH DID
NOT CONSTITUTE THE. GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.. Passed 4 -2, Commissioner
Tucker, Moran dissenting.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -021 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
AND ADDING CONDITIONS THAT THE HOUSE BE SHIFTED 10 FT. AWAY FROM THE
EDGE OF THE BUILDING pAD AND 14 FT SOUTH, THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER
SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN BE
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW. AND THAT
MUTED SHADES, NO LIGHTER THAN THE COLOR SAMPLES PRESENTED, BE USED...
Passed 4-2, Commissioner Tucker, Moran dissenting.
Commissioner Harris was reseated on the Commission.
17. SM-89 -014 Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn Ln., request for site modification approval to
remove an open space easement on an approved tentative parcel map in the
--------------- - -R_1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code.
--------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
mmissioner Moran reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:12 P.M.
APPEAL
U ��� Datc Recciv
Hearing Dat
Fee
CITY U
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: BERNARD G. AND LUANNE NIEMAN
Address: 13217 Padero Court, Saratoga, CA 95070
Telephone: (408) 867 -0159
Name of Applicant: - Zymand
Project File No.: LL89 -005
Project Address: _ 2116 Comer Drive, Saratoga, CA
Project Description: Lot line adjustment, design, use and review
Decision Being Appealed: Application of September 27, 1989
Dymand Comer Drive, Saratoga
Grounds for the A '
ppeal (Letter may be attached):
Pe ant s lSnature
AD
*Please do not sign this application until it
City offices. If you wish specific is presented at the
appeal please list them on a Separate sheet to be notified of thi:
TUTS APM.TCATION MUST or. sum rTTCD IVITFIIN TEN 10 CALLrJDAR D
'1�l ! L• ,\' L• U L• U -try'$ .. A Y S
w
BERNARD G. JR, AND LUANNE NIEMAN
13217 Padero Court
Saratoga, California 95070
Telephone: 408) 867 -0159
October 6, 1989
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Dymand
Project File No. LL89 -005
Gentlemen:
Grounds for appeal:
When Appellant's property was originally approved, variances were given
which restricted access to the rear 1.5 acres. Presently the only access is over a
foot bridge, and no vehicle traffic can get to the back acreage. The City of
Saratoga represented to Appellants that when further development was done
adjacent to their property, the City of Saratoga would require an easement or
right of way for access to that portion of Appellant's property. Several
developments have come and gone and no provisions have been made. The
present development is the last possible chance for access to Appellants' reaar
acreage, and the City of Saratoga has failed to provide said access.
Very truly you- r)s,
Bernard G. Jr. and Luane Nieman
CORRESPONDENCE
Fanelli _Consulting, Inc.
I nd Planning /Property Manapment
1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 • San Jose, CA 95129 • (408) 996 -8188
Septanber 21, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Ftuitvale Avenue
Saratoga, C.?1 95070
Dear Ccn¢nissioners:
. This letter is in reference to the application by Stephen Dymand,
whom I represent, which will be cn your agenda for September 27th. Since
the application has several parts, I. w-iuld like to review it in this
letter, rather than in an overly lengthy presentation at your meeting.
The first part of the application is a lot line adjustment.. Mr.
Dymand has purchased 2 parcels of about 5 acres each, one of which is
dissected by Comer Drive. Mr. Dymand's reason for purchasing the Flynn
parcel is to ensure that no structures are built on the hill in front
of his proposed house. This application would put all the property south
of Caner Drive into one parcel, and the northerly section into a second.
This is more reasonable than having a parcel split by a public road.
The total square footage of structures allowed on the present parcels
is about 14,400. This amount remains the same, but is redistributed
more in keeping with the size of the proposed building sites. This lot
line adjustment would not allow the creation of any additional lots in
the future.
The second part of the application is the variance which covers
several iso es.
1. The ridgeline:. The proposed building site is the only
logical place to put the residence. 'There are several higher ridges
in the Canes Drive area.
2. The "enclosed" patio of 624 square feet: This is a ground
level patio on the south side of the hone which is placed under the second
story overhang. As was discussed at your study session, we believe that specifically your ordinance excludes these areas from being included
in the gross floor area. It is an architectural feature created for
the outdoor enjoyment and sun protection of the owners. It has no impact
since physically it is on the side facing no current or potential neigh-
bors, and does not add to the bulk of the house. It is an ordinary
covered patio enjoyed by others in the city and this zoning district.
-2-
Planning Commission
9 -21 -89
3. Impervious coverage: The NHR district allows 25% of the
site or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less, to be covered. The house
has been designed as a combination one and two stories with separate
elements to reduce the bulk and to keep with the mission style. This
combined with the proposed pool area and the 135' long driveway has
brought the square footage to 17,605 of impervious coverage. To reduce
the coverage, the tennis court will be grass and the entry patio will
be turf block.
Since this lot is twice the size of the largest lots in the area,
it seems that physically it is capable of having more than 15,000 square
feet of impervious coverage without appearing to be overbuilt. The
average 2 acre lot would have about 14% of the lot covered. This parcel
would have only 5% coverage. There would be no special privilege in
use of the property from what the neighbors enjoy based on a percentage
coverage. This will not cause a drainage problem which could adversely
affect this or the neighboring properties.
The last part of the application is for design review. The house
has been designed and sited on the lot to take advantage of the flat
building site and to minimize the appearance of massiveness and bulk.
The east to west alignment of the 2 story portion of the structure puts
the narrowest end facing the Comer Drive neighbors. The separated 1
story element which is 15' at its highest peak will provide a relief
from the 2 story element as you proceed up and to the west on Comer.
Following discussions with the neighbors and staff, we propose to move
the house 14' to the south, pulling the living room and patio away from
the edge of the slope and Comer Drive.
The mission style is certainly in keeping with the area. This archi-
tectural style also avoids the high massive roofs of so many recently
built homes. Any home placed on this flat site will have an impact,
but we feel that this design and style have infinitely less impact than
would a Tudor, Mediterranean or a house which stepped down from the hill-
side.
We are having line -of -sight drawings made to show the visual impact
at Pierce Read and Caner and Arroyo de Arguello and Comer, and we have
made a scale model of the proposed house. These will be at your meeting
on the 27th, but are available for your review prior to that date. Please
let me know if you would like to see these prior to the meeting.
If you have any questions concerning this application, please call
me at 996 -8188.
Very truly yours, RECEIVED
SEP 2 21989
Virginia L. anelli PLANNING DEPT
/j s
cc: Todd Graff, Planning Department
Vp
a�$m
l
-D
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CAL1FORNI.-i 95070 (�
(408) 8673438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
October 12, 1989
Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Nieman
13217 Padero Court
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nieman:
We have received your application for an appeal of approval of
lot line adjustment to transfer 3.32 acres from Flynn to Dymand,
resulting in a parcel size of 8.25 acres; request for design
review and variance to allow construction of a 9,555 sq. ft.
two -story residence in the NHR zone district at 21116 Comer Dr.
We have also received your check in the amount of $100.00 for
the appeal and noticing requirements.
By written agreement of both par �1989. been set
for the City Council meetin November 15, lease be
advised that the City Council wi a ow e for your
presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which
means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be
considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning
Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission
approved the application.
If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact
the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may
contact me.
Sincerely,
Atite. L� &7,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Planning Department
Mr.'Dymand, Applicant
RESOLUTION &SUBDIVISION RESTRICTION
RESOLUTION NO. V -89 -021
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Dymand, 21116 Comer Drive
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Variance Approval of a 9,555 square foot
residence that exceeds the allowable floor area, impervious coverage
and the height above a major ridge standards of the NHR zoning
district, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted 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 his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in
that application of the zoning standards would result in a home
that is disproportionate to the large parcel size (8.25 acres).
