HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.Y
CIVZ OF Si use "tlCi;�
AGE2ZA BILL NO. �� Initial:
Dept. fid.
DATE: April 6. 1983 C. Atty.
D AF7I: vT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUuTECT: Final Building Site Approval, SDR -1534, Belote De Sanka, De Sanka Ave.
Issue SL --=ary
I. The SDR -1534 is ready for final approval.
2. This is over 50% addition to existing house.
3. All requirements of the City Departments and other agencies
have been met.
Recc,'=endaticn
Adopt Resolution No. 1534 -02 attached, approving the building.site
of SDR -1534.
Fiscal Imcacts
None
E:thibits /Attac:t r_nts
1. Copy of tentative map approval
2. Resolution NO. 1534 -02
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Location Map.
Ccuncil Action
4/6: Mallory]Clevenger' moved to approve. Passed.5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1534 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Belote De Sanka
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The 11,250 square feet parcel shown on Tract 485 as lot 53
recorded in Book 20 of maps page 10, prepared by Frank E.
Pisano and submitted by the City of Saratoga, be approved
as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 6th day of April 19 83 ,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
}y
s
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 2/17/83
— - - - - -- —._. Commission Meeting: 2/23/83
SUBJECT: SDR -1534, A -849 - William Belote, 12414 DeSanka Ave.
REQUEST: Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a second story
addition to an existing single story dwelling.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 11,250 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 NOTICING: Notice of this project has been mailed
to surrounding property owners, posted on site and
advertised in the Saratoga News.
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential
SITE SLOPE: 3% - SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site contains one deciduous tree in the
front yard, 2 deciduous trees in the rear yard and 3 evergreen pines along the
rear property line. All of these trees range from 18'+ to 25'+ in height.
SETBACKS: Front: 37' Rear: 72' Right Side: 15' Left Side: 8'
HEIGHT: 24'
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing: 1,386 sq. ft. lst Story Addition: 668 sq. ft.
2nd Story Addition: 742 sq. ft. TOTAL: 2,796 sq. ft.
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 3,500 sq. ft. is allowed by ordinance
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 32 %, 60% is allowed by ordinance
ss--
Report to Planning Comm Tsion 2/17/83
SDR -1534, A -849 - William Belote, DeSanka Ave. Page 2
COLORS & MATERIALS: Exterior: Off -white stucco, brown trim
Roofing: Cedar shakes
SOLAR: Fair orientation, no solar is proposed
BUILDING SITE 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 Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of
this project. Said determination date: January 26, 1983.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1534 (Exhibit "B"
filed January 21, 1983) 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 ar parcel
map; payment of strom 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 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 - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved prior to final approval.
This plan should address all potential runoff reaching, created by and
leaving the site (including water from paved and roof area 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.)
III. 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.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
(Concurrent application - (A -849).
Report to Planning Commission 2/17/83
SDR -1534, A -849 - William Belote, DeSanka Ave. Page 3
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS:
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views and Privacv
Staff noted no impacts to the viewshed of adjacent properties from this proposal.
Privacy impacts to adjacent properties are not great due to existing evergreen
vegetation on the parcels to the rear and on both sides. Privacy impacts that
could occur appear to be mitigable with the planting of appropriately placed
trees and tall growing shrubbery in the rear and along the sides of the subject
property.
2. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk and Compatible Bulk and Height
The dwellings immediately surrounding the subject dwelling are one -story in
design, with the exception of one structure at the end of DeSanka with a
high - pitched roof and a room located within the roof area. There are two -
story structures in the vicinity on Lido Way and Seagull Drive. Staff feels
that this structure could be found compatible with other two -story structures
within 500' as the design and approximate size appears very similar. However,
it is difficult to find the structure compatible with those structures in the
immediate vicinity as they are all one story (except the dwelling at the end
of DeSanka already sited) with low flat, or low pitched roofs.
3. Infills: Compatibility, Views, Privacy
Staff does not have a major concern with privacy impacts that could result
from a second -story addition, as the impacts appear to be mitigable. In
terms of compatibility, staff does have a concern that the structure will
appear out of scale with the other structures in the immediate vicinity and,
thus, cannot make this finding.
