HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 Z>7
MEETING DATE: December 8, 1993
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development
AGENDA ITEM: OLD
CITY MGR. APPROVAL f'WI(O 'L -
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a Design
Review and Variance application request (DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021) for
property located at 13091 Pierce Road (Glennon).
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission decision and deny the Design Review and Variance
request.
Report Summary:
On November 10, 1993, an application was presented to the Planning
Commission requesting Design Review approval to construct a new
3,848 sq. ft., two -story residence and Variance approval to allow
the structure's second floor to be located 50 ft. from a rear
property line where 60 ft. is required; that is, the second floor
must be "stepped- back" from the first floor setback. The Planning
Commission decided by a 5 -1 vote (with one abstaining) , that
although the Design Review findings could be made, the Variance
findings were not present to approve a structure which encroached
into the required setback. Because the Design Review request was
contingent on the Variance's approval, both requests were denied.
In the applicant's. letter, dated November 16, 1993, several
comments are made regarding the difficulty in splitting the
original three acre parcel into two parcels. These difficulties
included the existence of an easement granted to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District for flood control purposes, the dedication of
a strip of land adjacent to Pierce Road for street purposes and the
requirement of a 69 ft. front yard setback for the existing house
located on the "rear" parcel. These issues were all considered at
the time of the subdivision approval. The somewhat irregular lot
line configuration is a testament to the difficulty in creating the
two parcels.
The result was that the Planning Commission approved a two -lot
subdivision on January 13, 1993, which provided a new lot upon
which the existing tennis court would be retained and a building
pad for a new house would be provided.
Page 2
Appeal of DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021
Glennon, 13091 Pierce Road
The applicant states in his letter that "The approved tentative map
located the pad where you now see it and specified that the house
was to be a 2 -story house." On the attached map (Exhibit C), the
proposed 2 -story house is shown adjacent to the tennis court. Also
indicated on the map are two setback lines - a 50 ft. building
setback for a 1 -story house and a.60 ft. setback for a 2 -story
house or the second story element of the house. Staff specifically
requested that the building setback lines be shown so that there
would be no confusion as to what setbacks would be required by City
code upon application of Design Review approval.
The applicant also states that the City has granted Variances for
the majority of neighboring properties. However, staff's review of
the immediate neighborhood found that Variances were never granted
for structure setback deviations. Rather, the City recognizes that
several of the surrounding homes have existing non - conforming
setbacks due to their construction prior to the City's
incorporation. These homes are considered legal non - conforming,
and any new additions or modifications would have to comply with
current City regulations.
Planning Commission Action:
Per the attached Planning Commission minutes and Resolution, the
Commission could not make the findings necessary to approve the
Variance request. The Commission felt that while the new parcel
was somewhat constrained because of the applicant's desire to
retain the tennis court, there was sufficient area to construct a
residence without requiring a Variance. It was suggested that the
applicant reduce the size of the house by approximately 132 sq.ft.
or step the second -story element back 10 feet to meet the code
requirement. The applicant requested that the Commission take
action on the submitted application so that he could proceed with
an appeal to the City Council.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Public Notification: Notices were mailed to property owners within
500 ft. of the subject property and notices were posted at City
Hall and advertised in the newspaper.
Follow -up Actions: None
Page 3
Appeal of DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021
Glennon, 13091 Pierce Road
Consequences-of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: If the
Variance and Design Review is approved, resolutions must be
prepared by staff listing the appropriate findings and conditions
of approval.
Attachments:
1. Applicant's appeal letter, dated November 16, 1993
2. Planning Commission Resolutions DR -93 -031 and V -93 -021
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 10, 1993
4. Staff Report dated November 10, 1993
5. Plans, Exhibit A
6. Subdivision Plan, Exhibit B
7. Subdivision Plan Detail, Exhibit C
3
Date Received: ' Z
r
Hearing Date:
Fee: 450
Receipt No.: ';� D /S
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant:_A), I) igm -1�— • CrI:e 112
Address: !';5PQ I ` 4F'1 P r i P
Telephone:
Name of Applicant (if �✓ /9-1)0 ''llh'Pero LG
different from Appellant: 1)6r Lde)1008 . /trxk ianatci, CA
Project File Number and Address: OR -2.3 03/ / U -f3 - oat /304/ ?P1Y{'
Pe s iqn re v/ P w -f-
Decision Being Appealed: 11at h6e de 1
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
*App llant's gnature
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (5) CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
} 11/16.'93 02:19 F.02
1'
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
It may be helpful to you to understand why the owner of over
3 acres of rectangular land approximately 250 X 525 has found it
essential to obtain a variance in order to build a smaller home in
which to retire while his daughter and her family move into the
existing large house.