The large size of this parcel mitigates all bulk and
compatibility problems.
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 in that, at 8.25 acres,
the property is 3 -4 times larger than the average lot in the
area. In addition, the property has a large, flat building pad
that is well over 1 acre in size.
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 in that, since the
property is significantly larger, the applicant is confronted
with a disproportionate burden, with respect to the
restrictions of the development standards, when compared to
surrounding properties.
Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
in the same zoning district in that other properties are
developed with similar improvements.
Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the request
is for improvements that are similar to other developed
properties in the vicinity.
ti
File No. V- 89_0211 ymand, 21116 Comer Drive
NOW, THEREFORE, the P
does hereby resolve Planning Commission of the
as follows: City of Saratoga
architectural 1�
After careful co
connection with drawings, plans nsideration of
approval this matter, and other exhibit Plan,,
site
be and the the application of p submittedlai
condition: same is hereb in
Y granted subject for variance
1• That, ject the following
home prior to zone clearance
to be relocated ten ' the applicant
the location s feet west anrte shall cause
shown on Exhibit B. fourteen feet the
2• That, south of
That#,dPrior to zone clearance,
Planning landscaped plan to be that applicant shall
reviewe Department. The Prepared and submitted cause a
revised by the Plannin and lands cape to the
Plan shall show commission at a stud Plan shall be
northeast, east Patible Y session. The
vegetation , and southeast that indigenous
deletion °f the area, blend with Spec' e
Of all palm treeshe revised plan shall the natural
Provide for the
Sect
conditionslon 2. Applicant
Within 30 ay s shall sign the
resolution shall be °f the
void. Passage of this
Section
approval will expirenstruction must be Commenced
Section 4. All applicable
City and other Governmental able entities of
must be met.
Section
resolution to 5. The a
to the each set of applicant shall
Building Division when applying
Section 6, for a
Article 15 -90 Unless appealed Pursuant
become effective Of the Saratoga city Code,
ten
(10) days from Code,
he date
State
PASSED AND ADOPTED b
of California, this he
llthfollowing vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger,
NOES: None
agreement to these
resolution or said
within 24 months or
the State, County,
affix a copy of
which will be this
building ubmitted
g Permit.
to the requirements of
this resolution shall
Of adoption.
Y of Saratoga planning
day of October g Commission,
—�` 1, by the
Tucker, Moran, Tappan
ABSENT: Commissioner
Siegfried, Kolstad
ABSTAINING: Commissioner Harris
ti
File No. V -g9-021, `Ymand, 21116 Comer Drive
ATTEST: tC
Chai n, planning Commission
ecret ry, annin
g Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant
Date
RESOLUTION NO. DR -89 -085
CITY OF SARATOGA
STATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS Dymand, 21116 Comer Drive
received the
foot an 'ty Of design rrev�a Planning Commission
two story residence review approval
sto lssion
in the NHR istric of a 9 has
WHEREAS zone district, and; X555 square
hearing. at the Planning
°PPortunit which time all int Commission held
Y to be heard a duly noticed
and to present Parties were Public
WHEREAS evidence given a full
to and;
determined:
said the applicant
has met the °
rmined: d the burden f proof
following findings have required
-The height, elevation been
does not unreasonably and Placement of t
residences in that Y interfere he Project on
distance with views of the the site
elevation from surrounding residence surrounding
will eliminate g residences and thats a significant
interference with v• differences in
-The project does sews.
the surrounding ot unreasonably
significant g residences Y lrheerfere with the privacy
distance from surrounding Privacy will be a Proposed residence is of
relocation enhanced since g residences. In additions
pad. °f the residence swathe Planning
Y from t g Commission required
he edge of the building
-The natural
removal landscape is bein
pad is' soil removal g Preserved b
relatively and grade changes minimizIn
changes. No Y flat and will 9es In that the g tree
tree removal is require building
The proposed with thisnapplminor grade
rThe project will minimize the
is composed the immediate neighborhood of excessive
P °sed °f relatively 9hbores. in that the bulk
large size of the Y large homes, neighborhood
lot, the perception ° In addition, ge to t od
-The f bulk w• due to the
project 111 be minimized.
those homes is compatible in district within the immediatees °f bulk and
large in that t area and height with
9 homes. he neighborhood is composedheof sae zoning
relatively
accessrO7ect will not interfere
0
adjacent ith the light
significant distance from properties in that the building and solar
-The plan
surrounding residences, g pad is a
control does incorporate
standards is
Saratoga
the proposed in that grading grading and
implemented, improvements and erosionncontrol measures are minimal qj.
sures wily
Y
File No. DR -89 -085, ._wand
21116 Comer Drive
Saratoga wdOes hereby the
eby resolve Planning Commissio
Section 1• as follows commission
; Of the City of
architectural After careful
connection drawings, consideration
review with this
matter Other and other of the
review aPpr°val be and the the a site plan
following conditions: same 'cation of submitted
granted Ymand desi In
1,
That, prior to zo subject to the
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ome to be relocated clearance
location shown 10 feet the applicant
be located wn °n Exhibit "B,�west feet shall cause the
and constructed and 14
ucted All of south from the
as shown on her improvements
Prior to submittal Exhibit "Bit.
shall
zone clearance shall be buildin
obtained Pelt or grading
That, from the Planning Deermit, a
deed Prior to zone clearance Partment.
restriction, in the
ensuring that � applicant shall
Place. no form acceptable acceptable to the execute a
subdivision of the land City Attorney,
Height of structure will take
shall not exceed 26 feet.
Total gross floor
all st
exceed 9,555 area for
sq• ft. ructure
The - on site shall not
maximum
exceed 5 ft. height Of an exposed underfloor area shall not
No retaining wall shall have an
ft.
exposed height that exceeds 5
All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
That, prior to
revised landscapeane clearance
Planning De Plan to be that applicant
reviewed Department The prepared and s shall cause a
revised by the Planning a revised landsca ub Plan to the
northeastPlan shall mission at a Pe Plan shall be
east show compatible study session.
vegetation of the southeast that indigenous The
area. will blend with the natural
The applicants
provide additiona geologic and
conditions. information consultants
the °n s In and pion, the to fully characterize site
Possible on-site the consultants shall
the property (e g-, °ff -site impacts shall address
Previously mapped a landslcts due to develo
supplemental Peed and g' renewed Pment r
evaluations shall Dls deposits movement
a. An Eng, also include: etc.)•
neerin
applicant' g Geologic Map and
engineering geologic map al ant Cross epareta Section,
shall
cross sections ions to
File No. DR- 89_085, .wand
21116 Comer Drive
distribution
landslide and thickness
bedrock) debris, soil, colluvium earth materials (e.g.,
bedding planes. 2) orientation artificial fill
of bedrock features and
b' I'andslide Eval and
Evaluations The
Map and evaluate apPlicant'
Als) located in a he Old and active s consultant
appears that northern landslides shall
adversely he existing Portion (Ols and
consultants affect proposed g old landslide Property. It
the existing hall address the Potential excav(�ls) could
Proposed g WOOd retaining otential for ation. The
improvements due g wall, along Comer Drive
Provided, as PPropriate miti gment or movement and
construction needed, to 9ation measures Of
improvements, and over ensure stabilit shall be
the design life Y during
11. The results of the the
condition above he supplemental evaluations described
Grading Permits
he City Geotechnical for review b in the
the supplemental shall not Consultant. Y the City
upplemental evaluations. Issued Building
12. Prior to the g and
Detailed approval of
be on-site improvement
submitted to the Buildinplans
a zone clearance: showing the followin
9 Division prior to issuance hall
a. Grading (limits of of
existing and cuts, fills, slopes,
Proposed elevations Pes, cross
b• Drainage earthwork sections,
etc.) ge details (conduit t quantities)
ype, slope, outfall, location,
C. Retaining structures
for walls 4 feet including design b
or higher. Y A.I.A.
d• Erosion R.C.E.
cont or
Sta rol measures
e• .Standard Sta information to using record data, location map
titleblock,
map
Owner's name, etc. , north
13. The a arrow,
from Pplicant shall
from building appropriate
Proof of a
Permit. agency prior
14. The applicant
shall submit
development
fees prior to the Proof
15. p issuan
Plot plan
sheet no.s.
sewer connection permit
to the issuance of a
of payment of
roperty is located ce °f a building school
in a designated g Permit.
a. Roof hazardous fire area.
covering shall be
Code Class fire retardant
roofing, less than B1prepared or built_u Uniform
Bu'
shall be P roofing
exempt. (Ref.