OPTIONS
1. Staff noted that there is sufficient room available in the rear yard for one -
story expansion.
RECOMMENDATION: Since staff cannot make #2 and #3 of the design review findings,
staff recommends denial.
Approved:
Sharon Lester
Planner
SL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 2/23/83
.i
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO
DATE : pn r i 1 6, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Dept.
a
-----------------------------------------
A -854 - 20680 Marion Road, E. Zambetti
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty. ,
C. Mgr.
Applicant applied for Design Review Approval to construct a single story dwelling which was
larger in square footage than the standard established for the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district.
Size and height were the primary concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The Plann-
ing _ Commission denied the application on a 3 -2 vote.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny.
3. Staff recommended approval of the design review to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None Noted
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal 5. Correspondence received on project
2. Staff Report dated 2/10/83
3. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/23/83
4. Exhibits "B & C"
Council Action
4/6: Mallory /Fanelli moved to grant appeal subject to reduction of roof pitch to
8/12 and make the appropriate findings. Passed 5 -0.
i
0 41983
APPEAL APPLICATION
y� ULLCC ReCe1Ve(I: _ <-
Hearing Date:
Fee . .6 Gi
CITY U E N Y
Name of Appellant: Michael Layne of Camargo -Layne
Address:
101 Church Street, Suite 21, Los Gatos, CA
Telephone: 395 -1431
Name of Applicant: Eugene and Jane Zambetti
Project.File No.: A -854 -1
Project Address: 20680 Marion,Road
Project Description: Single Family Dwelling
Decision Being Appealed: Denial by City of Saratoga Planning
Commission
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Please see attached letter.
r.
A ellant's S gn ture
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
95030
CAMARGO � LA'YNE
March 4, 1983
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
Members of the Council:
-!1 i i
0 41983
I respectfully request, on behalf of my clients Eugene and Jane
Zambetti, that through this appeal, additional consideration be
given to what I feel are the many merits of this application.
Proceeding toward that goal, I think a successful review of the
Planning Commission Denial of A -854 -1 requires our complete
explanation for a thorough understanding.
as the basis of denial, stems from an element o
f aconfusion thatew
perhaps affected the Planning Commission's vote. The stated
reason for denial was: because A -854 -1 "exceeds the standard
floor area of 20680 .Marion Road." The area for an R1- 12,500 lot is 4,000 squarelfeetlmaximum, unless,
otherwise approved. The Zambetti's lot is 23,120 square feet.
The lot is over half an acre in size, and if actually zoned
such would allow a house 4,800 square feet. However, at Mr.
Zambetti's instructions, our goal and design mandate was to
create a home that would add value to the existing neighborhood,
and as staff states in their report, have minimal impact upon
the neighborhood.
.In that spirit, we submitted a design for a house of 3,308 square
feet. In addition, the detatched garage is 21 x 30
feet. Therefore, our maximum totals 3,938 square feet, act0uallare y
less than the maximum allowable for an R1- 12,500 lot. However,
since we were dealing with a much larger site, the decision was
made to explore the feasibility and function of the future
addition of a solar greenhouse. It is the contemplated addition
of the 207 square foot passive solar
heating element that has taken this designhslightlyaabovefthe
4,000 square foot goal. This, at the time, seemed an intelligent
and prudent move since the design already incorporated a perfect
southern exposure with all major living areas;
master
family room, bedrooms, kitchen, dining room, andlivingeroom,l�
oriented to the winter suns warming rays.
Additionally, the roof is a major design factor,
as a perfect platform for solar panels while it serves
hip roof /ridge lines on Marion Road. Thetroof's Pitc to the
carefully selected to nearly match the angle a d pitch has been
n inclination that
101 Church Street - Suite 21 - Los Gatos - California - 9501n
iratoga City Council
Lty of Saratoga
arch 4, 1983
ige 2
0
G & E recommends for efficient winter heating with solar panels.
pis roof angle has been submitted to Frank R. Schiavo (Professor
Environmental Sciences, School of Social Sciences, San Jose
:ate University) for review and comment; I quote his reply: "The
It angle for the panels may be chosen from 37' - 52' as measured
om the horizontal." Further, a steeply angled roof avoids the
ed for future racks, stands and supports to prop retrofit solar
on, due to inferiorly angled roofs of less pitch.
y.
think we have a design that is sensitive to the needs of the
rrounding neighborhood. The staff report to the Commission
rtainly supports this point of view, as well as one of the
mmissioners who commented, she felt that this was.a beautiful
me design and in a different location she would be able to vote
r it. Marion Road is a Saratoga strbet undergoing much change
d improvement. A beautifully designed home increases the
astige and value of it's surrounding neighbors homes, as well as
add to the quality of it's community.
