HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAC11% OF si1!VJ lCCA
AGEM1 BILL NO.
DATE: January 5,' 1983
Initial:
Dept. fid_ ov
C. Atty.
D�Ac'2T:'LT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SuBJL'Cr: Final Map Approval, Tract 6632, Gerald D. Butler, Montalvo Road
-------- - (6 lots)
- --- - -- ---------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - --- ---------------- - - - - --
Issue SL--=ary
All conditions except emergency access road have been met.
Developer has requested waiver of this condition on basis of street only
serving 3 lots until extended into second subdivision,,at which time the',
access road will be required.
Saratoga Fire District has reviewed and approved of this waiver inasmuch
as the access road will be provided at such time as any extension of this
street is made. This office also approves on that basis.
Recc:nrendaticn
1. Waive Condition II -I requiring emergency access road.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 1522 -02 approving Final Map of Tract 6632
3. Authorize execution of improvement agreement E
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attach�rrr-nis
1. Report to Mayor dated 12 -29 -82
2. Letter from Ruth and Going', Inc., dated 12 -21 -82 requesting waiver
of condition
3. Location Map
4. Report to Planning Commission dated 6- 18 -82*
,5. •- Resolution No. 1522 -02
6. Tentative Map
7. Letter from Saratoga Fire District dated 12 -28 -82
Council Action
1/5: Fanelli/Mallory rroved to adopt resolution 1522 -02 and approve final map on condition that
final map show that this is a: temporary turn -around which will automatically be removed if the
extension of the road is made, waiving condition II -1, and with the addition of sentence in
.1fa o p aratsoga as toCtP Con ' itnerest there ink. Pa Passed 5 0, execute map on behalf of
REPORT
[CONTE
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 12 -29 -83
COUNCIL MEETING: 1-05-83
SUBJECT- Tract 6632, Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road
The developer has requested that the condition for providing an
emergency access road be waived (letter attached). His reasoning
for this request is that l) while the temporary cul -de -sac is over
400' in length, it serves only 3 lots, and 2) the construction of
this road is a condition of his second subdivision (Tract 6732)
and will be built with the improvements of that development.
The Saratoga Fire District has reviewed this request and has
approved the waiver on the basis that 1) there be a temporary
cul -de -sac, 2) there are only 3 lots being served, and 3) no fur-
ther extension and development of this street be allowed without
provision for the emergency access road.
This office can and does support this request on the same basis
as the Fire District.
It is anticipated that the matter of the emergency access will be
settled in time for both developments to move forward at the same
time.
RSS:cd
Attachment
Ro S. Shook
irector of Community Development
1,•
RUTH AND GOING, INC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING
919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95159 (408) 297 -8273
December 21, 1982
The Honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: 0.663
Dear Council Members:
Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E
William H. Bender, S.E.
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Albert W. Ostoff, A.I.A.
15341 -300
RECEIVED
DEC 2 1 1982
COMMUNITY OEVELOP(dfAr
The Community Development Department has required that an emergency access road be
provided in addition to the street improvements that are proposed by the developer for this
subdivision. Section 13.3 -4 of the City Subdivision Ordinance limits the length of a cul -de-
sac street to 400 feet from its intersection with the centerline of a non- cul -de -sac street
to the center of the turnaround. The turnaround is approximately 600 feet from the
intersection with Montalvo Road.
The turnaround is temporary and is scheduled to be removed at the time Tract 6732 is
constructed on the former Young property. At that time, emergency access will be
constructed through the Lands of San Jose Water Works to Vickery Avenue. This access
will be a permanent facility for both Tracts 6632 and 6732.
The proposed street on Tract 6632 will serve only three subdivision lots that will derive its
public access on a permanent cul -de -sac. The temporary turnaround is being provided for
emergency vehicles only. On behalf of the developer and owner, Mr. Gerald Butler, we
respectfully request that the City Council waive the requirements of an emergency access
road to Vickery Avenue as stated on the Conditions of Approval for SD1522.
Ver truly yours,
/
Brian G. Peneyra
Project Engineer
ko
cc: Gerald Butler
Robert Shook, City Engineer
F F
1
1 :� °.'!Y` Y ,•~ C ., .. - YIy .. tiF. � � �� I � , `� f` � II DV�wM wM c♦.
CA
cl. IN
j M 4 1. APE
z
0
0 WrA
rs DR
f pRe
r ..� J485
HU L AV
ZMA
DRIVE
;TRACT/'
_
/6632//
yr n-u.
1 - _ -
' r
L
1 w5o
,
1
IA AlD_! 5 ARE SING.-E-
107 tINOWN AS LOT'i... .
to
�uA1N LINK: FENCE 3.
EX15T. 70" EucALYPTUS to \
i
j TREC TO BE SAVED �ZS
- 4Ft.14*$4± COWC. E)LOCK
RE -mKWu WALL,
M E: TERMINA7� WALL 0� UG17E'
C RN�R OC GXU5TIWG HUI L
I'
EXIST 1301LDhCi.
?rp n15CF.GFiF.4A. 'L7
QfNCAST CoNc WALL
S6IAClSf C.P
-� GX.. V. C. P.
IA
3r p PZ2057 CONC WALL'
EXIST. eWMAGJ 1. I d `
Imo, 1 ia. Q
!Q
t _
3 P
o.
1D'SAN•SEWEREAS£3ai - -E% 6 SAN -_ _ = II � ..
p -- -�-- ----- 7
-_ 4'SAN.LAT 4
4 5AN•LAY.
O LIMIT OF 1
TRACT GOU
V STREET CEI
PROPERTY !
' � O STREET CEI
SANITARY
STORM SEW
CURB TYPE
FLAT GRAT'
3 E IUEME!7:'
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED 7/ 9/82 EXHIBIT "A"
DATE: 6/18/82
Commission Meeting: 6/23/82
"Revised: 8/4/82
SUBJECT: SD -1522 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive, Tentative Subdivision
Approval - 6 Lots (Formerly SD -1296)
REQUEST: Grant of Tentative Subdivision Approval for 6 lots (including one
containing the existing Arata residence) on a parcel located on the proposed
Lirs Drive extension (off of Montalvo).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration (one previously received on
May 31, 1977).
PUBLIC NOTICING: Noticed by posting on site, advertising in the Saratoga News
and mailing notices to property owners within 500'.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
Very low density residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential, San Jose Water Works tanks
to the west and Villa Montalvo to the south.
SITE SIZE:. 5.3 Acres for proposed 5 lots. 11.95 Acres for entire parcel,
including Lot 6 with existing house. The proposed lots are .92 or 1 Acre in size.
SITE SLOPE: 4.8% for 5.3 acres (Tract 6632) and 7.7% for Lot 6.
6.5% for 11.95 acres overall.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted the same map for the subject
site that was approved in May, 1977. The original application in file SD -1296
showed,Lira Drive as a cul -de -sac with 4 and then 3 lots taking access from it
and 2 lots taking access from Montalvo Road. This map was denied by the Commis-
sion without prejudice on the basis of inadequate area -wi'de circulation.
The map now up for your consideration divides an 11.95 acre parcel into 6 lots.
Lot 6 could be further subdivided.
Minutes of the previous meetings relating to the proposed subdivision and its
access are attached to this report.
Oat". 4�z �
Report to Planning Commission 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 2
Two of the proposed lots will take access from Montalvo Road. One of these
lots does not front on a public street and, therefore, since it is part of a
major subdivision (5 or more lots) an exception from Section 13.3 -7 is required.
In order to make this exception, (per Section 15.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance)
the Planning Commission must find "that there are special circumstances or con-
ditions affecting said property, or that the exception is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the petitioner,
and in either event, that the granting of the exception will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property
in the territory in which said subdivision is located." An option may be avail-
able since access for Lots 3 and 4 from a cul -de -sac is recommended as a condition
by the Community Development Department. This could be made a public cul -de -sac.
Three additional lots will access from a cul -de -sac off the Lira Drive extension
while the Arata residence will continue to take access from Hill Ave. When the
Planning Commission considered the extension of Lira Drive, they thought one
additional residence on the remaining 6.8 acre Arata lot might take access from
Lira Drive.
This proposal will help create a cul -de -sac longer than 400'. Therefore, the
Planning Commission needs to find that the proposed length is "the only feasible
method of developing the property for which it is zoned" (Section 13.3 -4 of the
Subdivision Ordinance).
The parcel being subdivided has a slope of less than 10% and, therefore, does
not require geological review, nor a Site Development Plan, prior to Tentative
Approval. Since concerns have been expressed about the stability of the proposed
Lira Drive extension, Staff has requested the City Geologist to review its align-
ment. A report on this review is included in your packet.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City
of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa
Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project,
if approved under this application. Said determination date: 5/27/82
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1522 (Exhibit
"B -2" filed 6/21/82) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply withall applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or
parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee
as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval;
Report to Planning d_ ,sion 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 3
submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and
compliance with applicable'Health Dept. regulations and applicable
Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars.
Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning
and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City.
In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section
23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated 4/11/77.
B. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
C. Submit Map to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required
Checking & Recordation Fees).
** D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 50 ft.
right -of -way on Lira Drive and 25 ft..half street on Montalvo Rd.
E. Improve Lira Drive and Montalvo Rd. to City Standards, including
the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R -36)
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
F. Construct cul -de -sac having 32' radius at south end of Montalvo Rd.
-G. Street improvements on 40 foot right -of -way (cul -de -sac) to be
26 ft.
H. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan"
and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff
to Street, Storm Dewer or Watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
I. Construct Emergency Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. Shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base
from tract boundary through lands of S.J.W.W. to Vickery Ave. gated
at both ends. Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without ad-
hering to the following:
oAccess roads having slopes between
using 22 in. Asphalt Concrete on 6
oAccess roads having slopes between
using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough
Aggregate Base. Slopes in excess
in length.
122% and 15% shall be surfaced
in. Aggregate Base.
15% and 172% shall be surfaced
surfaced using 4 in.
)f 15% shall not exceed 50 ft.
Report to Planning Cc 'lion
SD -1522, Gerald Butler
�. 6/18/82
Page 4
°Access roads having slope in excess of 17,% are not permitted.
NOTE: °The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
°The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall
be 15 ft.
°Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
°Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts
and roadside ditches.
J. Construct temporary turnaround having 32 ft. radius on temporary
easement at the end of Lira Drive (22" A.C. on 6" Aggregate Base).
K. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
L. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
M. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
N. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
0. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
P. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
Q. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
R. Enter into Improvement=Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
S. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical report required prior to final approval. Applicant's
geotechnical consultant should speak to all matters that may be
affected by or have affect on the proposed development.
B. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site, pool,
grading, drainage and foundation plans for the site and provide
a written statement to the City certifying he has done such a
review, and that the plan in question is consistent with the
recommendations of his report. Building permits will not be
issued until this statement is received.
Report to Planning Corronission 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 5
C. A grading plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved prior
to building permit at time of Design Review. (This plan to be
prepared by a licensed engineer). This plan is to be accurate to
within + 0.5 foot and be of such scale and contain detail as to
allow accurate determination of slopes, cut and fill quantities
and limits of grading /excavation. Cross - sections and calculations
shall be submitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accordance
with City grading ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report.
All grading is to be contoured.
D. All slopes either stripped during or created by construction shall be
treated adequately for erosion control. The grading plan shall contain
details of how this is to be accomplisehd. This work shall be completed
prior to final inspection /certificate of occupancy. No cuts and fills
are to be undertaken or left open at a time of year subject to signi-
ficant rainfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed when rainy
season or occupancy occurs, whichever comes first. Earthmoving
equipment to be fitted with noise reducing mufflers.
E. All engineering structures /components, foundations and retaining
walls over 3 feet in face height shall be designed by a registered
civil engineer.
F. All structural fill shall be keyed into side slopes, placed on
stable existing ground stripped of all organic /deleterious material,
and.compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction. Non - structural
fills shall be likewise placed except to a minimum 85% relative
compaction.
G. A drainage plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved prior to
building permits. This plan should address all potential runoff
— reaching, created by and leaving the site (including water from
paved and roof areas). Plan shall show method of collecting, carrying
and disposing of all such water. Water shall not be directed onto
adjacent private property without proper authority (existing
natural water - course, private'storm drain easement, etc.). Consi-
deration is to be given to subsurface water and drainage therefore
provided.
H. The applicant's geotechnical consultant is to observe construction
sufficiently to validate his report and to insure its recommendations
are followed. A letter stipulating this is required prior to final
�. inspection of any structures.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
Al. Sanitary sewers and easements to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of Sanitation Dist. No. 4 as outlined in letter dated
June 4, 1982.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to
issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified.
Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall
be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire
Code, Appendix E).
r
Report to Planning C .... ,sion 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 6
B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base
from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway
shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be surfaced
using 22" of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced
using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on.4 -inch aggregate
base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be
accepted.
C. Construct a turnaround at proposed dwelling sites having a 32 foot
inside radius. Other approved type turnarounds must meet require-
ments of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
E. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed
building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be
shown on building plans.
F. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for
fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire
hydrants.
G. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed pursuant to
Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that
no part of any residential structure shall be further than five
hundred feet from at least one hydrant and the fire protection
system shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure
so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver
no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other availa-
bility shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the
1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two
hours (Ordinance No. 60.4).
H. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
I. Developer to install one (1) hydrant that meets- Saratoga Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance
of building permits.
J. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs.
dynamic loading.
K. Emergency gate at Lira Drive and Olavarri driveway must have a
security system with a lock.box. Plans to be approved by Fire
District prior to Final Approval.
I
Report to Planning Conuni'ssion 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 7
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.-.SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and
connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers
of the Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to
final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said dis-
trict to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tanks are to be pumped and backfilled. A $400.00
bond is to be posted with the City of Saratoga to insure completion
of work.
D. Any wells located on the property must be properly sealed and aban-
doned.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing
the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD
for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on the emergency access road and barrier
prior to Final Subdivision Approval.
B. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by
Saratoga Fire District.
C. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits. On -site lighting to be reviewed and approved through Design
Review.
D. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Land Development Committee approval.
E. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be
reviewed by the Permit Review Division to evaluate the potential for
solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni-
ties on /in the subdivision /building site.
** F. Widen remaining sections of Montalvo Road between Lira Dr. and
Saratoga /Los Gatos Rd. to provide a.26 ft.- paved.area to City-Standards.
** G. Prior to final approval, submit -CC& R's which include a private road
maintenance agreement.
** H. Prior to final approval, comply with 7 mitigations listed on letter
by Gerald D. Butlers received August 4, 1982 (attached).
Approved:
Kathy Ker #us
KK /dsc Associate Planner
P.C. Agenda 6/23/82
C
RESOLUTION NO. 1522 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 6632 - MONTALVO HEIGHTS DRIVE
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 6632 - GERALD BUTLER
having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed,
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicab,le',at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NONE
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
- immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of.any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the
-1-
<<::v
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion.. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the.City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the 5th day
of January 1983 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
j I
T....
N,
17S i
�j 7{
2.
)w
M
TYPCAL URA DIME
(TMMM 16MM IFIANX4111LAVILIMI) % j",
- ece oar n•a �� i - ..•'�, \�. }�,\ ��• !`rl ' � - 1 �� �. — ' • _ a..r. �trruir
06.
t
q,
"PrAL sEcrm 50, Ww
(FTOM:61likirrALWO lam To MM L113-TIL 64,5E) 7/
'M
rcc cur. • f•-aA
A'
7WICAL 9E 4D
(TV - Q732)
RUTH AND GOING, INC.
TEWrA MAP Got
LTTVE SLIBDAIVRIASIOAN architecture o engineering o planning
ATS OF
M THE CITY � ISAPtATIXIA.CALWOMMIA 919 7n1 A,— 5- bse C.11-- 95126 IaOBI 297 81'?
LARGER COPY IN COUNCIL PACKETS
In-AUTTMP131 3-
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
Telephone: (408) 867 -9001
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
December 28, 1982
Re: Tracts 6632 & 6732
Dear: Bob
This Letter is written to confirm our phone conversation related to the
postponement of the Emergency access road in conjuction with Tract No.6632 &
6732. It is the concludetion of the Saratoga Fire Dist. that Tract No. 6632
with only three lots being served by Lira Drive be permi.ted to be developed
with out the development of the Emergency access road. It is also noted that
at any time Tract No. 6732 is developed that the Specific conditions (I)
page 3 Planning commission report dated 18 June 1982 be enforced.
Should you have any questions related to the above please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Si ncerely -rte"
rnest 0. r Aee: "Chief
Saratoga Fire District
cc; Ruth and Goins
916 The Alameda
San Jose, Calif.
6&'bad.). 7
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL N0: 3 802 Dept. Head: —"
DATE: January 5, 1983 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr .
SUBJECT: " Run Your Plaque Off " Running Race
----------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
The Santa Clara County Dental.-.Saciety and Auxiliary to the Santa Clara County Dental
Society are requesting permission to hold+!a running race on February 27, 1983 to
promote February as National Children's Dental Health Month.
The race will start and finish at West Valley College and cover 6.2 miles of Saratoga
streets (see map attached).
Recommendation
Authorize the Santa Clara County. Dental Society and Auxiliary to the Santa Clara County
Dental Society to conduct the "Run Your Plaque.Off" race with the stipulation that the
race promoters will be responsible for payment for any additional sheriff patrol required
and that the promoters will provide a Certificate of Insurance naming the City as an
additional insurer.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter requesting permission to hold race.
Map of race route.
Council Action
1/5: Fanelli /Callon moved to approve on condition that those responsible for race
clear up trash. Passed 5 -0.
Mr. Dan Trinidad
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, California 95070
December 13, 1982
Re: "Run Your Plaque Off ", a race for National"Children's
Dental Health Month
Dear Dan:
The Santa Clara County Dental Society and Auxiliary to the
Santa Clara County Dental Society are again planning to
sponsor a running race at West Valley College, Sunday,
February 27, 1983. The purpose of the event is to promote
community awareness of dental health and publicize February
as National Children's Dental Health Month.
The start and finish will be in the area of the track at
West Valley College. Runners will exit the campus on
Fruitvale and continue on a 6.2 mile course through Saratoga
to re —enter the campus road off Allendale. A map is enclosed.
The course avoids all major intersections and will be mon-
itored by volunteers to insure the safety of the runners.
Starting time on Sunday February 27, 1983, will be 9:00 a.m.
We expect about 300 participants with runners off the course
by 10 :30 a.m. All runners will be required to sign a waiver
form releasing Saratoga, West Valley College, the Dental Society,
and the Auxiliary from liability. The Dental Society will
include Saratoga and West Valley College as additionally
insured on their liability policy.
There is a charge for the race. Any proceeds over costs
go to the Auxiliary to the Santa Clara County Dental Society
for community dental health projects. These involve elementary
school presentations, materials for geriatric patients,
and films and brochures provided to the community through the
Santa Clara County Dental Unit.
The Santa Clara County Dental Society and Auxiliary appreciate
the cooperation of the City of Saratoga in helping to make
National Children's Dental Health Month prominant in the
eyes of Santa Clara County.
15 \in st re ardv'J
w .., I
Wil am J. omport, DDS
15242 E1 Camino Grande
Saratoga (354 -4316)
RACE DIRECTOR
WJC /mdc
Dale V. Boyl
President
AUXILIARY TO THE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DENTAL SOCIETY
Y, As- vc,k�?SE
Q u�� o(.)L L�cQU6'
�3 r L L c� �• P� �-�t
-4 1
Cri Z Or si,i ;YiIM
Initial:
AGEDA BILL NO. 383 Dept. Fki.
DATE: January -5, 1983 C. Atty.
DEPA7T.=: Community Development C. Mgr. IaL
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF SECURITY, SDR -1397, BAMBERG, SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD
--------------------------------- - - - - -- -----------Z----------------------
Issue SL=- ary
The undergrounding of utilities for SDR -1397 has been completed,
therefore the bond guaranteeing this work may be released.
Reccmnendation
Authorize release of $9,200 surety bond.
Fiscal Imcacts
None
Exhibits /AttacYLT nis
1. Memo from describing bond.
Cct:ncil Action
1/5: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
MEMOOIZANDLIM
UMEW @0 0&M&'KQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
TO: City Manager
DATE: 12/23/82
FROM: Director of Community D.evelopment
SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1397 (Relea.se. -o -f Se&urity)
Location: Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
All improvements; required of SDR -1397 as,.agreed
to in the- :Addenda to-improvement Agreement dated May 25, 1979
have been satisfactorily completed.
Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee
that agreement be released. The following information is included
for your use:
1. Developer: 'David Bamberg
Address: 652 Midrock Avenue, Mt. View, CA.
2. Improvement Security:
Type: Performance Bond
Amount: $9,200.00
Issuing Co.: Balboa Insurance Company
Address: 2900 W. Broadway, Los Angleles, CA. 90041
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: L05- 037987
3. Special Remarks: This release is only for the bond for the
undergrounding of utilities.
Rob rt S. Shook
RSS /dsm
CITY Ur'e�lullvVA
p Initial:
AGENDA BITS, NO. 3 0 Dept. W.
DATE: ..January 5., 1983 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: C XTUMity Development
C. Mgr.
1%;;L
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 6722; CARNELIAN GLEN COURT AT .-,HORSESHOE
Issue Summary
The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been
satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1)
year maintenance period.
Recommendation
Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memo describing development and bond.
2. Reduced scale Tract Map.
Council Action
1/5: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
✓� v
�IVINWEO R A M I I
oguw 0:T 0000
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
IO: City Council DATE: 12/22/82
FROM: Director of :Community Development -
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for TRACT 6722
Name & Location: Dividend Development Corp., Carnelian Glen Ct.
Public Improvements required for Tract 6722
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only.
This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and
improvement security will remain in full force.
The following information is included for your use:
1. Developer:— Dividend Development Corp.
Address: 3600 Pruneridge Ave., Suite 340
Santa Clara, CA. 95051
2. Improvement Security:
Type: Faithful Performance Bond
Amount: 26,000
Issuing Company: Industrial Indemnity Company
Address: San Francisco, CA.
Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: YS 812 -5865
3. Special Remarks:
RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook
rJ4.
."55'2s2 -E
0..
S'4 09,.
0,
. 56 �v. t".j
1,4& �1_ 5/lj/
yc16(51 OR Pa. X51
00.00
11,113
00 — If
JAZ]VI.,
2j
1O_d•35,111 0"�'
tD
V IDES �V-b a .4f I ES
L •ol3 �F
164
N48*36'20'E
-------- 320.37 '�
AS_.
Q. .. .... . . j,.>
Bk 'M t""g
-90, 2��f%
77, 7i
E 4 -RI
,., VV,47
'60 4 1 muru4i
�111
Nrr k
to J4,
_71T
&
P Ni - -` n z , _A2
7, 9,52
15
10,F1
0
o
/0
0;
S->
A159
N
Ow
i fir �9
i06 60
IN!
Ar 101fo" 11'
Al if
10' for
0,54
C;iTY OC SAi1 AiCXA
i
AGENDA BILL NO. 3 -95' Initial:
_ Dept. Hd.
DATE: 12/23/82
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL, SDR 1526, Longmeadow Development - Douglass
Issue Sumary
1. The SDR 1526 is ready for Final Approval.
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City.
3. Requirements of all City Departments and other agencies have been met.
Recommendation
ne (3 lots)
Adopt Resolution No. 1526 -02, Approving the Final Map of SDR 1526 and authorize the
execution of the Contract of Improvement Agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Copy of Tentative Map Approval
2. Resolution No. 1526 -02
3. Location Map
4. Status Report for Building Site Approval
Council Action
1/5: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
5. Report to Planning Commission
8 I f n.rFr -RAC.T NC. ".112 SriAGpNf 0AX5
• tb, W) • I (bTls) � � :.rrtFJ � rrT
IMY'fr! NiW / N•N'ff'f.
aw.. Ra wer a
• hw, Dnwgi -n'.b f• try I Y'
-,— —� ---------, I \� �� �� I I I \1\ •I �I 1 /V In ITY MAP
1' PARCEL A � I 1 I I I `NOTES / L
•' � ' ____ \\\ _� 4 /•,�'D'�• � �
c 7 I \\o - - -- / y� / 1/ 1 . F_,.r cr.,.1./rc Jc_ .»• r�/,7�\ �,L! ,.�. t\ I \ ..u,.� .e.r.. .. ..I�a
Tr »'c. u1
Pu"AM COURT
a Fn
4�
n.-
TRAC7' No 5833
�FZ
o IHlv,no
�f.reeow.w.
TYPICAL SECTION - DOUGLASS LANE
HMH INCORPORATED TENTATIVE MAP
�i :il R..I .... Planrlrn•S•,vr.on. t ffrr
- �••••'•�- � --•�^• BARATOOA CALIF r se�•
. 1
LARGER COPY IN COUNCIL PACKETS
77 - -
� W
QT `�
I %� 7
- r•wAro•A � r \ t
n \
' o r
c r �
c
r
vi
5 T A
Y '•' .11. w.a r. Uw t , t ��.