File No. Da -89 -085,
16.
17.
18.
19.
b.
C.
d.
e.
- .dmand, 21116 Comer Drive
Fire Code Appendix E, City Earl al Warning Alarm Of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210 .
maint g Fire Ala )
16 -60 City n accordance System shall be
Y of Saratoga• with the Installed
Earl Provisions of and
Y warnin Article
relative
to g Fire Ala
submitted the Proposed shall
issuance installations and document
Of to buielding a District P emit for ion shall be
Automatic (City of Sarato Prior to
according top thelers shall be Saratoga 16-60).
Section 16 -15: regulations installed
110, contained in -inCitgarageS
All fire
feet from
gallons per
hours [City
Fire hydrants:
meets the installed Fire
Permit. and
hydrants Y Code
the residence
shall be located
within
minute of waternforejiver five hundred
Of Saratoga a sust sustained than 1,000
ga Code 14-30:040 period o two
(G)] . f
Developer s
Districts s hall install one
accepted for to cations. fire hydrant
Prior The hydrant that
to the issuance of shall be
Driveways; l driveways building
ft, shoulderslvewa have a 14
ft, minimum
a. Slopes width plus one
concretefr u 15$ CO 17$ shall
street to proh surfaced on All
b• Curves:
ft.
be surfaced using
Posed dwelling . aggregate base
from
Driveway shall have a minimum
Turn - grounds:
dwelling site Construct
must meet theaving a 33' a turn - around
shall be reque rements Outside It a rgF ius .
shown on the he ire
Parking: provi g Plans.
the proposed de a Parking area
District. dwelling site or
Details shall be shown
20. Security Gate:
Gate shall be
Details shall be
conditSection 2.
resolution within
shall be
a 41' PCC
a Public
inside radius Of 32
at the
Other approved types
Proposed
th
District.
Details
fors two emergency vehicles at
required by the
Gate °n the building plans. Fire
controlled b shall
not be less a remote shown on the building Plansltalhatran transmitter.
Applicant shall
30 days Of the passage oche agreement t
void. this
Section 3, resolution
approval will expirenstruction must be commenced
° these
or said
within 24 months
File No. DR -89 -085, mand, 21116 Comer Drive
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall
resolution to each set of construction plans
to the Building Division when applying for a
Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code,
become effective ten (10) days from the date
affix a copy of this
which will be submitted
building permit.
to the requirements of
this Resolution shall
of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 11th day of October, 1989 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tucker, Burger, Moran, Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried,Kolstad
ABSTAINING: Commissioner Harris.
Chairperson, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
RESOLUTION NO. LL -89 -005
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Dymand, 21116 Comer Drive
WHEREAS, a lot line adjustment has been filed with the Planning
Commission to transfer 3.32 acres from Flynn to Dymand, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent
the General Plan, the regulations of the zoning ordinance with
and
subdivision ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at-large, for access through
or use of, the subject properties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby approve the lot line adjustment as shown on
Exhibit A and directs the applicant to file a parcel map with the
City Engineer for checking and recordation:
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements
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 27th day of S
roll call vote: eptember, 1989 by the following
-AYES: Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Tucker, Moran, Tappan, Kolstad
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Harris
File No. LL -89 -005, Dymand, 21116 Comer Dr'
ATTEST:
cret , P nninq Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
S Ygnature of Applicant
Date
Recording requested by:
CITY OF SARATOGA
After recordation return to:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBDIVISION RESTRICTION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated , 1989, by and between
G. STEPHEN DYMAND ( "Owner "), and THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation ( "City "), is made with reference to the following facts:
A. Owner is the owner of certain real property located at 2116 Comer
.-
Drive, in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as more
particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof ( "the
Property ").
B. Owner has applied to City for design review and variance approvals
to construct a single family dwelling and related improvements on the Property that
will exceed the City's zoning standards for impervious coverage, floor area, and height
above ridge line, such applications being identified as DR -89 -085 and V -89 -021.
C. City is willing to grant the requested design review and variance
approvals based upon the fact that the Property is 8.25 acres in size, subject to a
condition that no further subdivision of the Property will be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
I. In consideration of the design review and variance approvals granted
by City to allow the construction of improvements that will exceed the zoning
standards for impervious coverage, floor area and height above ridge line, Owner
hereby acknowledges and agrees that no subdivision or partition of the Property will be
made or allowed, nor will the Property be reduced in size through a lot line adjustment
or any other means, for so long.as the improvements described and approved as DR -89-
085 and V -89 -021 shall or can exist upon the Property.
2. The single family dwelling and related improvements shall be
constructed strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by City,
and no change to such plans and specifications shall be made, and no additional
improvements shall be constructed, without the prior approval of City.
3. This restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the
heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns of
Owner.
-1-
L
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.
OWNER:
G. STEPHEN DYMAND
CITY OF SARATOGA
By
City Manager
ATTEST:
GRACE E. CORY
Deputy City Clerk
Government Code S 40814
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
On this day of , before me, the
undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared G. STEPHEN DYMAND
( ) personally known to me
() proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
that he executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public for California
-2-
A
Exhibit A"
Beginning at a point on the Southerly line of that certain 26.63
acre tract of land conveyed by Deed from Thomas Chirnside to Earl E.
Cotanch, et ux, dated November 20, 1945 and recorded December 20, 1945 in
Book 1321 of Official Records, page 187, distant thereon S. 890 53' 31"
W. 700.82 feet from the Southeasterly corner thereof, said point of
beginning being also the Southeasterly corner of that certain 10 acre
tract of land described as Parcel No. 1 in the Agreement of Sale dated
February 14, 1961 and recorded February 15, 1961 in Book 5073 of Official
Records, page 284,4by and between Walter W. Powers, Sr. and Dorothea
Powers, husband and wife and William R. MacKinnon and Betty J. MacKinnon,
his wife, as joint tenants; thence along the said Southerly line of said
26.53 acre tract of land N. 89° 53' 31" W. 28.92 feet; thence along the
Southwesterly line of said 26.53 acre tract of land, the following
courses and distances: N. 520 30' 44" W. 107.87 feet; N. 320 37' 15" W.
76.45 feet; N. 480 46' 12" W. 92.86 feet; N. 13° 02' 06" W. 149.75 feet;
N. 310 45' 09" W. 99.42 feet; N. 18° 05' 27" W. 112.90 feet and N. 100
23' 08" W. 222.31 feet; thence leaving said Southwesterly line of said
2 -6.53 acre tract of land and running N. 78° 55' 44" E. 394.56 feet to a
point on the Easterly line of said 10 acre tract of land described as
Parcel No. 1 in said Agreement of Sale; thence along said Easterly line
S. 00 01' 45" W. 823.37 feet to the point of beginning, being a portion
of Section 35., Township 7 South, Range 2 West, M.D.B. & M., and being
shown as Parcel "A" on that certain Map entitled "Record of Survey of a
Portion of the E. 1/2 of the East 1/2 of Section 35, T. 7 S., R. 2 W.,
M.D.M.", which Map was filed for record on January 25, 1966 in Book 204
of Maps, at page 49, Santa Clara County Records.