We have attempted to submit a careful and thoughtful design. Tole
look forward to your review, comments and suggestions in anticipation
of a forthcoming approval.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Layne
MWL:sh
��'' "��' CITY oi = ARATOGA
IFOR�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 2/10/83
Commission Meeting: 2/23/83
SUBJECT*- A -854, Eugene & Jane Zambetti, 20680 Marion Road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Design Review approval to construct a single story
family dwelling.
OTHER APPROVAL REQUIRED: None
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 23,120- sq. ft.:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING: R -1- 12,500 NOTICING: Notice of this project has
been sent to surrounding property owners,
posted on site and advertised in the
Saratoga News.
SITE DATA:
L` T T T] n/'1 T TAT TI T AT 1 ` T -A WlT TTelT ("
SITE SLOPE: 4%
Single family residential
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 20
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The majority of the site is re-
latively level. A drainage swale passes through the rear of the
property., Five (5) oaks and a bay tree are also located in the
rear of the property.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: This site contains the Judge Foster home which will be
moved to the Village (Parking District #4) to be used as an office
building. This site is the second site to be developed of a two
lot subdivision (SDR- 1473).
•
Report to Planning Commission Page 2
A -854, Eugene Zambetti 2/10/83
GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is required
SETBACKS: Front: 33' Rear: 53' Sides: 10'
HEIGHT: 2916"
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
3,368 sq. ft. Garage: 640 sq. ft..
Greenhouse: 210 sq. ft. Total: 4,218 sq. ft.
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 4,000 sq. ft. This proposal exceeds the
standard allowed by 218 sq. ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
33% proposed, 55% is allowed by ordinance.
COLORS & MATERIALS: Dark grey stucco & brick proposed for the exterior.
roofing materials -heavy shake
SOLAR: good orientation, greenhouse structures are incorporated into
the house design which creates a passive system. The pitch of the
roof will also allow utilization of solar panels.
LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING: A landscaping plan has been provided with this
application, It indicates evergreen shrubs and native ground cover to
be planted to the front and along the sides of the proposed structure.
The rear yard area is to remain as existing.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: Marion Road contains a mixture
of historical structures and one and two story newer structures. The
adjacent dwelling to the right is a two story historical structure and
the site adjacent on the left has approval for a two -story structure.
The proposed structure appears to be compatible with the surrounding
dwellings in terms of both its country -like design and steep pitched
hip -style shake roof.
PRIVACY IMPACTS: The one -story structure as proposed will not impose
any new privacy impacts.
DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: An access road is proposed along the northern
property line leading to a side facing garage toward the rear of the
structure.
FINDINC,S
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views & Privacy
The proposed structure will not impose privacy impacts, as the
structure is one -story in design. Staff noted no impacts to
the viewshed of adjoining properties.
2. Preserve Natural Landscape
The proposed structure . although substanitally larger, will be
placed in the same location as the existing structure, on the
relatively level area of the site. The drainage swale and
ordinance sized oaks to the rear of the property will not be
Report to Planning Commission Page 3
A -854, Eugene Zambetti 2/10/83
impacted with this proposal.
3. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk &Compatible Bulk & Height
The proposed structure will appear larger than the adjacent
structures at the end of Marion Road. However, staff does not
feel that the bulk of the structure is excessive because there
are other dwellings on Marion Road which appear to be of similar
size and height. In addition, the approved structure on the
adjacent parcel to the left is a two story structure of similar
size and height as the proposed structure.