U � �
I f• O } W 1
F t Z TAt i .
t '
3 �
e
C. man.,IYAIJ
[
LA �GLGI ✓✓✓ I \\
t
J Lo c.
' i ` I DV•IMAFI [
_ fie.• H ` If so"a I C
(+ �p
Ll
1
L-0-
_A_T_7 Ca 4 M=A_ =P_-
_O_r S -- :R =1 2 G
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1526. , Longmeadow Development, Inc.
(have) (V /AW) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 10/27/82
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication shown on the map
P19'VAVtY10f //$WWj10,'/ Parcel Map Yes
Storm Drainage Fee $2,550.00 Date Subm
All Required Improvement Bonds $35,000
All Required Inspection Fees $ 4,500
Building Site Approval Agreement
Park and Recreation Fee '$3,900.00
fitted
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date Submitted
Date Submitted
12/22/82 Receipt
Submitted 12/22/82
Submitted 12/22/82
Signed 12/22/82
Submitted 12/22/82
12/22/82
# 1866
Receipt# 1056 -
Receipt#
Receipt# 01866
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Q�l�j}ty (Final) Building Site Approval for Longmeadow Development, Inc.
SDR- 1526 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
DATE:
Commission Meeting:
SUBJECT' V -598 & SDR -1526. Longmeadow Development, Douglass Lane
Variance and Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 Lots
10/15/82
10/27/82
REQUEST: Variance for redefined setbacks for existing nonconforming structures
and Tentative Subdivision Approval for three (3) lots in order to create two (2)
additional building sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised in the Saratoga News, posted
and mailings to homeowners within 500 feet.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density
ZONING: R -1- 20,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential
SITE SIZE: 1.85+ acres, gross
SITE SLOPE: 9%
STAFF ANALYSIS: The Commission approved this site for a two lot split on August
12, 1981. The present applicant then proposed to split the site into 3 lots but
later withdrew it in June of 1982. Now the applicant again wishes to split
the 1.85 acre site with one existing residence and several accessory structures
into three lots, thus creating two additional building sites. Excluding areas sub-
ject to dedication, their site areas meet ordinance requirements and will be: Parcel
"A" - + 20,000 sq. ft.; Parcel "B" - + 20,000 sq. ft.: Parcel "C" - 35.750 sq. ft.
Several of the accessory structures and the.pool have nonconforming setbacks and
they now require variances with respect to the proposed redefined yards for setbacks.
The SCVWD originally required.the removal of the woodshed within their proposed
right -of -way and this has been recently done. The swimming pool, by this proposal,
is to be located in the front yard with a setback of 17 ft. where 30 ft.is required.
The second dwelling unit will have a side yard setback of 6 ft. and the wash room 12 ft
where 15 ft. is required. The gargae will have a 2 ft rear yard setback and the
main house a 44 ft. rear yard, where 45 ft is required.
r r-
DATE:
Commission Meeting:
SUBJECT' V -598 & SDR -1526. Longmeadow Development, Douglass Lane
Variance and Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 Lots
10/15/82
10/27/82
REQUEST: Variance for redefined setbacks for existing nonconforming structures
and Tentative Subdivision Approval for three (3) lots in order to create two (2)
additional building sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised in the Saratoga News, posted
and mailings to homeowners within 500 feet.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density
ZONING: R -1- 20,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential
SITE SIZE: 1.85+ acres, gross
SITE SLOPE: 9%
STAFF ANALYSIS: The Commission approved this site for a two lot split on August
12, 1981. The present applicant then proposed to split the site into 3 lots but
later withdrew it in June of 1982. Now the applicant again wishes to split
the 1.85 acre site with one existing residence and several accessory structures
into three lots, thus creating two additional building sites. Excluding areas sub-
ject to dedication, their site areas meet ordinance requirements and will be: Parcel
"A" - + 20,000 sq. ft.; Parcel "B" - + 20,000 sq. ft.: Parcel "C" - 35.750 sq. ft.
Several of the accessory structures and the.pool have nonconforming setbacks and
they now require variances with respect to the proposed redefined yards for setbacks.
The SCVWD originally required.the removal of the woodshed within their proposed
right -of -way and this has been recently done. The swimming pool, by this proposal,
is to be located in the front yard with a setback of 17 ft. where 30 ft.is required.
The second dwelling unit will have a side yard setback of 6 ft. and the wash room 12 ft
where 15 ft. is required. The gargae will have a 2 ft rear yard setback and the
main house a 44 ft. rear yard, where 45 ft is required.
Report to Planning Co( ;sion Page 2
V -598 & SDR 1526
The recommended conditions for the site approval require connection to the
sewer for the existing residence as well as the proposed residence, per the
Subdivision Ordinance and the letter from Sanitation District No. 4. The turn-
around for the existing residence has been approved by the Fire District. Prior
to any approval of the proposed subdivision of the lot, the Commission will
need to grant a variance for the redefined setbacks to the existing structures
and pool with the appropriate findings.
FINDINGS
1. There is physical hardship associated with the land regarding the
swimming pool given that it is already built, fenced and landscaped.
Additionally, the swimming pool cannot be seen from Durham Ct. It
would be unnecessary physical hardship to require removal of the
residence since it is nearly in compliance with the ordinance and its
impact on the neighbors is minimal. However, the second dwelling unit
and garage have no physical hardships associated with them.
2. Exceptional circumstances applying to this lot relate to the construction
of Durham Ct. after the development of the lot. Additionally, the main
structure and out buildings have some historical significance within the
neighborhood and seem to be known as the old Douglass Ranch.
3. Denial of this variance for the garage and second dwelling unit would not
deprive the applicant of the right to develop the property similar to
others classified in the same zoning district. However, requiring removal
or relocation of the main structure and pool would be a denial of
common privilege since if the lot were vacant, the costs and physical hard-
ship of moving the structures would not be incurred.
4. The granting of this variance, except with respect to the garage and second
dwelling unit, would not be a grant of special privilege since exceptional
circumstances exist.
5. The use will not be detrimental to the community or injurious to the
properties in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the main structure
and pool per the Staff Report and Exhibit "B" dated 9/9/82 per the following
conditions:
1. Removal of the second dwelling unit and wash room.
2. Relocation or replacement of the garage within the appropriate setbacks.
If the Commission can make the appropriate findings to grant the variance, they may
then act on the subdivision proposal, or they can condition the proposed Parcel
"C" for removal of the structures and pool per the following conditions and findings:
-PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City
of Saratoga.
Report to Planning Cor'si on ` Page 3
V -598 & SDR 1526
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared relative to the environmental impact of
this project. Said determination date: 5/6/82.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1526
(Exhibit '.'B':' filed 9/9/82) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel
map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established
by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered
improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health De-
partment regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further
particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning
and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition
thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which
are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A.
Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B.
Submit
"Parcel Map" to City for Checking
and Recordation (Pay required
Checking
& Recordation Fees.) (If Parcel
is shown on existing map of record,
submit
three (3) to -scale prints.)
C.
Submit
"Irrevocable Offer of Dedication"
to provide for a 20 ft half
- street
on Durham Ct.
D.
Submit
"Irrevocable Offer of Dedication"
to provide for a tapering half
street
45 ft to 30 ft on- D ouglass Lane.
E.
Improve
Douglass Lane to City Standards,
including the following:
1. rDesigned structural section 35 to 20 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (R -36).
3. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and
as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street,
storm sewer or watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
Report to Planning Co( ,sion Page 4
V 598 & SDR 1526
G. Construct a turnaround having 35 ft. radius or approved equal using double
seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft.
of proposed dwelling.
H. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or
prevent flow.
K. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
L. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
I. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
M. May Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
N. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional on
Foundation prior to building permits.
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
I. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.).
3. _Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers and easements to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letters
dated 4/19/82 - 9/28/82.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base
from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway
shall not exceed 12% without adhering to the following:
Report to Planning Co( ),sion Page 5
V 598 & SDR 1526
1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be
surfaced using 22 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced
using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch
aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes of longer length will not be
accepted.
B. Construct a turnaround at the existing dwelling having a 32 ft. inside
radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the
Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
C. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building
site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected
by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation
District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted
with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards.
A $400 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley
Water District as shown on the map attached to the letters dated 7/21/81 and
-4/21/82 and 9/20/82.
B. All grading adjacent to the SCVWD right -of -way to be done in accordance
with sheets 20 -20B of said agency. Details of grading to include the
cross - sectional view at.the right -of -way and are to be shown on the Im-
provement Plans. Plans-,to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit
issuance prior to construction.
C. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the
location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review
and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Applicant to comply with conditions of Variance Application (V -598) prior
to Final Approval.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Public hearing Design Review Approval required on project prior to
issuance of permits per Ordinance NS -3.47 as an infill project.
Report to Planning Com�� -gsion
V598 & SDR 1526
Page 6
B. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Approved:
Kathy Kerdus-, Planner
KK:mlh
P.C. Agenda 10/27/82
CITY OF SARATOGA
2 Initial:
AGL'NDA BILL NO. 3 , ?6 Dept. Hd.
DATE: January 5, 1983 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1430, CHESTER AVENUE, BELLICITTI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
All improvements required of the subject Building Site Approval have been
satisfactorily completed.
Recommendation
1.Authorize release of the attached described bond.
2.Adopt Resolution No. 36 -B- accepting offers of dedication of public
improvements.
Fiscal Impacts
None
E V.h ibits /Attachmen is
1. Memo describing bond
2. Resolution 36 -B-
Council Action
1/5: Approved on Consent Calednar 5 -0.
i 'IV
r. (DUTW o2 §&UL/-NzQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(108) 867 -3138
y1E U' ANDUI 1
TO: City Council DATE: 12/23/82
FROM: Director of Community Development -
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1430
Location: Chester Avenue
The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1430
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion 36B which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
1. Developer: H. Bellicitti
Address: 14401 Chester Avenue
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: May 20, 1981
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Faithful Performance
Amount: 9440.00
Issuing Co: United Pacific Insurance Co.
Address: 14401 Chester Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: None
4. Miles of Public Street: None
5. Special Remarks:
Robe t S. Shook
RSS /d sm
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO:
DATE: January 5, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Board Litter Control Grant
Issue Summar
Initial:
Dept. Head..
City Atty
City Mgr
The City applied for a small Solid Waste Management Board Litter Control Grant to
purchase some minor Litter Control materials such as rakes, trash cans, trash can
liners, etc. in January of 1981. We were recently notified that our application
was approved and we can begin purchasing the approved material.
Recommendation
Accept Grant and appropriate $3,211.46 which will be reimbursed by the Solid Waste
Management Board.
Fiscal Impact
$3,211.46 will be funded by the General Fund and will be reimbursed to that fund
when received from the State.
Attachments /Exhibits,
List of materials to be purchased.
Council Action
Clevenger /Mallory, moved to approve grant, authorize appropriation, and adopt
resolution 1099.8. Passed 5 -0.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Gover -or
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
1020 NINTH STREET, SUITE 300 0E, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
Date : DEC 13 1982
Written Change Order # 1
Contract # SO- 293 -400LG
Pursuant to the authority delegated under Solid Waste Management Board Resolution
82 -17 the Executive Officer has determined that the contract adjustment requested
in writing by J. Wayne Dernetz on October 27, 1982
shall be made by written change order.
The contract is hereby changed as specified below:
The attached revised budget shall replace the existing budget.
All other terns and prOv sions of the subject contract shall remain in full force
and effect.
The undersigned parties agree to the above change(s).
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State Solid Waste Management Board
John Hagerty
XT&t)E�xecutive Officer
Dated: DEC 13 1982
CONTRAC'T'OR
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Sara ,, CA 9 7�
J. W�ne tz
Ci-Ey 'Zama
Dated: 02
t
(a) Not Applicable
(b) 60 light gauge 55 gallon drums with handles at $11.72 each = $703.20
2 Echo Back Pack Blowers at $297 each = $594.00
10 Galvanized Liners for concrete receptacles at $13.85 ea = $138.50
5 Swing Tops for concrete receptacles at $41.00 ea = $205.00
75 burlap tarps, 7 foot by 7 foot, at $4.42 each = $331.50
35 cases of plAic liners, 38 inch by 60 inch, 1.8 mil at $32.02 = 1120.70
16 California Flex Leaf and Litter Rakes at $7.41 each = 118.56
TOTAL INCLUDING SALES TAX $ 3211.46
(c) Not Applicable
(d) Not Applicable
r
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL N0: ff Dept. Head:
DATE: January 5, 1983 City Atty .
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Purchase of Three (3) Administrative Vehicles
Issue Summary
The current Capital Improvement Budget includes $18,000 to purchase three administrative
vehicles. A procedure of selection and purchasing has been developed which has
determined that we should buy used rental cars from "National Car Rental ". Two subcompacts
and one compact are needed and will be selected from the model lines of either Toyota,
Datsun, General Motors or Ford.