J
STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: C. Zbdd Graff
DATE: September 27, 1989 PLNQ DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: LL -89 -005, DR -89 -085, V -89 -021; 21116 Comer Drive
APPLICANT /OWNER: Dymand
APN: 503 -17 -25 & 27 Q
File No. DR -89 -085 & V-
CASE HISTORY•
, -021, Dymand, 21116 Comer rive
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Application filed:
6/26/89
Application complete:
8/18/89
Notice published:
9/13/89
Mailing completed:
9/14/89
Posting completed:
9/07/89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for a lot line adjustment to transfer 3.32 acres from Flynn
to Dymand, resulting in a parcel size of 8.25 acres. Also, a
request for design review and a variance to allow the construction
of a 9,555 +/- square foot, 2 -story residence, in the NHR zone
district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval would
allow exceptions to the "floor area ", "impervious coverage" and
"height above a major ridge" standards of the NHR district.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
The subject property is currently 4.93 acres and is located on the
south side of Comer Drive, just east of the entrance to the Parker
Ranch. The relatively flat building pad is located on top of a
"major ridge ". The properties adjacent to the southeast and east are
developed with residences. The property to the south is part of the
Chadwick Place Subdivision currently under construction. The
properties to the west and north are currently vacant.
The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the zoning and
subdivision ordinances. The adjustment of the lot line is also
logical since the property involved in the adjustment is bisected by
Comer Drive.
Staff is able to make the findings to
"height above a major ridge" standard but
"impervious area" restrictions. Staff
several of the design review findings.
the siting of the home on the edge of
unnecessary grading and retaining walls
home in general.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
support a variance to the
not to the "floor area" or
is also unable to make
Staff's concerns relate to
the knoll which involves
and the massiveness of the
Approve the Lot Line Adjustment application but continue the Design
Review and Variance applications to allow a redesign of the home.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution LL -89 -005
3. Lot Line Adjustment
4. House Plans, Exhibit
Map, Exhibit "A"
"B"
File No. DR -89 -085 & V- -021, Dymand, 21116 Comer rive
ZONING: NHR
STAFF ANALYSIS
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC
PARCEL SIZE: Existing 4.93 (gross)
Proposed 8.25 (gross)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: approx. 32%
AVERAGE SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: approx. 2%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 3,500 cu. yds. Cut depth: 20 ft.
Fill: 750 cu. yds. Fill depth: 4 ft.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: stucco siding painted beige, Mission
tile roofing.
PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
LOT COVERAGE: 17,605 sq. ft. (13 %)
HEIGHT:
26 ft.
15,000 sq. ft. (11 %)
26 ft.
SIZE OF 1st Floor:
6,142 sq. ft.
STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor:
3,413 sq. ft.
TOTAL:
9,555 sq. ft.
8,940
sq.
ft.
SETBACKS: Front:
105 ft.
Front:
30
ft.
Rear:
530 ft.
Rear:
60
ft.
Right Side:
111 ft.
Right Side:
24
ft.
Left Side:
275 ft.
Left Side:
24
ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is currently 4.93 acres and is located on the
south side of Comer Drive, just east of the entrance to the Parker
Ranch. The relatively flat building pad is located on top of a
"major ridge" as defined in Section 15.14.020. The remainder of the
property slopes away from the building pad in all directions with
slopes as great as 30 %. This pad was graded over 20 years ago.
Subsequently, street improvements on Comer Drive, including
retaining walls for slope retention and a driveway, were completed.
The properties adjacent to the southeast and east are developed with
residences. The property to the south is part of the Chadwick Place
Subdivision currently under construction. The properties to the
west and north are currently vacant.
The proposed spanish style residence would be accessed via a new
driveway at the northwest corner of the property. The existing
driveway location, at the southeast corner of the property, would
not be utilized but is proposed to remain. The applicant is
File No. DR -89 -085 & V- . -021, Dymand, 21116 Comer rive
proposing a two story structure that would be 26 feet in height.
The plans show 9,555 square feet of floor area with the second floor
being approximately half the size of the first floor. This figure
does not include the carport or the porte cochere structures which
are covered but not enclosed according to the definition of floor
area. In addition, there is approximately 2,700 square feet of area
underneath the residence that is classified as a basement and is not
included in the floor area calculation. The discrepancy between the
floor area figure shown on the applicant's plans (8,931) and staff's
figure (9,555) is a 624 square foot patio adjacent to the dining
room /great room that is covered and enclosed and, therefore, should
have been included in the applicant's calculation of floor area.
The applicants plans also show several other major. features. Among
these are: various patios and decks, a swimming pool and spa, a
pavillion, tennis court and a motor court with a fountain. The
tennis court and the motor court would be constructed of permeable
surfaces and, therefore, are not included in the calculation of
impervious coverage. However, the other features listed above
exceed the allowable impervious coverage by 2,605 square feet. The
maximum allowable impervious coverage for this property is 15,000
square feet.
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT:
Staff has not identified any adverse impacts with respect to the lot,
line adjustment. The Flynn property is bisected by Comer Drive.
The most level portion of the property is on the north side of the
street, across from the Dymand property. The 3.32 acre portion of
the property proposed for transfer is visually related to the Dymand
property and, with a cross slope of 25 -30 %, it would be difficult to
build on. For these reasons, the lot line adjustment seems logical.
The remaining portion of the Flynn property would be 1.95 acres
(net). The minimum net site are for a property in the NHR zone is 1
acre. The 1.95 acre area translates to an allowable floor area of
5,454 square feet based on a 32% average slope as supplied by the
applicant. This floor area figure would be compatible with existing
residences in the area.
Staff has been contacted by an adjacent property owner (Mrs. Nieman)
who is seeking an access easement across the 3.32 acre property -
involved in the lot line adjustment. Due to very narrow sideyards
(done through the variance procedure by a former owner) Mrs. Nieman
does not have vehicular access to her rear yard. Mrs. Nieman would
like access to her rear yard to trim trees and clear weeds and for
the possible construction of a swimming pool in the future.
Staff has informed Mrs. Nieman that the City can not require that
the owner of the subject property grant her an easement. However,
staff has facilitated discussions between the two property owners in
the hopes that an agreement can be reached.
.L
File No. DR -89 -085 & V- j -021, Dymand, 21116 Comer _.rive
VARIANCE FINDINGS:
Variances to the "floor area ", "impervious coverage" and "height
above a major ridge" are being requested by the applicant.
Staff is unable to make the findings to recommend approval of the
variance to the floor area standard. Staff has not identified any
physical characteristics associated with the property that
constitute a hardship to the applicant. The property is not
excessively steep (with a 32% average slope and only 2% at the
building site) and no substantial deductions were made in
calculating the net site area (only the area of Comer Drive). The
variance is being requested because the applicant has chosen a
design that exceeds the maximum of 8,940 square feet of floor area.
Staff is also unable to'make the findings to support the variance to
the impervious coverage standard. Again, the property does not
require any improvements (such as an unusually long driveway) that
unreasonably interfere with the applicant's ability to construct a
home and associated improvements. The 15,000 square foot maximum
for impervious coverage in the NHR zoning district was established
to protect the rural character of the area and preserve valuable
open space within the district.