4. Infills: Compatability, Views, Privacy, & Natural Fe'at'ures
The proposed structure will be compatible in terms of bulk with
the adjacent approved structure to the left and with other
dwellings on Marion Road. The proposed structure will not
obstruct views or impose privacy impacts and does incorporate
the natural features of the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve per staff report dated 2/10/83 and Exhibits
"B ", "C" & "D" subject to the following conditions:
A. Prior to issuance of building permits:
1. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the community Development Department.
2. Any minor modifications to the approved elevations shall
require the review and approval of the Permit Review
Division.
Approved: KNX
Sharon Lest
Planner
SL /bjc
P.C. Agenda 2/23/83
Planning Commission / Page 3
Meeting Minutes 2/23/83
A -853 (cont.)
Commissioner Crowth r expressed a concern regarding the north side standing
out. Mr. Naber sta d that the addition will be in the back, and the view will
be minimal from the ront.
Winston Chew, 12501 DkSanka Avenue, spoke in favor of the project, stating that
there was minimal impa t.
Commissioner Crowther m ved to approve A -853, per Exhibits "B" and "C ". He mad
the findings, based on t e evidence presented, that the perception of bulk will
not be a problem and that there is not a compatibility problem because of the
neighboring two -story and the fact that the railroad tracks and the new sub-
division are along the sou h side of this particular lot. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion.
The landscaping was discusse . Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to
include the condition that th re be appropriate landscaping on the south side
to shield the structure, to b approved by Staff. Commissioner Bolger seconded
the amendment.
The vote _w-a-s,taken, and the amened motion was carried unanimously 5 -0.
5. A -8854 - ugene and Jane Zambetti, 20680 Marion Road, Request for Design
Review Approval to construct a one -story single family dwelling
which exceeds the standard floor area at 20680 Marion Road (near
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road) in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district; con-
tinued from February 9. 1983
Staff described the proposal
The public hearing was opened at 8:23 p.m.
Michael Lane, the architect representing the applicant, submitted a model of
the structure and gave a presentation on the project. He explained that, along
with the appearance of the house, they had chosen a roof angle to allow placing
solar panels on the rear of the house as a part of the roofing design. He
indicated that they would be happy to delete one of the car stalls or the solar
greenhouse if it becomes necessary because of square footage.
The telegram received from one of the neighbors in opposition was noted. Dis-
cussion followed on a possible additional condition regarding the access of
that neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Campbell.
Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he thought that this was a lovely home;
however, the issues he voted against regarding the Wilson home several months
ago are essentially here again. He explained that this is an area that is
primarily single -story homes of considerably smaller size. He noted that this
home is nearly 30 feet in height and he feels it is out of character for a very
lovely older neighborhood.
Commissioner Hlava commented that she had a somewhat similar reaction when she
first looked at the home; she was really concerned about the height of the roof
and also the size. However, a good dart of the reason why the size is large is
because of the greenhouse,and the roof is the way it is because of having the
built -in solar panels. She added that she finds herself in a quandary because
the City encourages the use of solar and more energy efficient designs; however,
when such a home comes in it does not meet the standards. She stated that she
probably will vote for the design, since it does not seem that anything is gaine
by taking one car stall away.
Commissioner Schaefer stated, from her knowledge of solar designs, that the
essence of the height of this home comes more just from the design and that sola
could be built in by having a much lower pitched roof.
Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she feels that this is a beautiful home,
and in a different location she would be able to vote for it; however, she can-
not make findings No. 2 and 3.
Commissioner Bolger moved to deny A -854. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
motion. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would vote for the application
- 3 -�
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 2/23/83 C
A -854 (cont.)
because she feels that when it is appealed to the City Council they will
approve it. She added that she did vote against the Nilson house because
there was a question of compatibility regarding the height and size.
The vote was taken to deny A -854. The motion was carried 3 -2, with Commissionc
Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. The 10 -day appeal period was noted.