"National" was selected because of their superior warranty policy. The model of cars
that were selected was based on the size and anticipated operational costs. The
individual car will be choosen based on price, mileage and condition.
Recommendation
Approve'the method and choices described in this report and authorize the Maintenance
Director to make the final selection of individual cars. Require the Director to return
to Council at it's next meeting for review and approval of the three specific cars
selected.
Fiscal Impact
$18,000 is included in the 1982 -83 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Budget and is
funded by "Federal Revenue Sharing ".
Exhibits /Attachments
Memo to Mayor and City Council dated 12/20/82
Council Action
1/5: Fanelli /Mallory moved to authorize purchase. Passed 5 -0.
TG44 �`L
a
E
aad��..S ..S�bg i x4r �s> s. .5 •a..; : is �� 4 �i
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE
COUNCIL MEETING
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF THREE ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES
12/20/82
1/05/83
Included in the current budget is $18,000 to purchase three cars to replace
the four old and worn out administrative cars. After reviewing the several
alternate methods of purchasing these cars, we have determined that the late
model used cars available through the major car rental agencies provide the
City the most economical alternative. Since preparing specifications for
a used car is not really feasible due to the many variables of use, we
developed the following procedure for securing the best buy:
1) Send questionnaire to the four leading rental agencies to determine which
offers the best price, condition (lowest mileage), and warranty.
2) Select the agency which appears "best ".
3) Determine make of car that would best fit the City's needs and offers the
best repair and maintenance history.
4) Review the inventory of the "best" agency and select the vehicles we, based
on our judgement, feel is the "best" buy.
Although this procedure depends much on subjective judgement and experience; we
believe it to be a preferred approach to "low bid" purchasing of equipment for
which there are limited analytical methods of comparing.
In response to our inquiry, we received information from Avis, Budget, Hertz and
National. Although their prices and policies as to age and mileage are similar
and generally indistinguishable, National Car Rental's warranty is clearly
superior to the others. They provide a full 24 month /24,000 mile limited
warranty while the others only provide 12 month /12,000 mile policies.
In addition to choosing which agency to purchase from, we had to determine which
size, class and which make of car would give the City the best value. Most use
of the vehicles will be on local streets with only one or two occupants. Some
need for carrying up to six occupants has been expressed, and there is a minor
amount of long distance freeway use.
Purchase of Three Administrative Vehicles
Page Two
To satisfy these various needs we have decided on two small cars and one larger
one. In reviewing "Consumer Reports ", various automobile publications and
getting input from several "knowledgeable" people, we have concluded that the
"subcompact" sized cars manufactured by Toyota and Datsun are the preferred vehicles
of the smaller size class. The comparison of the larger "compact" sized
car is not as clear since both Datsun and Toyota in that class are much higher
priced than those manufactured by Ford and General Motors.
Since we have completed the first three sets of our selection procedure and before
we proceed with the actual procurement, we are now seeking Council authorization
to approve both our method of selection and the results of our review.
With your authorization, we will go to National Car Rental's Sales facility
in Burlingame and select,based on mileage, condition and price,two subcompact
cars from the following models:
r Toyota Tercel
Toyota Corolla
Datsun 210
Datsun 310
Datusn 510
and one compact car from the following models:
Buick Skylark
Chevrolet Citation
Oldsmobile Omega
Ford Fairmont
After making our selections, we will return to Council for its approval and for
a warrant for.the purchase price.
i
Dan Trinidad, Jr., Director
Maintenance Department
ms
x
CITY OF SJII:IYi)MN
Initial:
AG=A BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: January 19, 1983
DEPA1Zn, SIT: Community Development
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT; C -199 - Eugene L. Zambetti, Rezoning of Portion of Site at
14540 Big Basin Way from RM -3000 to C -C
Issue SLmary
Applicant requests rezoning approval for the lower half (approximately) of a lot which fronts
on Big Basin Way (PAD #2) from RM -3000 to C -C, in order to place an office building on the
site. The upper half, which is not proposed to be rezoned, fronts on Oak St. and contains
an existing single family residence. The major issues have been 1) conformance with the Gen-
eral Plan Map where the map requires interpretation (see map attached); 2) split lot zoning
(see City Attorney's letter dated 3/24/82); 3) process to allow the office building (see
Deputy City Attorney's letter dated 10/18/82). Public concern has been to insure commercial
zoning will not occur on Oak Street.
The Planning Commission interpreted the proposal to be in conformance with the General Plan.
They reviewed the Deputy City Attorney's letter on process and determined to follow a split
zoning_.process'. They recommended the rezoning to the Council and granted the variance subject
to the office building remaining in Professional - Administrative use. Next they continued the
Site Approval and Design Review Approval to have new maps submitted showing that the conditions
of the Variance Approval could be met (reports attached).
Recommendation
I
1. Conduct a public hearing on the rezoning.
2. Determine the merits of the rezoning and approve or deny.
3. The Planning Commission -recommends the rezoning for a portion of the lot to C -C in
- conformance with the General Plan and approval of the associated Negative Declaration.
Fiscal Impact
None
Exhibits /Attachmc--nts
1. Resolution C -199
2. Staff Report dated 12/1/82
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/24/82, 4 -6 =82 and 12- 8- 82'(un ap p ro ve d)
4. City Attorney letters dated 3/24/82 and 10/18/82
S. Maps (Zoning, General Plan, Village Design Plan)
6, Negative Declaration (Approved by Planning Commission with Variance V -600)
7. Exhibit B -1
8. Correspondence Received
Council Action
1/19: Fanelli/Mallory moved to direct staff to prepare ordinance for 2/2 meeting.
Passed 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. C -199
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed amendment,
which Public Hearing was held at the following time and place to -wit: At
the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 8th day of December, 1982 at the City Council
Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said
hearing was closed, and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect
the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of
a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission,
this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed
amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" should be affirmatively recom-
mended to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same
is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga
for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report
of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and
marked Exhibit "B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of
this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report
of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council
for further action in accordance with State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, this 8th day of December, 1982, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, btonia, Hlava, Siegfried and
Schaefer
NOES: Commissioner Nellis
ABSENT: None
ATT ST: Chairman of the' nning Co v ssion
Secretary
Exhibit "A" f
,
C -199
SDR 1517
A -810
Applicant: E.L. Zambetti
DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE REZONED TO C -C
All that certain property situated in the City of Saratoga,
Santa Clara County, California, described as follows:
The northwesterly 80 feet of Lot 10, Block 6, of "Plan
of the Town of McCartysville ", filed for record in Book "A"
of Maps at Page 43, Santa Clara County Records, more parti-
cularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot 10: thence
along the lot line common to Lots 10 and 11 of said Plan,
South 470 00' East 80 feet; thence at right angles South 430
00' West 50 feet to the southwe8terly line of said Lot 10;
thence along said line North.47 00' West 80 feet to the
northwesterly line gf said Lot 10; thence along said last
named line North 43 00' East 50 feet to the point of beginning.
C -199
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into conformance
with the Land Use Element of the 1974 General Plan of Saratoga.
2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning ordinance
as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance.
3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment
(Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate document).
•
•
0
0
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 12/1/82
Commission Meeting: 12/8/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -1517, A -812, E. L. Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin Way
SuBJECT: Rezoning from R -M to C -C, Variance Approval to Vary from Setback and
parking Requir men ts and Tentative Building Site Approval and Design
_________ Review Approv_aT __ 1 Lot
-- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended procedure for applications: C -199, V -600, SDR -1517 and A -812 for
E. L. Zambetti:
1. Take action on change of zoning, making the required findings. If recommended
to the City Council for approval:
2. Take action on variance application, making the required findings. If
approved:
3. Take action on the site approval application, making the required findings.
If approved:
4. Take action on the Design Review application.
REQUEST: Rezoning a portion of the subject parcel from R -M -3000 to C -C, Variance,
Site Approval and Design Review Approval for the relocation and rehabilitation of
a historical single - family dwelling for conversion to an office building.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper,
posting the site, and mailing notices to 56 property owners.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential and Commercial (as determined
in previous applications in 1974 and 1976).
ZONING: R -M -3000 (C -C is proposed)
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Retail commercial, single and multi - family residential
SITE SIZE: 8,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft. proposed for zoning line adjustment)
(C -C zoning requires 5,000 sq. ft., R -M zoning requires 12,000 sq. ft.)
Report to Planning Co fission 12/1/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -151 A -812 - E. L. Zambetti Page 2
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE OF AREA TO BE ZONED C -C: 11.4%
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 2%
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 20' (35' is the maximum allowed in C -C, 30' is the maximum
allowed in R -M -3000
SIZE OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE: 1,710 sq. ft.
FRONTAGE: 50' on Oak St., 50' on P.A.D. #4
(C -C requires 50' on a public street, R -M -3000 requires 60' on a
public street)
WIDTH OF SITE: 50' (C -C requires 50', R -M -3000 requires 100')
DEPTH OF ENTIRE SITE: 141'+ (C -C requires 100', R -M -3000 requires 115')
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: The C -C zoning district does not limit coverage. The
R -M zoning district limits the site to 40% coverage by structures or 3,200 sq.
ft. on the entire site.
SETBACKS: R -M Site: Front: 12' Right Side: 5' Left Side" 9' Rear: 17'
to zoning line The R -M zoning district requires a front yard of 25', a rear
yard of 25' and side yards at 10% of the site width, or six feet, whichever is
greater.
SETBACKS: C -C Site: Front: 6' Right Side: 6' Left Side: 6' Rear: 19'
to zoning line). The C -C zoning district requires 30' side and rear yards
when adjacent to A or R districts. No front yard is required in this case.
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 210 Cu. Yds. Fill: 34 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 6 -7 Ft.
Fill Depth: 2 Ft.
REZONING APPLICATION, C -199:
At the Planning Commission Meeting of April 6, 1982, the Commission gave conceptual
approval of the rezoning application. If the Commission's action now is to give
a final recommendation of the rezoning application to the City Council, they will
need to make the following findings:
1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into conformance
with the Land Use Element of the 1974 General Plan of Saratoga.
2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance.
3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment
(Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate document).
VARIANCE - V -600
Staff has determined that two variances are required for this proposal. The
site has been treated as one site, and no setbacks have been measured from the
zoning line. The variances required are:
•
•
r�
u
Report to Planning Commission
C -199, V -600, SDR -1517, A-8127 E. L. Zambetti
0
12/1/82
Page 3
1. A variance is required for the R -M zoned site for off - street parking. This
site does not contain two on -site covered parking spaces, as are required by
ordinance.
2. A variance is required to allow non - conforming side yard setbacks on the C -C
site. (30' is required when adjacent to A or R districts).
FINDINGS
I. Physical Hardship
A. Off- Street Parking: This site does have difficulties in terms of site width
and topography, for meeting off - street parking requirements. If the garage
were to be located at the rear of the site, it would need to take access
from Parking District #4, thereby creating a double - fronting lot. The
topography also creates some difficulty, in that the site slopes steeply
down from the upper,to the lower portion of the lot.
It should also be noted that this site is typical for its area and most
surrounding sites are narrow and do not contain garages or carports.
B. Side Yard Setbacks: The proposed C -C portion of the site will defini.tely
have difficulty in meeting the 30' side yard setbacks, because there
would be virtually no site area left to locate a structure. Staff can
make this finding in that the proposed structure would meet R -M setbacks
• and that landscaping will help to mitigate possible impacts.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
A. Off- Street Parking: Staff can make this finding since narrow site
width does apply generally to most sites in the neighborhood, which,
therefore, also do not provide off - street parking.
B. Side Yard Setbacks: Due to the size of the proposed structure and, there-
fore, its possible intensity as a commercial use; and the fact that the
proposed structure is to be used as an office building requiring day time
use primarily indoors, staff feels that landscaping would provide an ade-
quate barrier.
3. Strict or Literal Interpretation
A. Off- Street Parking: In staff's opinion, strict or literal interpretation
of off - street parking requirements would be an unnecessary hardship. This
requirement would also be very difficult to enforce on surrounding proper-
ties with similar site dimensions.
B. Side Yard Setbacks: Most of the commercial property in the Village area
is not a Jacen o residentially -zoned property, therefore, does not require
30' side yard setbacks. However, staff could not locate other side yard
variances granted in C -C- zoning districts, so this does not appear to
• be a privilege that has yet been approved by the City.
Report to Planning C ssion 12/1/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -151 A -812 - E. L. Zambetti Page 4
4. Grant of Special Privilege
A. Off- Street Parking: Granting a variance from off - street parking would
not be a grant of special privilege, since other properties in the same
zoning district are in a similar circumstance.