Staff is able to support the variance to exceed the height above a
major ridge standard. In order to comply with this height
requirement, the home would have to be located such that the peak of
the roof would be at least 8 feet below the level portion of the
site. Since the lot slopes away from the flat area in all
directions, the home would have to be placed on slopes approaching
30 %. These areas are potentially more visible and would require
much more grading to accomodate a residence. The proposed location,
with a 2% slope, is the most logical since it has already been
graded to accommodate a residence.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS:
The proposed residence is very large and would be located on a very
prominent site. The design of the home is such that it is spread
out and covers a large portion of the buildable area of the lot.
The length of some of the elevations (approx. 155 feet in length) is
quite long which requires construction on the edge of the knoll.
This creates potential privacy problems with residences to the east.
Due to the length of the elevation and proposed retaining walls on
that side (pavillion, pool area, and living room), staff feels that
the home will appear massive from the east and from residences above
the subject property, along Comer Drive, Diamond Oaks Court and Star
Ridge Court. In addition, there are portions of the residence (the
carport and the porte cochere, for example) which contribute to the
perception of bulk but are not included in the calculation of floor
area. For these reasons, staff is unable to find that the
applicant's design minimizes the perception of excessive bulk.
The flat portion of the site is well over an acre in size. This
area is buildable with little or no grading. The applicant is
File No. DR -89 -085 & V- j -021, Dymand, 21116 Comer _rive
proposing retaining walls for the construction of the pavillion,
pool area, tennis court and deck area adjacent to the living room.
In staff's opinion, these walls are unnecessary since the site is
already flat. The combined improvements require approximately 3500
cubic yards of excavation. Although a large portion of this figure
is attributable to the basement area, the grading proposed for the
rest of the lot is substantial. For these reasons, staff is unable
to make the finding that the applicant's design preserves the
landscape.
The applicant's landscaping plan shows substantial landscaping along
the northwest, west, and southwest sides of the residence. In
contrast to this, the northeast, east, and southeast sides are
relatively barren, with no trees and only a few shrubs shown.
Presumably, this is to preserve the view to the valley floor. Staff
feels that some tree groups are necessary to integrate the structure
with it's environment. Staff feels that this can be done while
retaining the views from important living areas.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the subdivision
ordinance and the zoning ordinance and, therefore, staff recommends
approval of this application. Staff is able to support a variance
for the location of the home on the flat portion of the site. Staff
is not able to support variances to the floor area and impervious
coverage standards. Due to the massiveness of the structure, the
siting at the easternmost edge of the pad, and excessive grading,
staff is unable to make the required design review findings.-
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Lot Line Adjustment by adopting Resolution LL -89 -005.
Continue the Design Review and Variance applications and direct the
applicant to redesign the residence with respect to the following
items:
1. Redesign the residence to comply with the floor area and
impervious coverage standards of the NHR district.
2. Relocate the residence toward the center of the building site
or shorten the elevations such that the residence is at least
10 -15 feet back from the edge of the building site.
3. Reduce the perceived bulk of the residence.
4. Add additional landscaping, including tree groups, along the
northeast, east and southeast sides of the building pad.
The Planning Commission may wish to review revised plans at a study
session prior to taking action at a public hearing.
9/21/89
RECEIVED
SEP z 1 1989
PLANNING DEPT
r1 ID C';i: :r'11SSi ^:1!'SiG nevie��r
City of Sarat�r��a
137771'iLiitri% =!i tyrJe;.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
16 Comer Drive
it r, >�ticp a l.?t line a.d;ust rent to tr a.nser ores ff Flynn 332 a• -om F:y to
Do Ir Mid ~rill rest l'11 in a 1..r��erjt5t as e
- o , ll a . a larger h0trze on the hill ili
QUestif"n, we wau_•<i ' concerm
o Iu `V 11 }n , possibility for future subdi�Tision
��f t�`1e hill and /or t<le building of any accessory or out buildings on the Flynn
r a.rcel to be add 12 "'(Art, will - ,,
any f , re ^ , � ... ; _ `'`n -- '_'..rte more imF•er?*ious coverap and
u - : �t only t
a - -; � ot«,•� :'. '��f w:s hill wct�. -� r• t .� ,,,.: t ''-
ircre '_ and
�e de �. r. tlt and la, a y
v ,, r'cl ..a .la pace
r �- 1 aaag a::i�._�..:., ��: t ".e t�r,� �•,, � •„� a
} y, {,,
1n �r..ti_'1 ii thly i1111S1de .L,1� .^i.:�• .:t....
b,7 Cit7y GeolO:,'i`L r,�v *t t �;ti, ��,,�w n ir_ a -report • 11 iS ,� ..c.... .
- . issued on 17, 1985.
"Surft�c- draina. -
Can be generally characterized as uncontrolled
.,r
iieew�o�v to t:ie east a.a... sout:`:..... ., � .,
area to shown t0 be sus�ePf, 'Dle to shallo yv
landsliding s `l may b affected tl
•� �_ .. }....Si`8• Sta�ili�r �y '' `f ',^, *' u::e .,� -e z �.,-
P, 4 er �! .. .4 r :.. do �vr:sl r: e
3c? Iy:i�t G:'j�r'�•- 1`'+.^r Y�L �L "�r�wl
' �• •.aed a= inst c-:.: PrC'7 e . F__
-`' or ty On Aug . 2 3, 19' t,vbr ch runs aloe, the eve: tel y 3 u
feet Of our lot. W�? ate under the under,tandin7 that 2� a � V
ass .�; when t,(iF=
lots were cri,irl illy su Tiusd, Comer Drive ended at the riy nn'; propert ,
r: y rlrl's let COU'd have been divided into rX.,ssibiy 5 lots at t t� :.
ez, Crnent was granted ior, rig, t of way �* i hat t1nne and
I f =. n�a ess and e�grees and for the
_ali: r:i'iiCe
Of r'LIu1:C 'a *.'_'t S for ti
k r a. �•C Since �►�en,
_. _ char . _ : C; t7i requirem• :n an of f o. ` to
J OI GUr i:ills.deS de—Sit', 1:1f n. cola!( n0 ±.
build in ^ra Char, One . ^.�v*716 ? ? "1 his t. a,� m ..
`, l0 !_ " :`? r 0 rnende!::'�lt'a^ site J.:
th t(1 ; Sid-1 !^oniAr i,r. T.`l 'r, I��rt ; }, , , x ,i!1A 7 .
t„h South sid? of rlvr n , would 3d - ~ is '�eri." ,
-� ..1 3 1rr1 r�r y*.
p r,tilra n,:'� bw uildabl- u ailoW n': the
hillside tv ramain in it's ; atural state. s
V
M .wed ou" ; }
and tie eq.; J ! a,,., � t•'•r�.'F..'C•. ti .- ears C1��1, ♦•. was bad:y r.Cglec,..C`.
of 'a_l = 1eiglibnr":Uod. T".; C:t laC. -,a: ed it
nuisance. �t�r� t g '� pt,bli,-
g. hav n J spen such e ?i - . and to .TMsprc - :e ++,
...e
Property and to design the landscaping to blend naturally into the
surrounding We have received praise by many people passing by as we'1 as
neishbors.
We had cleared the uphill side and planted a few shrubs. Attached is
a letter from Flynn that we received requesting that we are in violation of
his easement by planting trees and shrubs. As a result of his letter in
TWe' stopped planting. we are unable to complete it b;; planting expensive �
natural trees a 11' shrubs, such as oak because of the eac- •
P,Drtion of the '�� "side is quite barren, ufementl. As this.
more'trees in this ar.,a 0,-�.Nu she.�er tt:e �1euld lil� .eel � plan�:•:1J
p ,� that b
' w of ou. back yard ro:n the
street and offer a beautiful view for all to enjoy as }.hey travel up and do,,-,,,-.
Comer Drive.
