HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAY CITY OF SARATOGA
S
AGENDA BILL NO. Initial : Dept. Hd. A9
DATE: July -1 , 1983 (July 20, 1983) C. At .
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C,,
SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval, SDR- .1532, Union Oil, Saratoga - Sunnyvale R
Issue Summary
1.
2.
3.
The SDR -1532 is ready for final approval.
All Bonds and Agreements have been submitted to the City
All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have
been met, except Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Transportatior
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 1532 -2 attached. Approve the Final Map of SDR -1532,
and authorize the execution of contract of the Improvement Agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Copy of Tentative Map approval
2. Resolution No. 1532
3. Location Map
4. Status report for building site approval
5. Report to the Planning Commission
Council Action
7/20: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0.
-Ii7 L
RESOLUTION NO. 1532 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.36 acre of land as shown on the record of Survey. Map,
prepared by Mackay and Somps. It was submitted to the City ,
Engineer, City of Saratoga to 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 20th day of July , 19 83 ,
by the following vote: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
�a
OA
CT.
SITE
OOM
\A
rm�g m
Qp
! L
-
LO e
0
-LOCATION
6��' __ _ -- - - __ S.D R
AS
O
0
o
-t4- kt
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -1532 Union Oil
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
(have) (W4 -U) been met as listed on the
Land'Development Committee Report dated
1 -26 -83
. Listed below are
the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items:
Offer of Dedication N/A
Date Submitted
_
Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes
Date Submitted
4 -15 -83
Storm Drainage Fee 1008.00
Date Submitted 4 -15 -83 Receipt #2267
All Required Improvement Bonds 18,000
Date
Submitted 7 -8 -83
Receipt # -
All Required Inspection Fees 24Fin_nn
Date
Submitted _ -A3
Receipt #,)r)gd
Building Site Approval Agreement
Date
Signed - -
2267
Park and Recreation Fee N/A
Date
Submitted _____
Receipt # ---
It is, therefore, the Public Works Department recommendation that (0951YX
kiwmj) _(Final) Building Site Approval for Union Oil SDR -1532
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
5 Fs
f � d
B
� T
OTTE
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Amended 1/26/83
DATE: 1/19/83
Commission Meeting: 1/26/83
SUBJECT SDR -1532 and A -846 - Emmet Cashin /Robert Dean - Turner (Union Oil)
12015 Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd. (Blue Hills)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval to construct a gas
station.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Use Permit granted (UP- 522)
PI ANNTNr. nATA-
PARCEL SIZE: 15,682 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: "C" area to be
preserved in connection with development).
ZONING: C -N Neighborhood Commercial
NOTICING: A public hearing,-`'is not required for this project.
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Commercial to north, east and south. Commercial and
residential to the west.
SITE SLOPE: 3% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: None Noted
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: A Texaco gas station was previously located on the site. As such,
the site was discussed in the 1974 General Plan as an area to be preserved with
development, utilizing an open space them through appropriate landscaping.
The 1982 General Plan revision includes a policy not yet adopted which requires
that a landscaped area 50' in from the street corner (1500 sq. ft. min.) be
planted on this site. The site plan approved with the use permit indicated that
this condition can be met. With design review, the Commission may decide on how
this area should be planted.
Report to Planning Co -ssion 1/19/83
SDR -1532, A -846 - Emmet Cashin /Robert Dean - Turner Page 2
SETBACKS: North: 32' West: 0' East: 40' South: 10'
HEIGHT: Storage Structure: 9' Canopy: 17', 20' maximum allowed
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Storage, office and restroom structure:, 380 sq. ft.
Canopy: 2,312 sq. ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 17 %, 60% allowed by ordinance
COLORS & MATERIALS: Structures: Concrete block and redwood panels.
Signs: Internally illuminated, blue and orange letters on a white face.
REFUSE: 5' x 10' trash enclosure adjacent to storage building.
LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The applicant is proposing to landscape the street side
corner of the lot as required by the proposed 1982 General Plan Policy) as well
as along the property line of the opposite corner of the site. The large area
will be bermed up (3' at center). The outer portion of this area will contain
low growing turf. At the center, low growing, flowering and non - flowering shrubbery
are proposed. Two Australian willow trees which are evergreen and grow to a height
of 25 to 30' are proposed at both ends of this area.