The following factors have impacted the effort in one way or
another. For purpose of easy reference, the site of the existing
home will be referred to as the "back lot" and the new lot abutting
Pierce Rd. will be called the "front lot ".
1. Zoning regulations require that the property be split
so that a new house be contained in its own legal lot.
2. The existing 1601 paved driveway flanked by 50 year
old box hedges and fronted by brick standards topped with electric
lanterns is required to be bulldozed away. The reason: if the
driveway were to remain the area it covers would not be counted
toward the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum needed for the front lot since it
would be an easement to the back lot..
3. The rear of the back lot abutting Calabazas Creek has
an approximate 80' easement we donated to the Flood Control
District after the 1955 heavy rains. That easement of perhaps
16, 000 sq. ft. cannot be counted toward the required 40,000 sq. ft.
area required for the back lot. However, the easement is
disregarded for setback purposes. Thus, in splitting the entire
parcel the boundary between the lots had to be set such that the
back .lot is twice as large as the front lot. The reason: the
setback from the existing house to the boundary line was required
to be 69' because zoning regulations demand a setback of 301 or 20%
of the lot depth whichever is greater. The lot depth is 3451.
4. A 30' area adjacent to Pierce Rd. had to be dedicated
to the City for potential street widening purposes. This area
cannot be counted toward the 40,000' sq. ft. needed for the front
lot but is counted for setback purposes. The building site for the
front lot must, therefor, be 62' from fierce Rd.
5. The 20' new driveway at the south end of the new lot
cannot be counted toward the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum for the front
lot and is disregarded for setback purposes. The setback therefor
is a total of 50' from the property line.
11.'16 "93 0< <0 F.Li3
6. The approved tentative map located the pad where you
now see it and specified that the house was to be a 2 -story house.
When starting the design review process we were instructed that the
second story should not extend the length of the house but should
be only at the rear of the pad away from Pierce Rd. and nearest the
back lot. We so designed the house but this meant that because
there was a second floor at the rear of the pad, a -)0' setback
would be required rather than a 501 setback. The difference of 10'
makes it necessary that we obtain a variance of that extent.
The result of all this is that, despite the starting
availability of over 3 acres, the available building envelope is
small unless we were to be required to destroy the existing tennis
court.
Next month begins our third year in our effort to build this
small home on the property. The first map we submitted to the City
placed the house on the north end of the property. We withdrew
that map because 2 adult oak trees would have had to be removed and
we were uncomfortable with the fact that the house would be
unnecessarily close to our neighbors to the north. They supported
the location but we did not feel it was fair to them to place the
house so close to their home which is very close to the property
line!
We have lived in the existing large home on the back lot. since
1955 and, for good or bad, have grown accustomed to large living
space. The proposed new home meets our minimum requirements in
that it covers little ground (the entire bottom floor is smaller
than our present kitchen, breakfast room and den area) and provides
us with facilities for an anticipated need for perpetual health
care. The rooms are small but by having the center of the
structure open to the ceiling we will have the feeling of
spaciousness we need.
The request for variance was started only because there is no
way to redesign the house that will take care of our present and
future needs. We.have spent countless hours with our. architect
attempting to reduce the house by the 101 necessary to avoid a
variance or to arrive at an entirely new design that will
accomplish our purposes. We have abandoned the attempt being
convinced that to continue to do so is fruitless. The building
site is too small to work with if we are going to satisfy both the
needs of the City and our needs. our only alternative would be to
move the building where the existing tennis court now lies in the
middle of the new lot. This seems like a poor choice when compared
to allowing us to invade the setback 101, a total of but 132 sq.
ft. a matter that hurts no one and meets with the approval of all
our neighbors.
1 1 16 "93 ,02: 16 F'. E11
The Planning commission denied our request for variance on the
grounds that it could not meet the findings required by Article 15-
70.
We are appealing to the Counc'.1 because we contend the
Commission erred.
The findings required are as follows:
1.SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Section 15- 70.060 (a).
This- finding allows the granting of a variance if there
are "special circumstances" applicable to the property that if not
taken into consideration because of strict enforcement of the
regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges available to
owners of other properties in the area. Examples are given such as
size, shape, topography, location, etc. The examples are not
inclusive.