If, as 1,i,e have been told, by Virginia Fenelli who represents the
Dymands, flat with an approval of tte lot line adjustment, the D m �� .• t
the added acreaa� l a. Yj-- ,�r::.., � +n �::
b ., do not p.an to fur:.er subdivide their ^p erty or to u:.e
t -` e 30 foot easrn7ent across our pro crtI ,, ,
'9';r,_ -; ted p" y, we request t."t, the easem -.-t r,A
-- a •t would serve no purpose. As it remains on our title
our title remains clouded. The fear of the unknov�,i to prospective
t��,�Trs woul�l be detrimental to the value .t .
b�_�yer who actually Backe L of vur prvperty. ,fie snow of a
easement was discovered backed
easement covers f our riorne ',yhen the
or 22 -5$ of our property as our lot is only 1.04 aroxim If used for a road,
it 'Would be 340 feet Ion�� and wide enough to abut our pool area. If the
b
D7M-nds refuse to re q�•� asem
1 n vlsh the e ent, we Can nn?y .u..n11�e that t e
intent is t:� use tre easement in the future. v
In vista Of the facts described above, We u
lot. line adjustn-_ent wit th
h , requirement that the 30 easement be.J�'lr
'eliminated from our title and that there be no further subdivis'
Of the 8.25 parcel in the future. ton
�i y
CCL' i J�P aF,i,rc, a i our cor.sideraticn an . ":ire tt =at yo, .11 r'? .•
.CllierAS In reservi• ^o Ll"e r Y.__ .:: btae
beauty and sa: -t; of our hillside as " "ell ass
allv�;•r�g us tl:° peace of mild and enjoys neat o? �thA :ull vryl,, e o; ou
pro. of ty.
Sir�eraly, .
iff
Nee Lin; ;niffen
a�0 7a 0o In e,- ✓7r-
,qO�r 7q4—S-6-5--o
3 ► ��� �9�g
0 CGM >.e l7�
Tp7 /.✓G imp :'Gu.ir'
A' ''='V i /o.✓ i/I.F ��= .4J.v,y =�/T ON Ti1E .G✓�!7;.�.Q.J
• 4�°u�uvn.ry o.c uou.r l�.2G.a`.�Ty ..
i
��(� : �.✓ c, T.r.,c .c s .4.c /o J.4/,�ud � � �v .�i /�:
LG� Doti e'" i yam• .Cq.fti�M/5.0 j .
•SNC.�.r.F[ y ,
i.
i
K I .
� I
If ANY of4wr w+c s+a -3o r
OA
I
t
1
` Q
I
V �
44_1 -
L -J) Lb L.*" -
YNItiI .
r-e
E
1
u
s71K s.
f/
`ADS
64615 ao ,f 64A11VG6
MF Asti 4V N O'C/'4F"ff ,t
ACWA."y &we ac- >xrr- CS. -,
S+N4i10y y64ECl1/.
SCHEDULE B
PAGE 3
ORDER NO. CU123833
AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEP-
TIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN THE POLICY FORM DESIGNATED ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS
REPORT WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
A. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ANY
ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1986 - 1987, A
LIEN NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE.
1ST INSTALLMENT: $2,472.14 OPEN
2ND INSTALLMENT: $2,472.14 OPEN
LAND: $250,000.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $218,000.00
H/0 EXEMPTION: $7,000.00
CODE AREA: 15047
ASSESSMENT NO.: 503 -17 -062
B. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1985 -1986.
1ST INSTALLMENT: $0.02 OPEN _
DELINQUENCY DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1986
2ND INSTALLMENT: $0.02 OPEN
DELINQUENCY DATE: APRIL 10, 1987
ASSESSMENT NO.: 503 -17- 062 -51
C. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE PRO-
VISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF THE REVENUE
AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
1. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND rRIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT
GRANTED TO: GEORGE W. FLYNN AND PATRICIA B. FLYNN, HIS WIFE
AS JOINT TENANTS
PURPOSE: AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR INGRESS.AND
EGRESS AND FOR THE - INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
RECORDED: AUGUST 23, 1965, BOOK 7078, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
SERIES'NO.: 29099672
AFFECTS: WESTERLY 30 FEET OF SAID LOT
2. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT
GRANTED -TO: CITY OF SARATOGA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
PURPOSE: EASEMENT AND RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR A PUBLIC TEMPORARY
TURN AROUND (INCLUDING ALL TREES OR GROWTH PRE -
SENTLY GROWING OR AS MAY BE GROWN WITHIN SAID
RIGHT -OF -WAY)
RECORDED: JULY 24, 1975, BOOK B519, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PAGE 607
SERIES NO.: 5055969
AFFECTS: NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT
William Coi, -in
�- and Associates
GEOTECNNICAL Cr' %I. o
318 8 North Santa --..,z Avenue
Los Gatos. California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
June 17, 1985 JUN 18 1985
S1265 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO: [Cathy Kerdus, Planning Coordinator
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: Addendum, Preliminary Geologic Review
RE: Flynn Lot Split; SDR -1601
At your request, we have completed this addendum to our preliminary geologic
review of the subject property using the Tentative Map, prepared by Jennings,
McDermott do Heiss, dated April 1985 (11' = 50'). This letter supersedes our previous
letter dated May 24, 1985.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced document indicates that the applicant is proposing
to divide the property into two parcels for residential development. Building site
approval is sought for the two parcels. Parcel A lies north and east of Comer Drive,
while Parcel B lies south and west of Comer Drive.
SITE CONDITIONS
Parcel A - The site is located along the axis of an east - trending ridge with side
slopes being generally characterized as moderate to very steep (13 to 33 degrees); the
ridge axis at the proposed building site is gentle to moderate (2 to 6 degrees). It
appears that a minor amount of grading has occurred at the proposed building site,
with the building area having been cut somewhat and the spoil sidecast onto the
north - facing slope. Road cuts adjacent to Comer Drive are steep (26 to 27 degrees).
Surface drainage can be generally characterized as uncontrolled sheetflow toward the
north, east and south. The site is underlain by a variably gravelly, sandy, silty clay of
high expansivity, which is underlain at variable depths by poorly - consolidated
sedimentary rocks of the Santa Clara Formation. The Ground Movement Potential
Map of the Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed indicates the north - facing slope s
susceptible to shallow landsliding (Ps), while the remainder of the parcel is chars 1
terized as stable bedrock (Sbr).
Parcel B - The site is located along a rather planar, south- and east - facing
slope. Slopes there are moderate to steep (12 to 24 degrees). Cut slopes adjacent to
Comer Drive are steep to very steep (27 to 34 degrees). Immediately offsite and
downslope from the proposed building site is a moderate to steep (26 degrees) cut for
C9IN , GEOLOGY 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
-2-
Kathy Kerdus, Planning
Coordinator
June 17, 1985
the neighbor's house pad and yard. Surface drainage can be generally characterized
as uncontrolled sheetflow to the east and south. The site is underlain by variably
gravelly, silty clayey sand and sandy clay of high expansivity, which is underlain at
variable depths by poorly - consolidated sedimentary rocks of the Santa Clara Forma-
tion. The bedrock appears to dip moderately toward the southeast, nearly parallel
with the ground slope. With the exception of an area adjacent to Comer Drive, the
property is shown on the Ground Movement Potential Map of the Upper Calabazas
Creek Watershed to be characterized as stable bedrock (Sbr). The other area is
shown to be susceptible to shallow landsliding (Ps).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Eventual site development for residential purposes appears to be potentially
constrained by steep slopes and expansive clay soils. These constraints will have to
be addressed at some point prior to issuance of site development permits, in order to
ensure that they are mitigated by appropriate geotechnical design recommendations.
These constraints are particularly severe on Parcel B where slopes are steeper,
unconsolidated colluvial soil is thicker, and where site stability may be affected by
the cut on the downslope property.