B. Side Yard Setback: Staff could not locate other variances granted for
side yard setbacks in the C -C zoning district and, therefore, cannot
make this finding that granting of this variance for side yard setback
would not be a grant of special privilege.
5. Public Health, Safety & Welfare
A. Off- Street Parking, Side Yard Setbacks: Staff noted no impact
from this proposal which could be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
In addition to the five (5) variance findings, three (3) additional findings must
be made to grant a variance for parking.
Off- Street Parking
1. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the
use of the site or the uses of sites in the vicinity reasonably require
strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regu-
lations.
2. Granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of •
vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the
free flow of traffic on the streets.
3. Granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard or any other
condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance.
Recommendation: Since staff could not make all the necessary findings (3b & 4b),
staff recommends denial of the variance.
BUILDING SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION - SDR -1517 - 1 Lot
The applicant is requesting tentative building site approval for a lot between
Oak St. and Parking Assessment District No. 4 with one existing residence in
order to place a second structure (professional office) on the site. The existing
structure has nonconforming setbacks, but with a zoning line adjustment, the
property lines on which setbacks are established are not being changed. The
existing residence lacks a two -car garage required by the Zoning Ordinance, thus
a variance for the two covered spaces must first be granted or a condition _re-
quiring them must be placed in the Staff Report. The proposed structure also
requires a variance for its side yard setbacks.
The recommended condition requires connection to the sewer for the
existing residence as well as the proposed structure. The access and parking for
the new structure are to be via the P.A.D. #4. A geotechnical report on the
site has been reviewed and recommended for tentative approval by the City Geolo-
gist (attached). •
Report to Planning Co�ssion • 12/1/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -151i, A -812 - E. L. Zambetti Page 5
Per Section 7.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission "may, but
need not, tentatively approve a map.... for.... uses contrary to existing zoning
to make such lots or uses conform therewith, but only after recommending such
change of zoning to the City Council, and so long as it is still consistent with
the general plan... Any such tentative approval shall be the sole risk of the
subdivider, and shall not become binding on the City for any purpose unless, and
until such zoning is legally and finally adopted."
Therefore, if the Commission recommends the rezoning and approval of the variance,
they may then act on the next portion of this application.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City
of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa
Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if
approved under this application. Said determination date: 3/3/82.
The Staff Report will recommend approval
of a variance and rezoning for SDR -1217
subject to the following conditions:
• I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
of the tentative map subject to receipt
(Exhibit "B" filed February 11, 1982)
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel
map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established
by Ordinance in effect -at the time of final approval; submission of engineered
improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and require-
ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for
further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's
Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City.
In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Con-
ditions which are-hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1
of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required
Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of
record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. half -
street on 25 ft. right -of -way to conform to improvments between Fourth
• and Fifth Street.
Report to Planning C ssion • 12/1/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -151,, A -812 - E. L. Zambetti Page 6
D. Improve Oak Street to City Standards, including the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 20 Ft. between centerline and flowline.
(D.I.A.)
2. P.C. Concrete Curb & Gutter (D.I.A.)
3. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) (D.I.A.)
4. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities (D.I.A.)
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan"
and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff
to street, storm sewer or watercourse.
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach (D.I.A.)
G. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Department of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
H. Engineering Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements (D.I.A.)
2. Storm Drain Construction (D.I.A.)
3. Access Road Construction (D.I.A.)
I. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. •
J. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements
marked "D.I.A."
III.. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional:
1. Geology
2. Soils
3. Foundations
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
C. Prior to building permit detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls
3 feet or higher.
4. Erosion control measures. •
Report to Planning Comesion • 12/1/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -1517, A -812 - E. L. Zambetti Page 7
D. Bonds required for compliance with condition "III -E'.'.
• E. Other requirements: Evaluation of all existing structures for com-
pliance to current codes by R.C.E., A.I.A. and other licensed pro-
fessional and upgrading of those structures.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided for existing and proposed structures
and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District
No 4 as outlined in letter dated March 5, 1982.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Proposed structure and dwelling must have a minimum recognized water
supply capable of delivering 2,000 gallons per minute for two (2)
hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for
determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating.
Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 2,000
gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi
residual.
B. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
• A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected
by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation
Dist. No. 4.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing
the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD
for review and certification..
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Planning Commission approval.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual strctures shall be
reviewed by the Planning Department to evaulate the potential for solar
accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for
future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the
subdivision /building site.
• X. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless-in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Report to Planning Coresion • 12/1/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -1517, A -812 - E. L. Zambetti Page 8
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - A -812
The applicant is proposing to change the zoning of the lower half of the subject •
parcel from R -M -3,000 to C -C. If the change of zoning, variance and the SDR are
approved, the Commission may wish to consider this Design Review proposal which is
for a small office structure to be located on the lower half of the property.
This proposal has been evaluated by C -C zoning standards.
The proposed project entails the relocation of a 1,710 sq. ft. historical single
family dwelling to the lower half of the subject lot and converting the structure
to office space.
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the exterior of the 100+ year old structure
by painting the structure off -white with teal blue trim. The roof will be finished
with cedar shakes.
A 6' high landscaped hedge as well as a 5' wide planting strip is required along
the rear and side yard property lines adjoining A, R, or P.A. zoning districts.
The site plan indicates that this has been provided in the rear yard and a partial
four foot planting strip is indicated on the southeastern side yard. It appears
that there is sufficient room on site to meet all the landscape requirements.
Parking District No. 4 requires one space for every 380 square feet of commercial
use. Therefore, the applicant is required to have 5 spaces which he has already been
allotted through his participation in the assessment district.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not have any problems with the design of the structure,
as its design and style are compatible with the surrounding residential and com-
mercial structures. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Design Review
upon receipt of the change of zoning, the variance and the building site approval.
Staff recommends a condition that a new landscape plan be submitted for Community
Development Dept. review and approval which indicates that all landscaping re-
quirements for the C -C zoning district will be met.
Approved:
Kath Kerg6s
Planner
SL /dsc
Attachments Sharon Lester
Planner
is
C
P1lnnin g C ommiss ion ,
Page 7
Meeting ;Minutes 3/24/82
A -81.4 (cont.)
on the removal of the bridge.
9a.__—C-199 - E. Zambetti, Request for Rezoning (from R -M -3,000 to C -C),
9�A- 81 -2--- Design Review Approval and Site Approval to construct an
9c. SDR -1517 - dffice building adjacent to Parking Assessment District No. 4
-ommissioner Zambetti abstained from the voting on these items. A letter
from Mr. Jeff Hass in favor of this plan was noted into the record.
The Deputy City Attorney discussed the position of the City Attorney
regarding split zoning, stating that, while there is nothing in the ordi-
nance that prohibits split zoning as a matter of policy, it is not some-
thing that he favors. He added that, as far as the General Plan is con-
cerned, he finds that he has some difficulty drawing the General Plan
boundary line in a manner that shows it dividing the property. He stated
that there are also some concerns over the practice of split zoning and
the difficulties it creates in terms of defining where the property lines
are as opposed to.the zoning lines, and how site area and setbacks are
determined.
Staff described the application and the options available to the Commis-
sion. The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m.
The applicant gave a presentation on the application. He submitted a
petition from the neighbors in favor of the proposal. He discussed the
historical home which he plans to preserve and move to the site. Mr.
Zambetti noted that he had previously received approval for a rezoning
from an earlier Planning Commission; it went to the City Council, and they
informed him that a use permit would be more appropriate. lie explained
that it was then determined that there was no available procedure for
what the City Council had directed.
Diana Parham, Secretary- Treasurer of Twin Oaks Homeowners Association,
indicated that they had held a meeting and spoke to the point of the
problem as it involved them, which is rezoning the entire lot. She
explained that they felt that if one particular parcel on the street is
rezoned, then future subsequent owners can do what they wish with the
property, and a precedent would also be set. Ms. Parham also commented
that they were against the rezoning because they felt it would be very
easy to rezone all of Oak Street if one portion is rezoned. She suggested
dedicating part of the property into Big Basin and not having it be on
Oak Street.
Robert Aviles, the architect, discussed the project and gave the back-
ground. He indicated that he feels it will be a benefit to the City in
terms of a commercial base and historical significance. He added that
he does not see any other use which would have the minimal impact that
this use would.have.
Commissioner Laden commented that she had been a part of the Commission
that had previously approved the rezoning, and also had been involved
with the Village Task Force. She explained that she believes that the
intent from the Task Force or Commission at that time was to allow this
type of use. She indicated that she feels the question is the appropri-
ate mechanism to get this use allowed so that a precedent is not set.
She added, however, that she feels that the applicant has been led to
believe over the years that this application will be approved, by accepting
his money and property into the parking district.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he had a question regarding the depth
of the site, and also concern regarding the neighboring properties if
a precedent were set by this application.
There was a consensus that this application should be continued to an
adjourned regular meeting on April 6th at 7:30 p.m.
10. UP -S15 - Spa Petite, quest for Use Permit Approval to locate a health
spa in the C- (Neighborhood- Commercial Zoning District at
18851 Cox Avonu
The proposal was describe
cussed.
Staff. The parking requirements were dis-
7 -
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, April 6, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room, Allendale Avenue, Saratoga
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
-------------------------------------------
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Present: Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioner Crowther
: ° "1 PUBLIC HEARING
C
C -199 - E. Zambetti, Request for Rezoning (from R -M -3,000 to C -C) , Design
-81 Review Approval and Site
Approval to construct an office building
SDR -1517 - diacent to Parking Assessment District No. 4
Commissioner Zambetti abstained from the voting on this matter.
The applicant gave a presentation on the project.. He noted a petition and
other correspondence received in
support of the project. He requested that
the Commission make a decision this
at time.
Robert Aviles, the architect, submitted photos of the site and discussed the
project, pointing out
existing landscaping and the interface between the
subject property and the Brown
property. He showed a plan of the entire block
and discussed the adjoining sites. The
existing home, proposed home and the
setbacks were discussed.
-
The applicant further discussed the size of the lots in the adjoining area and
the uses. The formation
of the parking district was also discussed. It was
pointed out that there had been
an overlay at one time that carried out the
concept of having some commercial use on both sides of the
the concept was never adopted. parking lot; however,
Chairman Schaefer asked if there were any comments from the public regarding
this application.
Steven Richard spoke in favor of the project and addressed.the tax aspects of
the project, specifically regarding renovation
properties. of old historical buildings and
Diana Parham, representing the Twin Oaks Homeowners Association, addressed
the project and indicated that they
opposed rezoning of any part of Oak Street.
She specifically spoke to the issue
of setting a precedent. The history of
the application was discussed.
-
Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King
seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Laden stated that she felt that the thought process had been, when
Oak Street was rezoned to R -M -3,000 when
all of the lots were nonconforming,
that eventually it would be a good place for higher density
housing. However,
the rest of the plan never was implemented. She added
that she felt that the
Commission should decide if they feel that the old
=
plan would still be viable
and suggested overlaying the whole area. The Village Task
Force Report was
discussed, and it was pointed out that it had been discussed
but never formally adopted. at public hearings
The City Attorney's memo regarding the rezoning was discussed, specifically
the practical difficulties that
occur with split zoning. Commissioner Monia
pointed out that Oak Street School may eventually be
the only grade school in
the district, and he found a potential safety hazard in
the fact that this
school could possibly be bordered on a commercial zone. Concern regarding
setting a precedent in that
general area was also discussed.
Discussion followed on the location of the proposed structure and the delinea-
tion tion of where
the commercial should ston, not just on this property but in the
entire area. Commissioner Laden commented that
she felt that the City Council's
thinking process before was that in the C -C district
�1
a permit can be set up
through a zone, not necessarily being on the boundaries of the lot, but as an
- 1 -
} PP lea ion an state that he
felt that, since the applicant had requested it, a decision should be made at
this time. The overlay study requested previously by the City Council was
discussed. It was pointed out that an overlay had previously been done of the
Village; however, it was not pursued,
Commissioner King moved to recommend to the City Council the rezoning applica-
tion C -199; that the proposed rezoning would adjust that no structures would
encroach beyond the lot line of the Brown property extended across the back of
this property, and that would be considered the zone line. Commissioner King
made the findings and conditioned the approval that: (1) only one use ti:.Lll be
approved, that use being the design review to follow, maximum size as described
in the application 1700 square feet, and (2) the building permit shall be applied
for within eighteen (18) months of the City Council's approval of the rezoning.
Commissioner Laden seconded the motion.
The motion was discussed. Commissioner King stated that his intent was simply
to deal with the Village Task Force recommendation by realigning the lot line.