The landscaping to the rear includes a variety of evergreen bamboo plants which grow
6' to 8' in height and five sweet gum trees which are deciduous and change colors
in the fall.
The applicant has also submitted landscape plans for the adjacent site along the
frontage of Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, as required with the use permit approval. The
plans indicate low- growing flowering plants and five Australian Willows.
The site plan indicates 3 "luminaire" lighting fixtures. Two are adjacent to
the Prospect entrance and one is located at the Saratoga /Sunnyvale entrance.
(See Exhibit "E "). The lamps are I.approximately three (3) feet in height. Other
lighting on site will be located at the canopy, accessory building, and signs.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The structure has been designed to be _
compatible in both exterior materials and design with the adjacent shopping center.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District_.is recommending that the floors for the new
structures be at 304 (one foot above the 1% Flood Level). The approximate ele-
vation on this site exists at 304.
SIGNAGE: The gas station is allowed to have a total of 48 sq. ft. of signage.
Two 25 sq. ft. signs are proposed for- -t-he - canopy.- --T-he applicant also - wishes to
have an additional brand name or self -serve sign (12.8 sq. ft.) which becomes part
of the allotted signage. Price signs are required by State law. Staff recommends
that the price signs be separated from the allowed signage. However, the applicant
will need to apply for a variance for the extra signage for the canopy and over
the price sign, or delete the square footage not allowed by ordinance.
Staff has also noted that the price sign will need to be moved back 3 -4 feet to
protect sight distance for drivers exiting from the southern entrance. Staff
recommends also that this sign be reduced in height from 9' to 6' in total height.
Report to
Planning 4_ ssion
1/19/83
SDR -1532,
A -846 - Emmet Cashin /Robert Dean - Turner
Page 3
The applicant has indicated a location for. the .entrance sign at the front
center of the large landscaped area. A design for this sign has not yet been sub-
mitted to the City.
DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: The applicant proposes to circulate traffic through entrance/
exits at the northeasterly (Prospect Rd.) and southwestern (Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.)
ends of the site. Two parking spaces, one handicapped, are provided on site. Since
the proposed gas station is self -serve and no mechanical service is provided, the
need for parking is limited to one employee space and brief customer stops.
CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The plans differ from the plans submitted with the use permit,
in that the cashier's kiosk is located outside the canopy. This kiosk is placed so
it will not impair traffic flow on the 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, (Section 15102, Calss 2(b)). Said determination date: December 10, 1982.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1532 (Exhibit "B"
filed December 13, 1982) 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
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 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
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 and recordation fees).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" on Prospect Rd. and Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Rd. as required by City Engineer and CalTrans.
D. Improve Prospect Rd. & Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. to City Standards, including
the following:
I. Designed Structural Section widened from existing edge of pavement.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
Report to Planning Coi(..,ssion
SDR -1532, A -846 - Emmet Cashin /Robert Dean - Turner 1/19/83
Page 4
3. Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. A.C., 4 ft. P.C.C.)
4. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan"
and as directed by the Director of Community Development as needed to
convey storm runoff to Street Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the
following:
I. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
G: Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard
or prevent flow.
I. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done within
State right -of' -way.
J. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept of Community Development for
driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
K: Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
I. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
N. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the
marked "D.I.A." required improvements
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
P. As needed, repair asphalt berm fronting existing shopping center per
City Engineer.
Q. As needed, repair and /or replace the traffic island at intersection of
Prospect Rd. and Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
Report to Planning Comriiission \
SDR -1532, A -846 - Emmet Cashin /Robert Dean - Turner 1/19/83
Page 5
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3. Standard information to include titleblock
record data, location ma � plot plan using
name, etc.
p, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter
dated December 20, 1982.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
A. Obtain a permit from the Central Fire Protection District to
install underground gas tanks.
B. Trash area to be sprinklered (or relocated so as not to be within 10'
of building).
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
Cupertino Sanitary District.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. To comply with Federal Insurance regulations, the first floor of any
building to be 1 foot above the 1% flood level (elevation 304).
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. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way
that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall
be submitted to the Permit Review Division for review and approval.
Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and es-
tablished within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improve-
ments.
DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff Report dated 1/19/83 and
Exhibits "B, C, D & E" subject to the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
r Report to Planning Connission
1/19/83
SDR -1532, A -846 - Emmet Cashin /Robert Dean - Turner Page 6
2. All lighting on site is to be turned off before 10:30 p.m.
3. Submit agreement to provide area for "City of Saratoga" entrance sign.
* 4. Va4ar- a�pn�w��- i- s-eqi� -iced fir =a]-1- sig►�age�_exc.]udiru�{�� ice- signs,
ir- ec�ss- of - -sc— Tyr= delis- af- �x�ess- squares- footage. delete
* 5. delete
* 4. Design Review of landscaping and signage required prior
to Final Building Site Approval.
Kathy K rdus Sharon Lester
Planner Planner
P.C. Agenda: 1/26/83
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 4 16
DATE: July 11, 1983 (July 20, 1983)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd. 0 SS
C.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT. JOHAN PAUL DEVOS, FARWELL AVENUE, FINAL BUILDING SITE APP
SDR -1499
AL
Issue Summary
1. SDR -1499 is ready for final approval
2. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have been
met.
3. All fees have been paid
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1499. -02, attached.
SDR -1499
Fiscal Impacts
None
Approve the building site for
Exhibits /Attachmmnts
1. Resolution No. 1499 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
4. Copy of Tentative Map approval
5. Status report for building site approval
Council Action
7/20: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1499 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Johan Paul Devos
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.848 acre of land designated as Parcel "A" on the Parcel Map
prepared by Bradley T. Honholt and submitted to the City Engineer,
City of Saratoga. This is to 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
20th day of
July
19 83
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
�t0
1
`9LIF.ogt�
i�IEIVIOKAND�iN1
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Planning Commission DATE: 7/8/83
FROM: Kathy Kerdus
SUBJECT: SDR -1499, Bradley Honholt (DeVos), Farwell Avenue, Tentative Building
Site Approval - 1 Lot, Request for a One -Year Extension
LJ
•
The applicant is requesting a one -year extension for the subject site, which
is allowed under the latest revision to our Subdivision Ordinance. Staff has
reviewed the approval conditions and recommends the Planning Commission grant
the one -year extension. The map would then be extended to July 8, 1984.
Kathy'Kerdusl�'
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 7/13/83
0- -�4�4
utu" .
HAWLEY, STOWERS & ASSOCIATES, AIA, INC.
May 24, 1983
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 950.70
Gentlemen:
This letter is to request an extension of time for
the submittal of the Final Map for the DeVos residence,
141681 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga.
Yours very truly,
HAWLEY, STOWERS & ASSOCIATES, AIA, INC.
Richard Stowers, AIA
RS: sr
REECEIVEO
MAY 2 61983
PERMIT REVIEW
ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS
1978 THE ALAMEDA
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126.
(408) 247 -1416
ROBERT W. HAWLEY, AIA
RICHARD STOWERS, AIA
4
0
4
is
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
C„y of Saratog,
DATE: 7/2/81
Commission Meeting: 7/8/81
SUBJECT SDR - 1499 - Bradley Honholt (DeVoss)
Farwell Avenue
Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST * : Tentative building site approval in order to build one new
residence on an existing lot of record on Farwell Ave., replacing the
existing residence(s) and structures on the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project has
een prepared.
PUBLIC NOTICING: City Ordinances do not require noticing of Building
Site Approval applications on single lots.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very low density residential
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Single family residential uses.
SITE SIZE: 37,174 sq. ft.
SITE SLOPE: 130
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: Intends to propose two story structure.
SETBACKS: (Irregular Lot) Rear: 70' Left Side: 20' Right Side: 20'
Front: 1321.
STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to remove the 2 residences
an the garage on this existing lot of record. The major concern in
developing the site has been the connection to the sewer main required
by the City. The applicant has been working with Sanitation District
No. 4 and�in.turn,the adjacent neighbor and SCVWD to determine its best
• connection route through the property to the northwest. The SCVWD has
conditioned transference of a proposed right -of -way to the district.
The residence presently in their right- of -way is to be removed. Cotton
has noted that "No unusual geologic or soil conditions constrain the
intended use of the property ".
Report to Planning ( !mission 7/2/81.
SDR -1499
Page 2
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974
General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordin-
ances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been bal-
anced 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: June 22, 1981.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1499
(Exhibit "B" filed May 29, 1981) 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; sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compli-
ance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood
Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Refere
is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site appr
in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordin-
ances, 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 - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final
approval (currently $1,100.00 /lot).