6a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1527 - William Johnson
6b. SDR -152 - William Johnson, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval
for a 2 -lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista (near E1 Camino
Grande); continued from February 9, 1983
7a. Negative Veclaration - SDR -1533 - James & Michael Foley
7b. SDR -1533 - James $ Michael Foley, Monte Vista and Sobey Road, Request for
7c. V -506 - Subdivision Approval for a 3 -lot subdivision for a site with
ccess on Monte Vista Drive (between Montewood and E1 Camino
rande) and Sobey Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district and
riance Approval to allow an existing garage to continue with
n nconforming side (10' where 20' is required) and rear yard
A ( 3' where 50' is required) setbacks; continued from February
9, 1983
It was noted that SDR -1527 and SDR -1533 will be continued.
The public hearing \qas opened at 8:40 p.m.
Jim Foley stated tha they were concerned about the timing of the Rounding
Down Ordinance, sine it adversely affects the project. He asked for a con-
tinuance to March 9, 983. Dr. Johnson commented that he would be out of town
for six weeks but wou d agree to the continuance to March 9th if Mr. Foley
could represent them.
It was directed that these items be continued to the meeting on March 9, 1983.
8. UP -528 - Dwight Cas ll (San Jose Symphony), 15095 Fruitvale Avenue,
Request for Use Permit Approval to conduct a "decorator's show -
house" for one -month period in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
Chairman Schaefer discusse this proposal and noted concerns regarding parking
and traffic on Fruitvale a d Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. It was reported that
Staff is asking that this i em be continued so that the applicant may provide
additional parking informat on.
It was directed that this itkm be continued to March 9, 1983.
9. A -855 - John Bergman, 143 1 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review and
Site Modification pproval to construct a first and second story
addition to an exi ting garage on a site of greater than loo in
slope in the R -1 -40 000 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. Clpmmissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committe
Report, indicating that they had found no problem with the project.
The public hearing was opened at
Steve Elmore, the architect, gave
retaining wall was discussed.
50 p.m.
presentation on the project. The existing
Commissioner Bolger moved to close t e public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carri d unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approvk A-855 per the Staff Report dated Febru-
ary 15, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner Bolger seconded the motior
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
10. A -856 - David Myers, Farr Ranch Cou� (Parker Ranch), Request for Design
Review Approval to construe a two -story single family dwelling
in the NHR zonine district
Commissioner Crowther stepped down and abstained from the discussion as a
,e ^ - 4 -
CAMARGO - LAYN E
January 11, 1983
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Dear Commission Members:
This design, presented for your consideration has been developed
with sensitive regard to a number of, specific criteria and
conditions as set forth by my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Gene Zambetti,
the City of Saratoga, and my strong convictions towards residential
energy self sufficiency and conservation.
-b.e foremost design criteria was the establishment of maximizing
structure orientation towards the available southern exposure,
while stepping the ridge line of the roof, in order to obtain the
angle; height and square footage required for solar collectors.
.'ith this in :Hind, the greenhouse and especially the family areas
i.e., dining room, kitchen., family room and master bedroom face
south. `All these areas will be reached and warmed through insulated
glass by the winter sun. The garage therefore has been placed on
the west side for summer shade in cooperation with summer shade
devices also designed into the roof.
The entry and halls to the north are to be provided with additional
insulation, and our intention is to minimize the northern exposure
of�: Glazed areas for greater conservation through increased
insulated areas.
Further utilization of the southern exposure is realized by the
incorporation of a passive solar greenhouse, and integrating solar
collectors as part of the roof design. The angle and height of
the roof has been calculated to allow the near perfect inclination 3_
of the solar collectors to the angle of the sun's winter rays.
The design of the hip roof with the ridge height stepping up into
the center of the house was a significant consideration. The 1
average ridge height is 24 feet with a total ridge line being
limited by the hip roof design to 100 lineal feet. By using this
more costly roof structure we have ideal efficiency with an intcryr.ated
collector appearance. This approach avoids the parasitic
arrangement of "tack on" collectors atop makeshift supports that
will most necessarily occur on roofs of shallower pitch as solar
self sufficiency becomes logically mandated.
101 Church Street • Suite 21 Los Gatos California 95030 3 5- 143 1
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
January 3, 1983
Page 2
This house will utilize active hot water heating, and optionally,
room warming via the incorporation of chill chasers.
The next criteria has been to develop the appearance of a dignified
and conservative design. I realize that this aspect is a matter
of personal taste. The overall size of the house approximates the
dimensions of neighboring structures. The length, width and height
are similar to the home adjacent to the proposed building site.