He added that he felt the concept of rezoning this lot and doing an overlay is
a good concept and he would like to see that further accomplished. Discussion
followed on the possibility of approving the rezoning in concept, with the
addendum that an overlay study be taken up and accomplished in concert with
the General Plan. The cost of the overlay was discussed.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt the historical aspect is very
understandable and that the economic viability can be helpful. However, she
feels the question of special privilege cannot be overlooked. She added that
she feels that when the line is drawn the only access for some of the lots will
be off of Oak Street.
Possible amendment of the motion to include the overlay was discussed. Commis-
sioner King commented that he felt that the applicant had the right to a vote
at this time, and he questioned whether the overlay would be accomplished. The
vote was taken on the motion as stated. It failed, with Commissioners Bolger,
Monia and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Monia then moved to recommend the rezoning application C -199, in
concept, to the City Council, making the appropriate findings discussed in the
previous motion, with the following conditions: (1) an overlay shall be included
in the General Plan Review for Area J which would establish a use permit pro-
cess, and (2) an opinion from the City Attorney must be received regarding the
overlay plan before adoption. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which
carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
An.TnriukrMPMT
Commissioner Bolger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Monia seconded
the motion, which was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respec-yntff/Ju�1llyy L'�_
submitted,
Robert S. Shook
Secretary
X
1`{
Planning Commission -�
Page 2
Vim -� } - �,j,Y f�•t= l_•�__
Meeting Minutes 4/6/32
overlay zone, using a use permit process throughout that zone.
Discussion
followed on this process.
Commissioner King discussed the history of the a
} PP lea ion an state that he
felt that, since the applicant had requested it, a decision should be made at
this time. The overlay study requested previously by the City Council was
discussed. It was pointed out that an overlay had previously been done of the
Village; however, it was not pursued,
Commissioner King moved to recommend to the City Council the rezoning applica-
tion C -199; that the proposed rezoning would adjust that no structures would
encroach beyond the lot line of the Brown property extended across the back of
this property, and that would be considered the zone line. Commissioner King
made the findings and conditioned the approval that: (1) only one use ti:.Lll be
approved, that use being the design review to follow, maximum size as described
in the application 1700 square feet, and (2) the building permit shall be applied
for within eighteen (18) months of the City Council's approval of the rezoning.
Commissioner Laden seconded the motion.
The motion was discussed. Commissioner King stated that his intent was simply
to deal with the Village Task Force recommendation by realigning the lot line.
He added that he felt the concept of rezoning this lot and doing an overlay is
a good concept and he would like to see that further accomplished. Discussion
followed on the possibility of approving the rezoning in concept, with the
addendum that an overlay study be taken up and accomplished in concert with
the General Plan. The cost of the overlay was discussed.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt the historical aspect is very
understandable and that the economic viability can be helpful. However, she
feels the question of special privilege cannot be overlooked. She added that
she feels that when the line is drawn the only access for some of the lots will
be off of Oak Street.
Possible amendment of the motion to include the overlay was discussed. Commis-
sioner King commented that he felt that the applicant had the right to a vote
at this time, and he questioned whether the overlay would be accomplished. The
vote was taken on the motion as stated. It failed, with Commissioners Bolger,
Monia and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Monia then moved to recommend the rezoning application C -199, in
concept, to the City Council, making the appropriate findings discussed in the
previous motion, with the following conditions: (1) an overlay shall be included
in the General Plan Review for Area J which would establish a use permit pro-
cess, and (2) an opinion from the City Attorney must be received regarding the
overlay plan before adoption. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which
carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
An.TnriukrMPMT
Commissioner Bolger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Monia seconded
the motion, which was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respec-yntff/Ju�1llyy L'�_
submitted,
Robert S. Shook
Secretary
X
C- / 97
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------- ------------- - - - - --
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, Monia, Nellis, Schaefer and
Siegfried
Absent: None
Minutes
The following ch nges were made to the minutes of November 10, 1982: On page
3, the first sen ence in the eighth paragraph should read: "Commissioner Nellis
stated that he i not pleased with the present design... ". On page 3, the last
sentence in the t nth paragraph should read: "Commissioner Monia indicated that
he would prefer t see a single story home in this area.... ". Commissioner
Monia moved to waive the reading of the minutes of November 10, 1982 and approve
as amended. Commi sioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried, with
Commissioner Hlava abstaining since she was not present at the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. SDR -1495 - GarneA and Sorenson, 3rd and Oak St., Request for 1 -Year Extension
2. SDR -1461 - W. Stu%la, Cox Avenue, Request for 1 -Year Extension
3. SDR -1462 - Donald chaffer, Cox Avenue, Request for 1 -Year Extension
4. Janovich, 14965 Sob y Road, Site Modification Approval to fill an inter-
mittent drainage sw le
Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Nellis, to approve the items
listed on the Consent Cal \R-1 above. The motion was carried unanimously 7 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5a. V -597 - Gerald Butlera Drive and Montalvo Road, Request for Design
5b. A -839 - Review and Vte Approval to construct a two -story single
family dwelln Lot 8, Tract 6732 near Lira Drive and Montalvo
Road in the 0,000 zoning district which exceeds the allowable
floor area batei than 5%'per Ordinance NS -3.47 and Article
17; continuem October '13, 1982
It was noted that there will b a new Design Review Ordinance effective Janu-
ary 15, 1983.
The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission, and it was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting
on January 26, 1983.
6a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1517 - E. Zambetti
Z b. C -199 Eugene Zambetti, Request for Rezoning (from RM -3,000 to C -C),
6c. - - Variance for Parking and Side Yard Setbacks, Tentative Building
6d. SDR -1517 - Site Approval and Design Review Approval to construct an office
6e. A -812 - building adjacent to Parking Assessment District No. 4 at
14540 Big Basin Way
Since the applicant was not present at the beginning of the public hearing,
this matter was continued to later in the agenda as the last public hearing.
Staff gave the history of the project and described the site. They noted that
rezoning is being requested for only 3,800 sq. ft. of the original 5,000 sq.
ft., since 1,200 sq. ft. has been acquired by the Parking District 94. It was
pointed out that the previous Planning Commission had approved the rezoning in
concept.
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -1517, A -812 (cont.)
Page 2
The map for the rezoning was discussed, and it was clarified that the current
map does not show the lot line following the back of lots #31 and #32 on Oak
Street. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she had a concern about special
privilege because it shows a lot line totally onto itself rather than follow-
ing any other property line. It was noted that the current map was used when
the rezoning was approved in concept and does not coincide with the extension
of the property line from Third Street.
The findings for the side yard setbacks were discussed. Commissioner Crowther
commented that, in granting the variance, he would be inclined to give very
heavy weight to the sharp break in the slope; he feels that that is what is
unique about this site.
The correspondence received on the project was noted.
The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m.
The applicant gave a presentation on the current proposal and discussed the
history of the project. He stated that he would be in agreement with a zoning
line adjustment. The parking district and the intensity of the proposed use
were discussed, along with the findings. Mr. 2ambetti submitted a letter from
the Saratoga Historical Foundation in support of the project and a geological
report on the site. He indicated that he has been in contact with Ms. Diana
Parham from the Twin Oaks Homeowners Association, to try to mitigate her con-
cerns.
Robert Aviles, representing the applicant, described the project and the site.
The possibility of having the property line follow the same pattern as the
back of lots #31 and #32 was discussed, and Commissioner Crowther asked if
there would be a problem in moving that line closer to the structure.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that the closer that line is drawn to the
lines of the adjacent properties, the more consistently the City is going to
be able to make the finding that that is in effect the General Plan boundary
line. lie indicated that he feels that all of the lines of the adjacent pro-
perty should be as close together as possible, even if it necessitates another
variance. He added, however, that in this case he is not sure that it would
because, for the purposes of this application, Staff did not treat the rear
boundary line as the property line; they treated the site as a whole in terms
-of the rear yard.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt it would be appropriate, because
of the uniqueness of the site and the location of this building, to put a
specific condition on the intensity of the use. Discussion followed on the
use, and it was determined that a condition could be added to the variance to
state that the use of the building is to be only those as permitted by the
"Professional- Administrative zoning district.
Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Monia asked the Deputy City Attorney to explain how the Commis-
sion would not be dealing in the special privilege area with this application
because of the split zoning and special findings for the variance.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that, regarding the split zoning, there are
other situations in the City where property has two classifications on it.
He went on to explain that hopefully with the Village Specific Plan the City
can deal with the situation in a more direct way that will allow the multiple
uses and avoid repetition. Fie commented that the City Attorney's previous
memo indicated that there was nothing particularly illegal about split zoning;
the City may not have done it very often, but it's not illegal given the proper
circumstances. He added that, as far as the special privilege situation, there
are two concepts working here that overlap to some degree: (1) the uniqueness
of the site and (2) special privilege.-,'He commented that one way to view it
is that by reason of the fact that the building is a historical structure and
the City has recently adopted an ordinance promoting preservation of historical
structures; it is agreed that it is an appropriate site for the structure, and
the site is unique in terms of its topography. Fie stated that it is that
uniqueness in terms of its size and shape and its physical distinction between
the residential area and the commercial area which also mitigates the mixed
use. He explained that because it is one of a kind, it may appear as a special
privilege, but by reason of its uniqueness there will probably not be another
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -1517, A -812 (cont.)
Page 3
situation like it. He added that the Commission can make a finding that it is
no special privilege because no one else has or is likely to come in with
a similar type of application.
Commissioner Nellis stated that he felt that if the Commission cannot make the
findings for the variance, then it does not make sense to go ahead with the
rezoning. He added that he recognizes that other Commissioners obviously can
make the findings for the rezoning, but he cannot.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1517.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0.
Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt Resolution C -199, recommending the rezoning
to the City Council, primarily based on the General Plan which shows that portion
of the site as a commercial district, and showing the line contiguous to the
adjacent properties #31 and #32. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion.
Staff stated that they would verify the 80 ft. dimension for rezoning. Commis-
sioner Monia commented that the Commission does not have an accurate map; there-
fore, they do not know how far the structure can be moved. He added that he
would vote for the motion, even though there is not as large an overlay as he
would like.
The vote was taken on the motion to recommend the rezoning for C -199. The motion
was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Nellis dissenting.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the variance for off- street parking, making
the findings listed in the Staff Report and the additional three findings needed
for the parking variance. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that a condition be
added that the house always be kept as a single family residence. Staff noted
that the area is designated for multi - family but the site is 50 ft. wide and 85
ft. deep, thereby not allowing anything more than a single unit on it. Commis-
sioner Hlava indicated that she would not be amenable to adding that condition,
since there is one use there now but the owner may want to change that.
Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion to approve the variance for the park-
ing, which was carried S -2, with Commissioners Monia and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Schaefer explained that she was concerned about the traffic on Oak
Street and the possibility of duplexes being placed on the site.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V -600 for the side yard setbacks, making
the findings listed in the Staff Report and the additional findings regarding
special privilege and strict and literal interpretation, noting the site's
uniqueness, the sharp break in slope in the middle, proximity to a commercial
area, the contour of the land, the residential property at a different level
than the commercial, and the directly adjacent parking district. The condition
was also added to the variance that the use of the building is to be only those
as permitted by the Professional- Administrative zoning district. Commissioner
Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -3, with Commissioners Nellis,
Monia and Schaefer dissenting.
The Building Site Approval SDR -1517 and Design Review A -812 were discussed. It
was noted that approval of these applications would be subject to movement of
the structure to within the rezoned area.
Commissioner Monia commented that when the zoning line is moved to the north and
the building is moved toward the parking lot, there will only be a maximum of
6 feet between the building and the parking lot. Mr. Zambetti indicated that
the building could be moved 2 feet closer, and it would then be on the zoning
line.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR -1517 and A -812, with the provision that
the building be entirely inside the zoning area, and that the house be 1610 sq.
ft. or less on the outside dimension. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion.
Commissioner Monia stated that he has a problem with this process, explaining
that lie does not like to approve an application when there is no particular
exhibit to show exactly where everything lies. He indicated that he does not
feel that that is good policy, and the Commission has tried to avoid this pro -
cedure in the past. lie added that he felt that the applicant should submit a
map showing exactly the location within the boundary line and the applications
could be placed on the next agenda for approval.
- 3 -
.9
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
C -199, V -600, SDR -1517, A -812 (cont.)
Page 4
After discussion there was a consensus that this matter be agendized for the
Consent Calendar at the meeting of January 12, 1983, and the applicant was
requested to submit a new map showing the structure placed 2 feet forward.
Commissioners Hlava and Bolger withdrew their motion and second.
7. A -843 - Donald Y`VnSobey Request for Design Review Approval to construct a
single sngle family dwelling in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning
district Road (near S erry Lane)
The proposal was desy Staff. Commissioner Nellis gave a report on the
on -site visit, discue amount of grading and the stepped foundation
recommended.