The Purpose of Article (1570.110) paragraph clearly
states that "an existing structure" that creates an "unnecessary
physical hardship" should betaken into account to avoid "strict or
literal interpretations" of zoning regulations.
one of the definitions of a "structure" set forth in the
zoning regulations is a "tennis court ". only by the grant of a
variance can this tennis court be preserved.
2.SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. Section 15- 70.060 (b).
This finding allows the granting of a variance if by
allowing the variance there is no "special privilege" granted that
is inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity.
There are a total of 32 homes located between our
property and the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. All but 3 (possibly 5) No
those homes fail to meet existing setback requirements.
"special privilege" would be granted us since all most all of the
properties in the vicinity have had such privileges. The house
immediately adjacent to our property, for example, is situated but
416" from its driveway; existing setback required is 251.
The position of the Staff is that while these other
properties do not comply with existing regulations, non - compliance
is because the homes were built prior to the time the new
regulations were enacted and they are not in non - compliance because
the City granted them variances. Such is undoubtedly the case.
However, the premise is untenable. certainly it would be
unreasonable, for example, to require the owner of a narrow lot
located in the middle of a block to setback his.building 601 from
,the street if all of the other houses on both sides of his property
were setback but 20'.
RESOLUTION NO. DR -93 -031
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Glennon; 13091 Pierce Road
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,848
square foot -two -story residence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, =the Design Review' application is dependent on the
Variance application being approved, and the applicant has not met
the burden of proof required to support said Variance application.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Glennon for Design
Review approval be and the same is hereby denied.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 10th day of November, 1993 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Asfour, Caldwell, Kaplan, Moran, Murakami
NOES: Wolfe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Jacobs aoom, k 0�:,._
Chaii-4p,erson, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. V -93 -021
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Glennon; 13091 Pierce Road
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for the Variance approval to allow the second floor
of a two -story residence to be located 50 feet from a rear property
line where 60 feet is requited; 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 not met the burden of proof
required to support his said application, and the Planning
Commission makes the following findings:
(a) Special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings.do not
exist which would deprive the applicant.of.privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district in that the applicant's own desire to
retain the existing tennis court and, therefore, limit the
potential building site area has resulted in self - imposed
constraints.
.(b) That the granting of the variance would constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district in that no special physical circumstances exist applicable
to the property to support a Variance. In addition, the area of
encroachment (132 square feet) could be redesigned or modified in
order to satisfy the 6.0 foot rear yard setback regulation which is
required for all newly constructed two -story residences.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Glennon for
Variance approval be and the same. is hereby denied without
prejudice.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission, State of California, this 10th day of November, 1993 by
the following vote:
File No. D -93 -021; 13091 Pierce Road
AYES: Asfour, Caldwell, Kaplan, Moran, Murakami
NOES: Wolfe
ABSENT:-None
ABSTAIN: Jacobs t �'
rson, Planning Commission
Z2�A •
Secretary, Planning Commission
N
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 10, 1993
age 11
st I tab as a basis for granting certain variances and she finds this finding
acc table. She also stated that with regard to granting the applicants a special
privi\hd was not convinced by the applicants argument that others in the
neigd enjoy larger bedrooms and bathrooms. She was basing the absence
of a rivilege on the fact that property owners in the same zoning district
and a same vicinity have done the same thing. Th•;refore, she explained,
she mmission would not be granting a special privilege. Commissioner
Caldn y urged the Commission to schedule a worksession for discussion
on tof ilding along an existing non - conforming building line and coming
up wlicy r arding this situation.
Chairperson Moran ag ed with Commissioner Caldwell's suggestion to discuss the
issue at a study session. She noted that she feels that when people of the
community are making dr \consi d designing additions they look at past
decisions on these issues n accordingly. She stated that she would be
using her "No" vote on tion to signal that she feels that there is some
ambiguity left in this polit the Commission should do some thing other
than just "blanketly" chaiance rules to either include any consideration
of floor plan or, without i the extension of current encroachment as
basis for the gra nting of to tend along the existing building line.
Commissioner Caldwell expressed her resp�t and appreciation for Chairperson
Moran's comments.
Commissioner Jacobs stated that with regard to t idea of examining the issue at
a worksession it is always a good idea to bat aroun deas\sack He stated that he
thinks the Commission will find that the ultimate arbisign review. It
will be less a question of whether it encroaches on tnd more of a
question of "Is this a desig n which we really find satihe neighborhood
and community." He stated that he feels that the dekey role in the
extent of which the Commission allows encroachmen
Chairperson Moran stated that she still could not make the findings support the
variance.