Development of Parcel A appears to be less constrained by the above
conditions, but the presence of non - engineered fill at the proposed building site there
will need to be addressed prior to issuance of site development permits. However, it
Is our opinion that the proposed building sites are feasible. Therefore, we recommend
approval of the Tentative Map.
Prior to the issuance of site development permits, however, we recommend the
following items be completed:
1) _Detailed Geotechnical Investigations - The applicants should retain the
services of a geotechnical consultant to conduct a detailed geotechnical
investigation of the proposed development sites. These investigations
should address, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and design
parameters for residential foundations and retaining walls. The results of
the geotechnical investigation shall be submitted to the City to be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to the
issuance of building permits.
William Cotton and Associates
Kathy I(erdus, Planning
Coordinator
June 17, 1985
2) Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant
should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and
design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the
plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a
letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits.
3) Geotechnical Field Ins ection - The geotechnical consultant should
inspect, test as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily
be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining
walls prior to the placement of concrete and steel.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall
be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
WRC:PA:kt
William Cotton and Associates
w
Fanelli Consulting, Inc.
Land Planning /Property Management
... dam. - ....�.. _ e
1175 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 7 • San Jose, CA 95129 • (408) 996 -8188
November 9, 1989
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitevale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers:
On behalf of Mr. Stephen Dymand, we are requesting that you deny
the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Nieman asking for an access easement across
the property of Mr. Dymand. We are requesting this denial based on
the City Attorney's position that the city has no jurisdiction over
easements between 2 property owners, and that this appeal is totally
irrelevant to the subject of the applications which were before the
Planning Commission.
You will note in your review of the file that the City Attorney,
at the Planning Commission meeting, clearly informed the agent for
the Niemans that his request was not within the city's jurisdiction
to grant. You will further note that the Nieman's neighbor,
Mrs. Norling, offered the Nieman access to their property for purposes
of weed control.
Since this issue first came to the staff's attention, Mrs. Nieman
has at different times stated that she needed this access for weed
abatement, swimming pool construction and possible future subdivision.
It seems there is confusion on the appealants part as to what use an
easement would serve. An easement which could be used for these or
any other unstated reason could be detrimental to both Mr. Dymand
and his immediate neighbors, and even if granted, would not meet the
city standards as it would traverse a slope which is over 35% grade.
The Planning Commission, with the support of the neighbors,
approved Mr. Dymand's applications. We ask that you reaffirm this
decision and deny the appeal.
Very truly yours,
Vi inia L. Fanelli
P, (rs
Saratoga City Council Members
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 11, 1989
To Saratoga City Council:
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9 -27 -89 approval of the Dymand 21116 Comer Drive lot -line
adjustment and development because it permanently land -locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land will be
a liability because it cannot be used or maintained, jepordizing the
adjoining properties. The land has unusal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development are the
result of previous Planning Department decisions which included
granting variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
facilitate a decision which will allow the Niemans the right to use
and maintain their property free from dependence on the "good will" of
adjacent operties,
Name" /
Name
Address:
cf
(ot ewi3 lZancy 07ra.n, lin
13209 9-w"o Cpl.
c)arato�a, L�,%7 95070
Saratoga City Council Members
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 11, 1989
To Saratoga City Council:
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9 -27 -89 approval of the Dymand 21116 Comer Drive lot -line
adjustment and development because it permanently land -locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land, will be
a liability because it cannot be used or maintained, jepordizing the
adjoining properties. The land has unusal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development are the
result of previous Planning Department decisions which included
granting variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
facilitate a decision which will allow the Niemans the right to use
and maintain their property free from dependence on the "good will" of
adjacent properties.
Name:
Name" �}' L�;�- ��(„a_ l/v a:c�cGvCt
Address: -21133 ai-IRr fa (i etJ
Sara f09 CIL/ CG. 9s-070
Saratoga City Council Member:;
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 11, 1989
To Saratoga City Council=
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9-27 --89 approval of the Dymand 21116 Comer Drive lot -line
adjustment and development because it permanently land- -locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land will be
Liability because it cannot be used or naintairied, ;epordizing the
adjoining grope: =`s. The .land has unusal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development are the
result of previous Planning Department decisions which included
granting variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
facilitate a decision which will allow the Niemans the right to use
and maintain their property free from dependence on the "good will" of
adjacent properties.
Name"
Name: w;,
1
Address:
Saratoga City Council Members
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 11, 1989
To Saratoga City Council:
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9 -27 -89 approval of the Dymand 21116 Comer Drive lot -line
adjustment and development because it permanently land -locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land will be
a liability because it cannot be used or maintained, jepordizing the
adjoining properties. The land has unusal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development are the
result of previous Planning Department decisions which included
granting variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
facilitate a decision which will allow the Niemans the right to use
and maintain their property free from dependence on the "good will" of
adjacent properties.
Name:
Name=
Address:
y��
Saratoga City Council Members
13777 Fruitvale avenue
Saratoga, C^ 95070
October 11, 1989
To Saratoga City Council:
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9--27 -89 approval of the Dymand 21116 Comer Drive lot -line
adjustment and development because it permanently land -locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land will be
a liability because it cannot be used or maintained, jepordizing the
adjoining properties. The land has unu.sal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development are the
r >uJ_t of previous Planning Department decisions which included
granti-ng variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
facilitate a decision which will allow the Niemans the right to use
and maintain their property free from dependence: on the "good will" of
adjacent properties.
Name'
Name"
Address
C4 ?5-c 7 o
Saratoga City Council Member-,
13777 r ruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 11, 1989
To Saratoga City Council:
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9--27 -89 a.pjnroval of the Dymand 211116 Comer Drive lot--line
adjustment and development because it permanently land -locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land will be
a liability because it cannot be used or maintained, jepordizing the
adjoining properties. The land has unusal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development are the
result of previous Planning Department decisions which included
granting variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
facilitate a decision which will allow the Niemans the right to use
and maintain their property free from dependence on the "good will" of
o. nt properties .
Name:
- Y
Name' E J d y\. ILA- RIISL ^ -C� tt.A ILL W\-
Address. 21021 CI I u4A WA
SPA r, oik L cl 5iUi b
Saratoga City Council Members
13777 Frruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 11. 989
To Saratoga City Council`
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9- -27 --89 approval of the Dymanc: 21116 Comer Drive lot -line
.L�.d`;us ment and development because it permanently land -locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land will be
a liability because it cannot be used or maintal.ned, Jepordizing the
adjoining properties. The land has unusal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development, are the
result of previous Planning Department decision,, whhich included
,ranting variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
acilitate a decision which will allow the Niemanw the right to use
and ma "Intain their, property free from dependence on the "good will" of
adjacent Properties,
Name:
Name°
Address: / ��
Saratoga City Council Members
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 11., 1989
To Saratoga City Council=
We request that you reverse the approval of the Saratoga Planning
Commission 9-27 -89 approval of the Dymand 211.1E Comer Drive lot-lane
adjus!. ..t and development because it permanently land locks over two
acres of the Nieman property at 13217 Padero Court. This land will be
a liability because it cannot be used or maintained, ,jepordizing the
adjoining properties. The land has unusal topographical
considerations, and the existing lot lines and development are the
result of previous Planning Department decisions which included
granting variances. By reversing the decision, we hope you can
facilitate a decision which will allow the Niemans the right to use
and maintain their property free from dependence on the "good will" of
adjacent propTities. ,
^!gym`
Name,
Address:
,ib17347
DOUGLASS M. ADAMS
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW
14363 SARATOGA AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
TELEPHONE (408) 867 -3474
Reply To: Suite 206
October 12, 1989
Hand Delivered
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Appeal Application
Appellant: Bernard G. and Luanne Nieman
Applicant: Dymand, 21116 Comer Drive, Saratoga
Project: Lot Line Adjustment
Date: November 1, 1989
Attention: Betsy Corey
Appellants, Bernard G. and Luanne Nieman, request a postponement of
the above captioned matter presently scheduled for hearing on November 1,
1989, to November 15, 1989. This postponement has been agreed to between
the respective parties, and Virginia Fanelli, their representative.