The public hearing was opened at 7A S p.m.
H. R. Harvey, 1SOSO Sobey\Road, suggested that this matter be continued, since
he had not had an opportunity to review the application and consider any
problems that might need t be discussed.
Camille Skov, 14970 Sobey RAad, addressed the drainage. It was noted that there
was a report from the City +logist, listing requirements for the site.
Commissioner Crowther suggest '\d that this item be continued, in order to allow
the neighbors an opportunity t review the application.
It was clarified to Charles Inm n, 15040 Sobey Road, that the application is
for a one -story dwelling with dormer windows.
Emmett Carolyn, Manager of Mission Trail Builders, gave a presentation on the
project.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated t at it appeared to him that this is an attempt
to put a flat land house on a lot w ich may not take that kind of a home. He
referenced Condition VII -A of the original report on this site, which states
that the house foundation is to be stepped or otherwise designed to minimize
external grading. He added that he elt the intent was to make the house com-
patible with the lot, and he does not feel that the present design is. He
commented that he would like to see a plan showing how the stepped foundation
changes the look of the house and how "t fits, and what effect it has on the
total cut. Mr. Carolyn indicated that the basic design of the house will not
change. The cut and fill needed were discussed.
Mr. Harvey again addressed the Commissi
design if it is a one -story home.
Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by C
public hearing. The motion was carried
, withdrawing his objection to the
ssioner Siegfried, to close the
nimously.
There.was a consensus that the Commission w� uld like to see new plans showing
the modification, to determine what the imp ct will be. The applicant was
requested to show greater detail on Proposal 2 and also to show Proposal 1.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he would 1 ke to see a contour map. He also
stated that he had concern about the drainage Staff pointed out that Condi-
tion II -G of the Site Approval for SDR -1367 a dresses this issue. There was
a consensus that the approval would be subject to all soil and drainage miti-
gating measures being met by- approval of the City Geologist.
It was directed that this matter be continued t the meeting of January 12,
1983 and be agendized on the Consent Calendar at that time.
8a. Negative Declaration - SD -1454
Saratoga Properties (Di Manto)
8b. SD -1454 - Saratoga Properties (John Di Manto),\Request for Tentative Sub-
division Approval for a 5 -lot subdivision for a site at the end
of Madrone Hill Road and west of Peach Hill Road (formerly known
as the Niven property)
Staff described the project. They noted the exceptions needed for approval
and stated that if the project is approved there will ,also he a need to annex
the County portion of the property to the City and have a General Plan change
relative to that property. The slope calculations used were discussed.
- 4 -
PAUL B. SMITH
ERIC L. FARASYN
DUNHAM B. SHERER
LEONARD J. 51EGAL
HAROLD S.TOPPEL
FRANK E. MAYO
STEVEN G.BAIRD
March 24, 1982
C C
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P. O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(415) 967 -6541
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, CA
I. M. ATKINSON, (RETIRED)
L. M. FARASYN, (19 15 -1979)
Re: C -199, SDR -1517, A -812, E.L. Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin
Way Rezoning from R -M to C -C, Tentative Building Site
Approval and Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Gentlemen:
I have been requested to render an opinion with regard to the
proposed partial rezoning of the above - captioned parcel from
R -M to C -C. In�.particular, the questions put to me are as
follows:
1) Can a single lot be legally split by a
zoning line which places each half of the lot
into different zoning districts?
2) Is such a proposed split zoning of the sub-
ject parcel in conformity with the general
plan?
The answer to question number 1 is yes. There is no prohibition
in either the Government Code or the Saratoga City Code against
split zoning of a single lot.
The answer to question number 2, in my opinion, is-no.
The facts and background surrounding this property are set forth
in the staff report dated March 18, 1982, and will not be re-
peated here. While I realize that the Planning Commission found
that a proposed split zoning would be in conformity with the
general plan in 1974 and also in 1979, I cannot reach that same
result. My review and examination of both the general plan map
and the city zoning map causes me to believe that the line sep-
arating the different districts on the general plan map is in-
tended to be the same line as is shown on the zoning map. The
ok
Planning Commissic`:.
March 24, 1982
Page 2
line separating these two districts on the general plan map is
admittedly unclear as it parallels Oak Street and seems to be
a singular straight line. In looking at the entire general
plan map, however, it is noted that the districts are not sep-
arated by lines, but rather by difference in shading of the
various districts and the exact location of the district change
is difficult to determine. Further, in some areas, these
shaded general plan districts are not shown in such a precise
manner as would be required to determine how individual parcels
located along the boundary of the district are affected.
Because the general plan district line affecting this parcel
is nearly straight as it parallels Oak Street, it is my position
that the intent of the general plan map is to separa.e the two
adjoining general plan dist_`—cts, namely, "apartments" and "retail
commercial" at the same loc•_ :.ion as the zoning map line which
separates the M -C from the C- -C zoning district. Any other inter-
pretation leaves us with an inexact location of the boundary of
the "apartment" designation and the "retail commercial" desig-
nation shown on the general plan map.
In addition to the above, several complications would result
from a.split.zoning of this lot. Determination of maximum
coverage, permitted uses, accessory uses, are to name a few.
The zoning ordinance was drafted under the assumption that each
lot is wholly within a particular zoning district and is not
easily applied to a lot with split zoning. Also references in
the zoning ordinance to "property lines" cannot be interpreted
to mean "zoning district lines" because the meaning of "property
lines" is unambiguous. Even if such an interpretation were pos-
sible, it could in some instances result in a hardship to the .
property owner because of increased difficulty in complying with
development standards applied to a smaller "lot" created by
zoning lines. In•effect, the split zoning would in this instance
serve to create two nonconforming lots.
For these reasons, it
zoning of the subject
plan map. It is also
be discouraged where
In interpretation of
dation against split
to all parcels withi
PBS/PS
nis my opinion that the proposed split
parcel is not in conformity with the general
my opinion that such a split.zoning is "to
at all possible so as to avoid conflicts
the zoning ordinance. My strong recommen-
zoning of a single parcel is applicable
the City of Saratoga.
; esp tfu y s mitted,
PAU B . S IITH
Saratoga City Attorney
ATKINSON • FARASYN
PAUL B. SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW J. M. ATKINSON, (RETIRED)
ERIC L. FARASYN 660 WEST DANA STREET L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
LEONARD I. SIEGAL P. O. BOX 279
HAROLD S.TOPPEL
STEVEN G. BAIRD MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
JACK L. BRIDGE
(415) 967 -6941
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
From: Harold S. Toppel
Deputy City Attorney
Date: October 18, 1982
Re: Zambetti Application
You have requested us to provide you with a list of
options available to the Planning Commission for handling the
application by Gene Zambetti for rezoning of his property to allow
a mixed commercial and residential use. The long background
concerning this project has been reviewed with the Commission in
detail and will not be again discussed in this memorandum. All of
the options listed below presuppose that you have been able to
make a finding that the boundary line on the General Plan Map
separating the residential district on Oak Street from the adjacent
commercial district bisects Mr. Zambetti's property. If you are
unable to make this finding, Mr. Zambetti's project must necessarily
be denied as inconsistent with the present General Plan since the
project anticipates commercial use on the lower half of the
property which would not be permitted in a residential zone.
Assuming you have made -a determination that half of Mr. Zambetti's
property fronting on Oak Street falls within the residential
district shown on the General Plan Map and the remaining half
falls within the commercial district shown on the Map, your
options with respect to his application would appear to be as
follows:
A. LOT SPLIT
A parcel map could be processed officially dividing Mr.
Zambetti's property into two separate lots, one lot fronting on
Oak Street zoned for residential use (RM 3000) and a second lot
fronting on the parking district zoned for commercial use (CC).
The lot split and the placement of a commercial structure on the
second lot would require the following variances to be granted:
(1) Variances for lot depth and lot area, since two
nonconforming lots would be created from the land
division.
• (2) Variance for off street parking with respect to
the existing residential structure. (The present
a( 4C
parking facilities do not satisfy the City's current
standards. The City customarily requires that existing •
structures and uses be brought into conformity with
current ordinances as a condition for approval of any
parcel or subdivision map.)
(3) Variance for rear yard setback on the proposed
commercial structure, based upon the new lot line
dividing the property.
(4) Variance for side yard setbacks on the proposed
commercial structure.
(5) Variance from landscaping requirements (five
foot planting strip dividing commercial from adjacent
residential properties).
The advantages and disadvantages of a lot split would
seem to be as follows:
Advantages:
(a) A lot split would create two separate parcels which
can be designated as such on the General Plan and Zoning Maps.
These parcels can then be separately zoned for residential and
commercial use. Such division and separate classification may
offer some greater assurance to the residents on Oak Street that
the RM -3000 lot will remain committed to residential use and
thereby avoid any "creeping commercialism" from the village.
(b) The creation of two lots may provide greater
flexibility with respect to the ownership and use of the land
since either parcel can separately be conveyed and a development
project with respect to one lot can be processed without directly
involving the second lot. It should be noted that Mr. Zambetti
intends to place a designated historical structure upon the
commercial lot and there may be some advantage in having this
structure situated upon a lot of its own for purposes of treatment
under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance.
(c) The creation of two lots establishes clear boundary
lines for the purpose of applying the various rules and regula-
tions contained in the City's zoning and other ordinances.
Disadvantages:
(a) To my knowledge, the City has never deliberately
created a nonconforming lot through the process of a lot split or
other subdivision of land, nor has the City relied upon the
granting of variances to legitimate a lot split. This approach is
therefore contrary to a long established policy consistently
followed by the City, and would arguably create a bad precedent.
(b) The lot split requires the granting of variances •
which would not otherwise be required (namely, variances for lot
2.
depth and lot area), thereby increasing the adverse effect of
• departure from the normal policy prohibiting the creation of
nonconforming lots through a land division.
B. SPLIT ZONING
Without officiall
and filing of a parcel map,
could be established on the
lower half "CC" and leaving
"RM- 3000" designation. The
required:
y dividing the land through the processing
two separate zoning classifications
existing property by rezoning the
the upper half with its present
following variances would still be
(1) Variance for off street parking with respect to
the existing residential structure.
(2) Variance from side yard requirements with
respect to the proposed commercial structure.
(3) Variance from landscaping requirements for a
commercial lot adjacent to residential property.
The main problem with this option is, and always has
been, the absence of any express provision in the City's Zoning
Ordinance authorizing split uses on the same property. Obviously,
the proposed office building cannot be relocated to Mr. Zambetti's
property for the intended use without a change in zoning since the
RM -3000 district would not allow a commercial structure as either
a permitted or conditional use. Although there is nothing in the
present ordinance which expressly prohibits split zoning on a
single property, it can be argued that specific authorization for
such action is required and cannot be created by implication. The
establishment of split zones could therefore be subject to a legal
challenge by any interested person who desires to question its
validity. -
Aside from the problem mentioned above, the advantages
and disadvantages of this approach would seem to be as follows:
Advantages:
(a) The split zoning would avoid the bad precedent of a
lot split creating two nonconforming lots.
(b) The split zoning would reduce the number of variances
required for approval of the project.
Disadvantages:
(a) The split zoning may create uncertainty with
respect to application of the rules and regulations contained in
the City's zoning and other ordinances which are phrased in terms
• of property lines rather than zoning lines. This problem could be
M
alleviated by specifically providing in the rezoning that the
boundary line separating the commercial and residential zones •
shall be deemed to be a property line for the purpose of any
application concerning the use and development of the land. While
this stipulation would take care of many problems associated with
split zoning, it would also be the practical equivalent of a land
division in terms of ordinance requirements and would probably
necessitate all of the variances described above for a lot split.
(b) The argument has been made by the City Attorney
that split zoning is not a desirable practice and should be
avoided wherever possible.
C. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
The City could amend its present Zoning Ordinance to
create a process for allowance of mixed uses on a single site,
under appropriate circumstances, without regard to the normal
requirements for setbacks, coverage, parking, and other regula-
tions. This was the intended purpose of the Village Overlay
Ordinance presented to the Planning Commission. If it is the
desire of the Commission to limit such flexibility solely to the
Village area, as opposed to any other commercial district within
the City, the "Village" would need to be defined in terms of
boundary lines. If the existing zoning regulations covering
properties within the Village are not changed, the special provisions
for mixed use must necessarily be handled through the creation of
an overlay district. If you wish to take immediate action on this
matter, the overlay ordinance could be adopted as an interim
measure, pending your consideration and adoption of a comprehen-
sive specific plan covering the entire Village (which would,
itself, require implementing zoning ordinances).