THE MOTION PASSED 6 -1 (MORAN OPPOSED).
4. DR -93 -031 - Glennon; 13091 Pierce Rd., Lot B, request for
V -93 -021 - Design Review approval to construct a new 3,848 sq. ft. two -
story residence and Variance approval to allow the second story
to be located 50 ft. from the rear property line where 60 ft. is
required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is a
vacant, 40,075 sq. ft. parcel located within the R -1- 40,000
zone district.
------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 10, 1993
Page 12
Commissioner Jacobs excused himself from review of this item and stepped down
from the dias.
Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 10, 1993 and answered
general questions with regard to the project.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:40 P.M. BY CHAIRPERSON MORAN.
William Glennon, 1309 Gish Road, spoke in favor of the application and urged the
Commission to approve both the variance and design review. Mr. Glennon stated
that the tentative map depicted the location of the house and labelled it as two -
story.. He explained that the house was actually one -story toward the street and
two- stories in back. He submitted a photo of the house and property and stated
that the only reason a variance is needed is because of a technicality. He
explained that the existing house is classified as a two -story house and, in his
opinion, it (the house) is not a two -story house. He stated that because the
basement windows are over two feet above the grade the ordinance considers the
house to be a two -story house. He also discussed the existence of an easement
on the property and stated that the 75 foot flood easement cannot be included in
determining the building area, but can be included for setback purposes. He
explained that because of the codes the lot line of the new house would be 69 feet
away. He stated. that even though the house faces north and south the ordinance
says that the front yard is the east side thus requiring a greater setback than if it
was considered a side yard. Mr. Gish stated that there is 69 feet from the existing
house to the property line and the ordinance requires that the new house be 60
feet from that property line - this would be a total of 129 feet between the two
residences. He explained that the granting of his variance request would allow him
to build 119 feet from the existing house. He stated that the only way to fit a
house on the lot without some sort of variance would be to eliminate the tennis
court. He stated that there are 32 homes in the area and only 3, possibly 5, meet
the setback requirements. He stated that if the Commission could find that the
existing house was one story then there would be no need for a variance.
Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Glennon if he had considered adjusting the
property line so as not to need a variance.
Mr. Glennon explained that because of the 75 foot easement, the classification of
the house as two - story, and the setback regulations, a lot line adjustment would
be very difficult.
Sam Maliniak, project architect, stated that if the Commission could find that the
existing residence is a one story house, the lot line could be adjusted back 50 feet
and would eliminate the need for a variance.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 10, 1993
Page 13
Planner Walgren stated that he feels that there may be some confusion. He noted
that there was discussion earlier of whether the existing residence is a two -story or
not, and explained thafthe increased setback only applies to the new proposal
which is a two -story house. He stated that this setback requirement has nothing
to do with whether the existing house is a. one story or a two - story. Planner
Walgren discussed the formula use for determining the setbacks on this property
and again noted that the setbacks for the new residence were not related to the
number of stories of the existing house.
There was no one else wishing to speak.
AT 8:42 P.M., ASFOUR / WOLFE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PASSED 6 -0.
Commissioner Wolfe expressed his appreciation for the applicant trying to maintain
many of the existing .trees and stated that he feels that the proposed design meets
the required criteria. He stated that the existing variances of the neighboring
houses create a precedent in the area: He also noted that the 75 foot easement
affects the arrangement of the house on the lot. He explained that he could not
support the removal of the tennis court. He stated that he feels the applicant has
done everything reasonable to comply with the codes and that the variance is not
major.
COMMISSIONER WOLFE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
The motion died for lack of a second
Commissioner Asfour stated'that he had visited the site and could not make the
findings to support the variance.
Commissioner Kaplan inquired if the tennis court was locked in (its location)
because of the trees. She stated that she had visited the site and wondered about
the possibility of relocating the tennis court closer to the house.
Planner Walgren explained that the tennis court is constrained to a degree by the
30 foot front yard setback requirement, the two oak trees to the north, the house
to the south and also by the rear setback to the west. He stated that the only
possible way the tennis court could be moved would be to the east. He stated
that he did not know if there was enough room to the east with regard to moving
the court that would affect the problem that is occurring.