Yours truly,
"vG
MARTIN N. LETTUNICH
Attorney for Appellants
111_10'119UY�
1:3 FRL'11_ \'.- \L_E.- \ \'E\L'F . S.\ R.\- I'O (;.�.(;. \1.1FOR\'L.-\515��;r�
14081 867-134138
November 15, 1989
To: City Council
From: City Manager
COU NC IL IMENIBERS:
,Caren .Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Movies
Donald Peterson
FranC!s Stutzman
Subject: Illegal grading, clearing and tree removal, Tract 7770
On November 7, 1989, following up on a citizen call, the Planning
Director, Chief Building Inspector, Public Works Inspector and
City Manager visited the site of Tract 7770, extension of Chiqui-
ta Way and Old Oak Way. Our investigation revealed massive
grading and tree removal to have taken place in violation of the
conditions of approval for Tract 7770 and numerous provisions of
the Municipal Code. A cease work order was issued at that time
and all equipment on the site was ordered removed.. In my 23
years of city government experience I have never encountered such
a gross disregard of the subdivision approval and environmental
document mitigation process.
Of necessity, this constitutes only an interim report as all of
the damage and the nature of violations is still being assessed.
On November 14, 1989, the Chief Building Inspector, City Attorney
and City Manager met with the developers, Mr. Coccardi, Mr.
Chadwick, and their attorney Mr. Tobin.
Mr. Oncay, the Chief Building Inspector, in the past week had
taken numerous aerial photos and ground photos of the subdivision
area in an attempt to determine the scope of the illegal activity
and the resultant damage therefrom. These photos were shown to
the developers,. A lengthy discussion ensued as to the nature of
the illegal activity and actions the City was considering taking
and would be requiring the developers to take to rectify the
situation.
To put the problem into its proper perspective, let me recite for
the City Council what the review and approval process for this
subdivision was supposed to be. Because of the severe terrain in
this area, each lot was required to undergo site development
review as well as design review before the Planning Commission
prior to the development of each parcel of land. The developers
were allowed only to put in the basic subdivision improvements
which consist of roads, landslide repair, utilities, and, in the
case of Old Oak Way, a water system and access road across the
Coccardi and Garrod properties. Approved plans and permits had
been issued for the street system, landslide repair and
utilities, but not for the water line and access road for Old Oak
Illegal grading, clearing and tree removal, Tract 7770
November 15, 1989
Page Two
Way. Grading and cut and fill operations were approved only for
streets and landslide repair, not for any other purpose. Plans
for the access road and water lines had been submitted in June of
1988 but never approved by the City Engineer since the final map
was not conditionally approved by the City Council until July of
1989, and the question of whether and when the Garrod water
system would be built because of changes in the 1986 Tax Reform
Act. The City Engineer had previously returned the plans for
correction but they appear to never have been resubmitted by
Westfall Engineering.
In order to comply with the subdivision conditions, plans and
permits would have to be secured for the water lines and the
access road. Subsequently, either the developers or the
purchasers of individual lots would be required to apply for site
development and design review approval for each lot. At that
time such issues as pad and driveway location, grading, drainage,
tree preservation, etc. would have been determined on a lot -by-
lot basis.
Our investigation so far indicates the following:
1. Illegal grading on lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11. Total esti-
mated cubic yards of soil moved - 4,450.
2. Other illegal grading within the subdivision. Total esti-
mated cubic yards of soil moved - 2,000.
3. Illegal grading activity outside the subdivision on both
property owned by the developers and property owned by
others. Total estimated cubic yards of soil removed -
12,000.
Illegal grading includes grading of building pads, roadway exca-
vation, and excavation of a 15 foot cut behind lot 11 within the
subdivision, and illegal grading activity outside the subdivision
including, but not limited to, illegal construction and grading
for a "water" road, an expansion of an existing fire road and
grading in other hillside areas.
4. Illegal removal of an estimated 34 oak trees of various
sizes from 6' diameter trunks to 2' diameter trunks.
5. Excavation for drainage structures and storm drain lines not
shown on any plans.
Illegal grading, clearing and tree removal, Tract 7770
November 15, 1989
Page Three
Because of the nature of the review process, the grading on the
lots and unauthorized tree removal create unacceptable conditions
for application of the City's residential design criteria relat-
ing to hillside lots. This significantly impacts the plan review
process established to assure hillside lots are developed with
some sensitivity.
Another factor is that lots 3 and 9 have been sold to a Mr. Kahn
and a Mr. Williams. I have tried to contact each of these new
owners but was only able to reach Mr. Kahn. In the meeting with
Mr. Coccardi he indicated that the contractor, Stevens Creek
Quarry (Richard Voss), must have graded these lots at the direc-
tion of the new owners, because he was not paying Voss for that
work. Mr. Kahn disputes this account, claiming Coccardi had Voss
using his property for slide repair, claiming it was necessary.
Kahn indicated he asked Coccardi to make certain his property was
protected after the work was done. At this point, I tend to
believe Mr. Kahn's version of why grading was going on at his
lot.
The other actors in this drama appear to be- Myren. _ Jacobs,. arid.x
Associates, soils- engineer, and Westfall. Engineers.,. civil-'* engi-
neers for the pro,�ect: At this point their roles "Id these ille-
gal activities are not determined.
In trying to come to grips with what has transpired and what
actions to take, staff suggests the Council consider the follow-
ing:
1. Establish a moratorium on all non - remedial activity until
total plans for all subdivision work, the water system, the
access road, and site development plans for all lots are
approved by the City so that all work of any kind to be
undertaken will have received the prior approval of the
City.
2. Require that remedial work and environmental protection
measures be undertaken immediately but that all work be
planned and approved by the staff in advance. This would
include measures to winterize all areas disturbed by grading
(estimated at 7 acres), methods to prevent erosion 'of dis-
turbed areas into the Calabazas Creek system, a report on
how to stabilize and protect the 15' cut on the back side of
lot 11, completion of all approved retaining walls to pre-
vent slope failure on approved road cuts, a complete topo-
graphical mapping of the present condition of the subdivi-
sion and all areas outside the subdivision which have been
disturbed-so that restoration planning can begin.
Illegal grading, clearing and tree removal, Tract 7770
November 15, 1989
Page Four
3. The posting of a CASH bond equal to the estimated value of
all of the restoration work plus 50% to be used to correct
any off site environmental damage which may occur as a
result of the illegal activity.
4. A fine equal to twice the estimated cost of the value of all
restoration work to act as liquidated damages incurred by
the City in dealing with the various violations.
Restoration is valued as follows:
A. To repair and replace graded areas:
1) on lots - 4,450 cubic yards
2) within subdivision - 2,000 cubic yards
3) outside subdivision - 12,000 cubic yards
Total: 18,450 cu. yds. @ $3.50 /cu. yds. _ $64,575
B. To replace trees lost: $31,530 per Parks Superintend-
ent estimates
C. Revegetgation of 7 acres of disturbed ground:
7 x 43,560 x $0.17 sq. ft. _ $51,836
TOTAL ESTIMATED RESTORATION COSTS = $147,941 x 2 = $295,882.
5. That the above actions be contained in an agreement between
the developers and the City that they accept all of the
above and agree to pay future similar penalties if further
violations occur as a condition of approval of any future
permit for work to be undertaken.
HRP:jm