The advantages and disadvantages of this approach would
seem to be as follows:
Advantages:
(a) Creation of an overlay district and special regula-
tions pertaining thereto would avoid all of the problems associated
with a lot split and split zoning, as described above.
(b) The overlay district would be applicable to the
Village.as a whole and the special regulations could be used,
where appropriate, for other projects in addition to Mr. Zambetti.
Disadvantages:
To the extent that the Village Overlay does not represent
a comprehensive planning document, the Commission may feel that
this option is a piecemeal approach toward resolution of larger
problems requiring more extensive study and treatment.
•
4.
D. DENY THE APPLICATION
• It can reasonably be expected that a denial will result
in appeal by Mr. Zambetti to the City Council. Your reasons for
denial should therefore clearly be stated at the time this action
is taken.
&",ace-
0
•
5.
I�tiiliE�I01010JA 101
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
09TE @0 §&M&X00&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438 .
Planning Commission
Kathy Kerdus
DATE: 9/17/82
SDR -1517 - E.L. Zambetti, Big Basin Way and Oak Street,
Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 Lot
The subject application was heard by the Planning Commission on April 16, 1982
along with the rezoning and design review applications. No action was formally
taken on the site approval or design review since the rezoning was only recom-
mended to the Council in concept. State law requires that applications for
tentative map approval be acted on within 50 days or extended by agreement of
both the applicant and the City. Mr. Zambetti agreed to continue the site
approval until September 24th which means it is now being placed back on this
agenda for your action.
At this time, the Planning Commission has still only recommended the rezoning to
the Council in concept with two conditions; "1.) An overlay shall be included
in the General Plan Review for Area J which would establish a use permit process,
and 2.) an opinion from the City Attorney must be received regarding the overlay
plan before adoption." This process was conditioned to allow consistency with
the General Plan and to establish the mechanics in the zoning ordinance to allow
multiple uses on one site.
The design review application and potential variance for the garage as well as the
building site approval are still pending a process to allow the multiple uses, and
the proposed use permit process for the Village area is still under discussion.
By the City's Subdivision Ordinance:
"The advisory agency may, but need not, tentatively approve a map for
lot sizes or uses contrary to existing zoning governing the lot, site
or subdivision, in contemplation of a change of zoning to make such lots
or uses conform therewith, but only after recommending such change of
zoning to the City Council after public hearing thereon in accord with
the zoning ordinance, and so long as it is still consistent with the General
Plan........ Any such tentative approval shall be at the sole risk of the
subdivider, and shall not become binding on the City for any purpose unless
and until such zoning is legally and finally adopted."
0
•
The options on this building site approval request are: .
1.) Deny the map since an actual rezoning has not been recommended to the
Council making the appropriate findings required by the Subdivision
Map Act; or,
•
sjkR&T0"ik GREEK
FOOTHILL
I.
K-6
v
p -7.
- 1, -1
"HE
SARA
V�
c - /9g
lql--4 *neral P/ax-
= &tai/
NF.
MADRON IA
CEMETERY
-- • ck i
H
li
ii
4
00
rn
i.
1; TTFrT[T
,J
I ! MS L 40CINF
1. r
It l basin ay
, �C-V
- C, i i TFriTIFF, r
A-
�Ln
`R�
R
A =7 -4
k street
0 cp
C6 3
!T
j
'LID 11 �0�-
R
ZAM 5 e -7 1
w W
/014�
�n
A
LL
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
R "W1 —..."Cl.!
A apartments
ZAM 5 e -7 1
w W
/014�
S;17i -4 File No: C -199
Saratoga `� (� SDR -1517.
DECLARATION THAT. EI,IVZRON14ENTAL A -812
IMPACT REPORT.' NOT REQUIRED
(Negative'Dcclaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
Thc undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation', after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental. Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030
throucrh 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant is requesting a split zoning (from R- M- 30,000
to C -C and R -M- 3;000), building site approval and design
review approval for placement of a 1;700 sq. ft. office building on a .189 acre
site between Oak St. and P.A.D. #4 which presently contains a single family
dwelling. The office building.is proposed to be a rehabilitation of Judy
Foster's home,(an historic structure).
FAME AM- 1 ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Mr. E. L. Zambetti
P. 0. Box 34
Saratoga, CA 95070
REhSON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed' project will not have a
significant impact on the environment
as conditioned through the prescribed processes of the Zoning Or
If approved it will be found to be consistent with -the Zoning Ordinance
and the objectives'of the 1974 General Plan.
E-ecuted at Saratoga, California this third day of March 1982
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
r
DIRECTOI,�S AUT:IOI,IZED STAFr 1.1!:?l13EP,
i-
ul
� W
(Y Z
� I(
ul
0 1
tL L
u1
HIV
12 r7.a�I
I
I I
e
' 5;7- cq -aio
I
I
A K �� •T R g 6-r cp11TBra- LINE
I-I k'S' F-
1 -7 - -�
Frl S—o r
O 5r177.o019'i.3 ; T o " -IAI" ZN - 50 v'<n,
L$5
CB 61 T' 1+E ::o"Fv ",6ol .
15+oR:v,.o SrRxTURE TC 6E
NTEO WI'Tp IN c c POZTIcN A' spay)", I
'-3 517 I 35
I
I I
I
IZ.OII.-I& LI "E I- o64TI -01
E TV IS EYH161T PKEPARE� Foz-
S 6UGE)E ZP1IPFT'fl-PEC.IV,I`le2
N yvUWly �!'7NGbTION G' 199 '
GIT�( sY SPRp TaUA
e- I -T nP s,%74AraG+4
rA ?KII -Ib D IS-T K :cT tjci.
+ /
N
• 'a'.LLG III`Z01.e 11
rta�CGT PVILESJr.
zog95 r?l�IF" Dr. eu1161o7
G1Pb21)J�, 6,yLIG, 9VOI•i
LARGER COPY IN COUNCIL PA_C.KETS
EXHI8IT� ---
PIL`' No.� --1-- - - ---- -e
CITY OF cnRaTMA
i
I ��nr YV_lil7
0
co
O 5r177.o019'i.3 ; T o " -IAI" ZN - 50 v'<n,
L$5
CB 61 T' 1+E ::o"Fv ",6ol .
15+oR:v,.o SrRxTURE TC 6E
NTEO WI'Tp IN c c POZTIcN A' spay)", I
'-3 517 I 35
I
I I
I
IZ.OII.-I& LI "E I- o64TI -01
E TV IS EYH161T PKEPARE� Foz-
S 6UGE)E ZP1IPFT'fl-PEC.IV,I`le2
N yvUWly �!'7NGbTION G' 199 '
GIT�( sY SPRp TaUA
e- I -T nP s,%74AraG+4
rA ?KII -Ib D IS-T K :cT tjci.
+ /
N
• 'a'.LLG III`Z01.e 11
rta�CGT PVILESJr.
zog95 r?l�IF" Dr. eu1161o7
G1Pb21)J�, 6,yLIG, 9VOI•i
LARGER COPY IN COUNCIL PA_C.KETS
EXHI8IT� ---
PIL`' No.� --1-- - - ---- -e
CITY OF cnRaTMA
i
March 14, 1982
PETITION: To Fiannin9 Commission and City Council
REGARDING: C -198 SDR -1517 A -810
I /We, the undersigned, support the zoning line adjustment for
APN 517 -09 -033. This zoning line adjustment will separate this
parcel in regards to it's use and zoning. It will retain and
maintain the present residence - -(RM Zane) - -on Oak Street with
density not to exceed one dwelling unit for residential use and
residential frontage: address to be known as 14575 Oak Street.
I /We, the undersigned, support the changing of the zoning line
for the lower portion of the parcel to C -C Community Commercial
to be in conformance with assessment of Parking District No. 4.
The Parking District will provide the only access to the
Community Commercial zoned portion of the lot: address to be
known as 14540 Big Basin Way. I /We., the undersigned, support
the rehabilitation and conversion of Judge J.E. Foster's home
for use as an office building to be located on the northwesterly
one hundred (100) feet of .189 acre parcel recorded in Book A of
Maps, Page 43 on September 28, 1870.
Attached are exhibits A,B 8C.
I /We, the undersigned: \
Name C� g. � (l�l ✓ t-� C
Address C tit W `/
v N t
Address /q(z[ /i;
11ti- u. e: A . j
Address 1431.D Sa -eye Aoc.��ez G.,.�e�,
Address /44l 1-Z/. 2Z : l�s)10 R CYy.r
Address' ti ' ��j
Address , �21__
Address/�i
Address /5/x"83 (ti
Address �/<!
Address
Name ( C_L&J Rddress 1 "LLZ4 131-1- 054' . -,y VVd)/
Name Address /yJ /m 616- ,&91iAJ P,-17 _W1f1r64
Nam Address / `i� Ste_ 04 &- _ S S
Name �i Address �SL� SS - O q /� • S T.
Name /��,� / / % %� /l�!/�il - bill: /�;✓ AddresslS / /_.�f.�:�:�.. -, ���cn /u /.
Na me
-% / /'f /;o.� Address
Na . ' Add ress
Name 1 �tac�us�. Address /*f- s s i• Gr 1
Name k," _lJl_J 4AALL.4 Address.tRS�L
Namd,/.s/ .�t� oL.- _ . -1 Address
Name /1 -f G` l;�i�s.. / !.' />ili -/ Address_ /�i'ii�f
�O
J /
March 14, 1902
PETITION: To Planning Commission and City Council
REGARDING: C -198 SDR -1517 A -810
I /We, the undersigned, support the zoning line adjustment for
APN 517 -09 -033. This zoning line adjustment will separate this
parcel in regards to it's use and zoning. It will retain and
maintain the present residence - -(RM Zone) - -on Oak Street with
density not to exceed one dwelling unit for residential use and
residential frontage: address to be known as 14575 Oak Street.
I /We, the undersigned, support the changing of the zoning line
for the lower portion of the parcel to C -C Community Commercial
to be in conformance with assessment of Parking District No. 4.
The Parking District will.provide the only access to the
Community Commercial zoned portion of the lot: address to be
known as 14540 Big Basin Way. I /We., the undersigned, support
the rehabilitation and conversion of Judge J.E. Foster's home
for use as an office building to be located on the northwesterly
one hundred (100) feet of .189 acre parcel recorded in Book A of
Maps, Page 43 on September 28, 1870.
Attached are exhibits A,B 8C.
I /We, the undersigned:
�.
Name
Name
Name / °Y, . I% ), C`>
1NJAScki
Nam /:i• '�!�'
Name
Name
Name
Name r /j
1 �
Name
Name
Name
Name; i /;
Name
Address
Address 141x67✓ /3ie N L41 y, /�.g /Q,iy1rr�ts+
flddress/f 11I 611
Address
Address /J�� %�
Address//W S7
Address i z/.S7_5 64e
Address I ri I ST- ' A Q4::vTU&A
Address /tkj_�f
Address /fir! r '13
Address
Address �-
Address /1/°
Address
Address /5 /� [: /1� / ' rL-e4)
Address
Address
l.. -
Address �j � ?c ( !-�" `�f< i•n; flr /�! -..
Address Y /J
Address ^ _/1O 14111W11- 1-17
. FROM THE DESK � I
STEPHEN D. HALL
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
14375 SARATOGA AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
TELEPHONE (408) 867 -5990
Zr�
74,x-
Ze-
Q
March 15, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Dear Commissioners:
Re: C -198 SDR 1517 A -810
It is the opinion of the Saratoga Merchants Association that
approval of this application will not be detrimental to the
adjoining properties. In concept this application should be
considered as a determination of the location of the zoning
lines. Commercial use for the portion of this parcel would
provide a better transition to RM zone than having the
residential property fronting on the Parking District.
Saratoga Merchants Association believes there has been a
shift of esthetic values; which allows for historic
commercial /office buildings to be viewed as architectural
treasures and therefore, highly desirable to prospective
tenants.
We support and approve C -198 SDR 1517 A -810.
Sincerely,
OtCto C Orawf �
Crawford
President, Saratoga Merchants Association
MAI V
A Limited Partnership
96 Bonaventura Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
March 18, 1982
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale,Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBJ: Petition C -198 SDR -1517 A -810
Planning Commission and City Council:
7
We, as owners of the Village Square Shopping Center, support the
zoning line adjustment for APN 517 -09 -033.
We also support the conversion of Judge J.E. Foster's home for
use as an office building.
It was our understanding that the subject property was to be
developed as proposed on SDR -1517 A -810, when the Parking
District was originally approved by the City.
Yours truly,
MAI V, a limited partnership
MAI INV INC., ,A California Corporation,
General Partner
Roger F. Mairose
General Partner
RFM:so
I& yF�s�w
/
IiG?
�I
1i
IW-5 t.4it -�
M
l
V-2-24
�w.