Commissioner Asfour noted that a slight rotation of the house and tennis court
would eliminate the need for a variance.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 10, 1993
Page 14
Commissioner Wolfe stated that Commissioner Asfour's suggestion would require
demolition of the entire tennis court which would be a tremendous expense. he
stated that he would not be in favor of that suggestion.
Commissioner Murakami stated that he could not make the findings to support the
variance. He stated that the design was acceptable, but not the variance.
Commissioner Kaplan echoed Commissioner Murakami's. statement.
Chairperson Moran polled the Commission as to whether to check with the
applicant with regard to continuing' the application to allow time for redesigning
and elimination of the need for the variance.
ASFOUR /WOLFE MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:58 P.M.
PASSED 6 -0.
Mr. Glennon, applicant, stated that he had no interest in a continuation for the
purposes of redesigning the house and eliminating the need for a variance. He
stated that others in the area have the same variance. He explained that he has
investigated other options with regard to house designs /locations, but found none
possible. He stated that he felt he had addressed and met all the necessary
findings for the Commission to support the variance request. He stated that he
preferred to keep the variance application and the design review application
together so he may pursue an appeal.
ASFOUR /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:59 P.M.
PASSED 6 -0. '
Chairperson Moran stated that she feels that it is possible to maintain the tennis
court and build. a lovely house even if the design changes or the size is somewhat
reduced so that a variance in not needed.
Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Chairperson Moran.
MORAN / ASFOUR MOVED TO DENY DR -93 -031 AND V -93 -021 PER THE STAFF
REPORT. PASSED 5 -1 (WOLFE OPPOSED).
The meeting was recessed at 9:01 p.m and then reconvened at 9:12 p.m.
Commissioner Jacobs rejoined his fellow Commissioners at the dias.
5. DR -93 -015 Miloglav; 15161 Sobey Rd., request for Design Review
approval to construct a new two -story 4,752 sq. ft. residence
and demolish an existing residence and guest house per Chapter
15 of the City Code. The property is approximately 43,560 sq.
ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zone district.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021; 13091 Pierce Road
Applicant /Owner: Glennon
Staff Planner:, Paul Kermoyan
Date: November 10, 1993
APN: 503-16-051 Director Approval:
=
,tio9
D'
1 7 (.*)
z0g7V (Iiz�
501-16-84
20-J&4 (.Cl
5o3- 1�e -85
g
Ae
4
O
13145
503-16- 51
13291 CA)
503-16- bl
110 71
5o9-w =y0
15011
1.32 SI
503-16 -5'!
1277(
03 -16-82
e3-
01,
IN
!312. 0 t:6 I
eo•s -tt. -tit
1 3140 C
A50 3 I
0j- l"_1.4
-A 4
4M
cna- 16- 32
GLENNON; 13091 PIERCE ROAD
50'3 -Ib-52 I
Sod- lt. -77 v
12991
So3 -16-47
20975 (�)
501-/6 - 72
COMER
OR.
20988
Sod- lti -71
20440 (0)
,� 1')094
'
f S"-16-76
503 W -43
z0g7V (Iiz�
501-16-84
20-J&4 (.Cl
5o3- 1�e -85
g
Ae
4
O
13145
503-16- 51
13291 CA)
503-16- bl
110 71
5o9-w =y0
15011
1.32 SI
503-16 -5'!
1277(
03 -16-82
e3-
01,
IN
!312. 0 t:6 I
eo•s -tt. -tit
1 3140 C
A50 3 I
0j- l"_1.4
-A 4
4M
cna- 16- 32
GLENNON; 13091 PIERCE ROAD
50'3 -Ib-52 I
File No. DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021; 13091 Pierce Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
8/19/93
Application complete:
10/25/93
Notice published:
10/27/93
Mailing completed:
10/28/93
Posting completed:
10/21/93
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,848 square
foot two -story residence and Variance approval to allow the second
story to be located 50 feet from the rear property line where 60
feet is required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is
a vacant, 40,075 square foot parcel located within the R- 1- 40,000
zone district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting Resolu-
tions DR -93 -031 and V -93 -021.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions DR -93 -031 and V -93 -021
3. Arborist Report dated 9/8/93
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021; 13091 Pierce Road
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD)
PARCEL SIZE: 40,075 s.f.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9%
GRADING REOUIRED: Cut: 66 cu. yds. Cut Depth: 2 ft.
Fill: 66 cu. yds. Fill Depth: 1 ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: White colored stucco finish, brown
trimming and mission tile roofing per the submitted material board.