The slightly higher roof allows for the efficient utilization of
solar collectors. It should be noted the design avoids extensive
grading and balances cut and fill.
Placement of the garage at the rear of the house provides more off
street parking, which is important in this neighborhood with its
narrow streets and particularly this cul -de -sac shared by several
homes and insufficient on street parking. The design reflects
those older areas of Saratoga and an era when garages were hidden
and their inevitable accululation of grease, car parts, bicycles
and wagons were discretely out of view of the neighbors.
My clients and I have tried to present a thoughtful and considerate
design for the commission to review. We hope our attempts toward
responsible design will please the commission. We look forward
to your comments and stand ready to cooperate to our fullest so
that this project will be a credit to the neighboring families of
Marion Lane and proof that traditionally styled homes can indeed
participate in solar self sufficiency and energy conservation.
Very sincerely yours,
Michael W. Lavne
M; %7L : s h
• CIrz OF Si d;�1'P N
✓ 4�'z Q Initial:
' AG DA BILL NO. Dept. f1d
DA'L'E: April 6, 1983
C. A
DEPNM Community Development C. Mgr.
~
SUB.M*CT: Herriman Avenue Pedestrian Study
Issue SL, -Tmary
Several weeks ago a request for :�aop- signs on Herriman Avenue was
received. The signs were not warranted, however, Council requested
staff to review the area to determine if something should be done to
increase pedestrian safety. Staff has made such a study and feels
that an asphalt walkway along the southside generally around the
curve at-Saratoga Creek would be.appropriate.
Recc=endaticn
Include project in 1983 -84 capital budget.
Fiscal Imcacts
Estimated $4000.00
Exh ibi is /Attachm-n is
Staff Report
Ccuncil Action
4/6: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
0 uw 09 000&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
TO: Director of Community Development
FROM: Erman Dorsey
SUBJECT: Herriman Avenue Pedestrian Study
DATE: 3/22/83
Recently a vehicle - pedestrian count was conducted on Herriman Avenue
at the Saratoga Creek bridge. The count was conducted on Tuesday,
March 15, 1983; the weather was clear and dry; with counts taking
place between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and between 2:00 P.M. and 4:00 P.M.
The data sheet for these counts is attached.
From the field observations during the count the vehicle /pedestrian
conflict is minor as compared to the bicycle /moped /pedestrian potential
conflict on the southerly side of the roadway. Bicycles and mopeds
traveling eastbound seam to be exceeding a safe speed for conditions.
(this is a downhill stretch) Pedestrians walking along the left edge
of the roadway, westbound are in an area that is somewhat blind for
them as well as approaching traffic.
Construction of a 4 foot wide A.C. pedestrian pathway in the area
behind the curb, through the area described above, for an estimated
cost of $4,000.00 would provide safety for the pedestrians using the
southerly side of Herriman Avenue (sketch & estimate is attached)
I would encourage the enforcement be present periodically in this
area during the A.M. and P.M. times when students are going to and
from their respective schools, to keep in check the vehicles, mopeds,
bicycles and pedestrians.
CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
/ERR1A4,4 1 A14AI /F pFDZ--.ST_Z /ASV p,I THW 4 Y
��JJ Name of Project
Date : lfllal e / ZZI 1983 By; Z_ Do ,-sey/
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
AMOUNT
Z. S.
-
ZSO.00
2.
Craais� Qirlq� Sub ram, -r
6600
S. F,
0. 50
800.00
3.
�' Gt/�a�e - 3 Thick �i C. pa�`iwa
1,600
S. f.
1.50
Z, 4000 00
SUB - TOTAL = 3,450,00
+ /5 % = 57/7.5-0
TOTAL= 3 967.50
L115, ,�4 � o0
REMARKS: Y ,O
Sheet of
c�
v
v
Q
W
k
ti
2
SO
14
rQ
HERRI MA N
il
l 11,
4 "4.C, Pofhway
A V E.
l�
Q
q-r;1
I�
V
�v
a
LANNp y
48 "ooh
0�-*
�5 �L
�� cr
J