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE: 73 ft.
WIDTH OF STRUCTURE: 36 ft.
PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
LOT COVERAGE: 24% (9,747 s.f.) 30%
HEIGHT: 24.5 ft. 26 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE: Garage: 466 s.f.
1st Floor: 1,842 s.f.
2nd Floor: 1,540 s.f.
TOTAL: 3,848 s.f. 5,433 s.f.
SETBACKS: Front:
32
ft.
Front:
31
ft.
Rear:
50
ft.
Rear:
50/60
ft.
Exterior Side:
25
ft.
Exterior Side:
25
ft.
Interior Side:
167
ft.
Interior Side:
25
ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics:
The property is located on the west side of Pierce Road within an
R -1- 40,000 zone district.. The site is considered a corner parcel
because it is located at the intersection of Pierce Road and a
private ingress and egress (street) easement which serves two
parcels. The site is presently vacant except for an existing
tennis court, located in the middle of the parcel, and mature
File No. DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021; 13091 Pierce Road
landscaping which primarily consists of mature oak and walnut
trees.
Background:
The subject property is one of two parcels which received Tentative
Map approval at the January 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting
(SD -92 -004). Lot A is the currently developed rear parcel while
Lot B is the undeveloped front parcel presently under review. Both
parcels were approved with separate access off Pierce Road. The
applicant later received Variance approval to modify the subdivi-
sion conditions of approval in order to allow the size of Lot B to
'be less than the required 48,000 square feet prescribed for corner
parcels; 'due to the request that both parcels share the same
access, thereby establishing Lot B as a corner parcel (SD 792 -004.1
& V -93 -010).
The recently approved lots are technically considered one parcel
because a Final Map has not yet been approved/ recorded for the
subdivision. However, a condition requiring Final Map approval
prior to the issuance of building permits can be placed in any
resolution of Design Review approval.
DESIGN REVIEW:
The proposal involves a request to construct a new 3,848 square
foot two -story residence consisting of a 2,308 square foot first
floor and a 1,540 square foot second floor. Approximately 40
percent of the total floor area will be allocated to the second
level. Because the applicant wishes to preserve the existing
tennis court, the new residence will be located on the far left
side of the property. The tennis court will subsequently be
relocated 20 feet to the north in order to accommodate a reasonable
building pad for the new residence. Staff '_s review of the proposal
reveals that the residence satisfies the required Design Review
findings in terms of its compatibility with the neighborhood, and
its preservation of views and privacy with surrounding properties.
VARIANCE REVIEW:
The second story portion of the residence is proposed to be located
approximately 50 feet from the rear property line where 60 feet is
required. Because a small portion of the second floor area will
encroach into this setback (approximately 132 square feet), staff
had recommended that the applicant redesign or remove this area in
order to avoid a Variance request. However, the applicant contends
that 'the proposed structure's distance from the existing residence
on the rear parcel (approximately 118 feet) is great enough to not
create. privacy or view impacts. Nevertheless, staff believes that
the Variance can not be supported for the following reasons:
File No. DR -93 -031 & V -93 -021; 13091 Pierce Road
Special circumstances applicable to the property do not exist
which would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zone district in that the applicant's own desire to
retain the tennis court and, therefore, limit the potential
building site area has resulted in self- imposed constraints.
These constraints are not related to the physical size, shape
or topography of the lot.
Granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in
the vicinity and classified in the same zone district in that
no special physical circumstances exist applicable to the
property to support a.Variance. In addition, the area of
encroachment (132 square feet) could be redesigned or modified
in order to satisfy the 60 foot rear yard setback regulation
which is required for all newly constructed two -story resi-
dences.
Although the applicant has been unwilling to revise the plans to
satisfy.the setback requirements, staff would be able to support
the Design Review portion of the request. Because the requested
degree of revision is minimal,, the Commission may wish to allow the
applicant another opportunity to continue the application in order
to modify the plans per the Zoning Ordinance requirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting Resolu-
tions DR -93 -031 and V -93 -021.
01 BARRIE D. rlr -..TE
and ASSOC_ :S
Horticultural Consultants
408—M -2032
23335 Summit Road., Los Gatos. CA 95030
SEP 1$ 79,
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GLIENNON TRUST PROPERTY
13091 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
Paul Kermoyan
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
September 8, 1992
Job #08 -92 -258
BARRIE D. C'r_ .TE
and ASSOC- :S
Horticultural Consultants
408- 353 -1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 96030
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GLENNON TRUST PROPERTY
13091 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is to offer protection recommendations for the trees adjacent to lot B
at 13091 Pierce Road. A new building site is proposed and the trees adjacent to it, and to the
west and south of the tennis court will be affected by proposed construction activity.
Specific Suggestions
If the existing court is to remain intact, trees #2, 3 and 4, Coast Live Oaks, Quercus a rifolia,
in reasonably good health would be unaffected by actual construction, although they might be
affected by construction equipment.
If the existing parking driveway which travels in a north -south direction between. the existing
house and the tennis court remains, the Monterey Pine tree #1 should be relatively unaffected,
unless equipment damages the trunk.
Tree #5, a very large Austrian Black Pine has some potential for construction equipment
damage but a construction period fence should prevent that.
Tree #6, a native Black Walnut is in good health but in very poor structural condition due to
topping in the past and the resulting production of massive water sprout growth.
This tree would be immediately adjacent to the proposed building. Considering the specie of
tree, i.e., one which produces quantities of aphis drip and the condition of the individual
specimen, I suggest its removal be permitted.
Trees #7 is a group of volunteer Peach trees, and English Walnut seedlings. This stump is of no
value and could certainly be removed.
Tree #8, a hedge of Italian Buckthorn, Rhamnus alatemus. This hedge is dying from
-1-
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GLENNON TRUST PROPERTY
13091 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA
Photo hthora cinnomomi, water mold fungus, as this species usually does and could be removed
at no great loss since it will continue to decline and die in any case.
Prunus caroliniana would be an appropriate replacement for them.
It appears that appropriately placed construction period fencing will be adequate to protect
trees #1 through 5 and it is unlikely that construction period damage will occur on these trees
if that fence. is appropriately placed.
BDC:la
Enclosures: Charts
Map
•2-
Respectfully submitted,
Avle�4 op. CM4
Barrie D. Coate
L'
ADDENDUM TO TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GLENNON TRUST PROPERTY
13091 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA
On October 8, 1992, our firm re- visited the site at 13091 Pierce Road, Saratoga. Our original report on
this site, by Barrie D. Coate, was dated 9/8192. Since that date, proposed plans were apparently finalized,
and the revised proposal was forwarded to our office for review.
Included in the revisions is the proposed site of a new home on the southern-most lot, and a proposed
driveway which will provide access to the northern-most lot. The following additions regarding the trees
should be made to the original report:
Trees #9 & #10, Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia
— Ther.64seswill mquir-e raaeva4 io eapAoust shep. esedRewhanw-
(Ncrr,9EOLJIRED. : rHE KXDNG PAD IS LOCATED C)N rHE souTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY
Tree #9, is a young Coast Live Oak in good condition.
Tree #8 is a Coast Live Oak, which has been misshapen by competition for light with tree #9.
A dollar evaluation of these two trees (trees #9 and 10) will be found enclosed.
Tree #11, Coast Live Oak
This is a young tree which will be removed to construct the re- routed driveway from Pierce Road to the
northern-most lot. This is a young tree in good condition.
A dollar evaluation of this tree will also be found enclosed.
BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES
�n
z
z
p
CL
C
PAGE 1
Horticultural Consultants
2
r
z
}
U
w
-�
O
(408) 353 -1032
CO
t
N,3
t
T
w
z
=
o
z;
Q�
--
w
T
�-
z�
3
O
O
w¢
H
Q
p
z
Q
a
wa
OF 2
U
(n
v
v
p
Q
=
J
F=
U
F-
N>
w
p p
w
vac
o
Z
rn
U
r;,
O w
UQ
0
3
z
w
w
3
N
w J
24
J
Q
t7
z,
DIAMETER @
C13
o
p
Co
o
m
o=
C7
w
w
Q
v
Q
w
s
w
w
z
0
2
�- w
O>
rc o
�
ac
w
rn
z
w w<
w U)
fE o
w
o
J
m
U
N
p
w
Z
000
w
z
M>
02
cc Cc¢
>
0
M
z
p
a
2' ABOVE GRD.
and
Key
Plant Name
(n
cc
COMMENTS
7,
0,25,21,19
1,
0
55
2
3
opped
1
19'1
lump of 5 trunks
SQ in X $27 s An = $ x sp. class ( %) = $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %) _ $
Final Value
33
I
D
I
45
I
63
I
1
I
3
I
I
3
1
]111-
EE
ti '
2
Q iprn ig ngrifnfin
11
sq.in X $27 sq.in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc (%) _ $
Final Value $
2.
rnant I Oak
18
30
35
1 3
3
--
3
sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) = $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %) _ $
Final Value $
6"
25
45
40
1
2
3
4
sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %)=$
Final Value $
8•
34
45
35
1
3
lopped
5
sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %)=$
Final Value $
.
9.
27
[.135
50
1
3
lopped
6
sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( 0/0)=$
Final Value $
jUO 11 1 Lt: uiennon . i rust(i uu t) 5q. m. is aeterminea with the formula:
JOB p 08 -92 -258 Sq. in = �H - . Total Value
DATE: 8724-92 1 =best 5 =worst 1
This Sheet=
BARRIE D. COATE &ASSOCIATES
c7
z
2
, ;
a
p
r
>
PAGE 2
Horticultural Consultants
6;
3
cr ,�
Q
,n
=
O
=�
w
O
(408) 353 -1032
41
m
w
N
m
N
m
,
''
w
cc
Z
=
o
z
g
U
w
,.
=
z
3=
p
0
w
w
F-
cc
F-
a
p
z
¢
a
cc
OF 2
L~
N
5
.�
=
p
Q
U
P
rn
w
w
p p
c� ¢
p
1C
N
F-
OW
V.cn
O
3
z
rn
w
w
3
w J
a
-�
Q
a
z
DIAMETER @
--
=
J
p
L
=_
`:'
(7
w
ac
J
Q
cr
p>
w
O
F- w
0>
Z
>
U
N
Q
w ai
p
Q
w
m
N
w
p
w
2>
U
>
2' ABOVE GRD,
Key
Plant Name
0
o
o
i
v
=
Cn
z
LU
CC°
I°C—
Z
o
0
U
z
z
W a¢
cc
and
—
COMMENTS
10
X
6
6115
30
2
3
X
7
sq in X $27 s An = x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %) _ $
Final Value
3
X
2
2
12
8
4
1
4
X
8
sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) = $ x loc ( %) _ $
Final Value
Coast 'me Oak
1 8
25
.25
1
2
1
1
-
o- dominant lead -
9
r @9'a.g.
sq.in 254 X $27 sgAn = $ 6,870 x sp. class ( 100%) _ $6,870 x cond (80%) _ $ 5496 x loc (100% j =
Final Value $
10
11
20
16
2
3
3
1M
ne -sided canopy
11
10
ryptocline
sq.in 78 X $27 sgAn = $2,120 x sp. class (100%) _ $ x cond (40 %) _ $ z 10c (100%) _ $
Final Value $
13
15
18
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1.
9«
11
6q- 1A -;18-- X $27 sq/ln = $2,120 x sp. class (100 %) _ $ x cond (70 %) _ $1,483 x loc (100 %) _ $1,483
Final Value $1,483
sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %)=$
Final Value $
- v 'N, n �,,,,, �, �o�/ may. m. s uetermmeu wim the iormuia:
JOB 0 08 -92 -258 Sq. in = p�y Total Value
DATE: 8 -24 -92 1 =best 5 =worst This Sheet= $1,483
J _•
jE
AS
lb
M 8E R c�1 TES
••_ S4 SEWER �i •
i 5E E U�
'�;y.• W v V
A.
EX15T. COUR 7 Z�
A.
-Tai. I t •'�
>� i. �' •,�,. Vii, ,� • `„ �:.
A
GQO.SS AREA -A 08 ACR
construction > NE 7 ARE + 0.9E Z ACE`
• Period Fence
• b: X R ~ M V
REL�A 4
T� a
&7
♦' �;' � PRO s6D � -�`� .,.
:Y ��, •�4PPRLbI'. LOC4T /ONGIF'a.�E 4 14„ t rD
/°bLEL /NE P/W 4
Mole
S2
File No.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
I, , as appellant on the above file, hereby
authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the
above file.
Date: //, q^ ct_�!) Signature:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is my authorization to constitute
Jacobs, as my agent to do any and all things
might be required or requested in connection
for a variance.
Very truly yours,
April 23, 1993
my daughter, Renee
on my behalf that
with my application
File No.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
as appellant on the above file, hereby
authorize Engine ring Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the
above file.
Date: Signature:
w- r4o,000
X15TIN6 VINEYARD
�j
G l-
EelwG�A 1
PIER CR. ROAD
AD
w-�- 40,000
w- 1-40,t