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay re-
quired checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on exist-
ing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25' half -
street on Farwell Avenue.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easement as
required.
E. Enter into an Deferred Improvement Agreement to improve Farwell
Avenue to City standards, including the following:
1. Designed structural section 18 ft. between centerline and fl *in(
2. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
3. Underground existing overhead utilities.
Report to Planning C- is 7/2/81
SDR -1499 Page 3
F. Enter into an Deferred.Improvement Agreement to construct storm
drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as dir-
ected by the Director of Public Works, 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.
4. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared
to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screen-
ings or better on 6 in. aggregate base.
5. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the Director of Public Works.
6. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
7. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
8. Obtain Encroachment Premit from the Dept. of Public Works for
driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street.
G. Enter into an Deferred Improvement Agreement engineered improvement
plans for:
1. Street improvements.
2. Storm drain construction.
H. Enter into an Deferred Improvement Agreement to pay plan check and
inspection fees as determined from improvement plans.
III SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for:
1. Geology
2. Soils
3. Foundation
Prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building
permit being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
IV
19
Report to Planning 1( mission 7/2/81
SDR -1499 Page 4
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etcP
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
S. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
D. Bonds required for removal of existing structures.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided, fees paid and easements acquired
inaccordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as out-
lined in letter dated June 15, 1981 and April 21, 1981.
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 agg tc
base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. SlW
driveway shall not exceed 12z% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 12z% to 15% shall be surfaced
using 2z" of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17% 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 or longer length will not be
accepted.
* B. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having, a 32
foot inside radius or other-approved type turnaround which must meet re
quirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building
plans.
C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
D. 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 the building plans.
E. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road ot- 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
' Report to the
Plann Commission
7/2/81
SDR -1499
Page 5
•
VII
*II
IX
•
the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to the 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 $500 bond to be posted to insure completion of work. Contact dis-
trict sanitarian for final inspection upon completion.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Transfer right -of -way along entire creek frontage to Santa Clara
Valley Water District,in accordance with District's letter dated
July 24, 1980.
B. Drainage system and any outfall structure details to be reviewed and
approved by SCVWD prior to final approval.
C. All grading adjacent to the SCVWD right -of -way to be done in accor-
dance 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 Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to SCVWD for
review and certification.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
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. At time of Design Review individual structures shall be reviewed
by the Planning Department to evaluate 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.
rnMMFNTC
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
� r
�i
Approved: --
Kathy kerdus, Planning Assistan-
KK /as
P. C. Agenda: 7/8/81
*as clarified at Planning Commission meeting on 7/8/81.
Z CI E L%
L -- DOVO A55
/ D
O 8 _
3 =
H J
s
LAG
3 SV'
O Y
Q
G
r0 A v E
r' Z AVE
SITE J J
�
T
♦ \ Y
• f
u
4 �
s 4 ti
u
r
J
A d
LN.
t=
J
Y
Da. �
SARK F
�u
r
e
Y C1
C
IL
�O
DARK on. G •�
O
S
os
LARK WY.
CL
O A l lV
SD R-
149-3-
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: PLANNING dOMMISSION
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -1499 11 Paul Devos
Farwell Avenue
(have)
(i A- V1§x1i0X)
been
met as listed
on the
Land'Oevelopment Committee
Report dated
July 2,
.1981
Listed
below are
the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items:
Offer of Dedication yes
Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes
Storm Drainage Fee 1100.00 Date Subm
All Required Improvement Bonds N/A Date
All Required Inspection Fees 100.00 Date
Building Site Approval Agreement -- Date
Park and Recreation Fee 1300.00 Date
Date Submitted 7 -8 -83
Date Submitted 7-8 -83
fitted 7/11/83 _Receipt #2789
Submitted - -- Receipt # --
Submitted 7/11/83 Receipt #2789
Signed - --
Submitted 7/11/83 Receipt #2789
It is, therefore, the Public Works Department recommendation that (CtX dXK
t,.) (Final) Building Site Approval for Paul Devos SDR -1499
be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition (s)
Qt�c,(,:-+S
Reason for Non - Compliance
ROBERT .S. SHOOK
4
CITY OF SJU1 iUKX�A
AGENDA BITS, NO. %
DATE: July 11, 1983 (July 20, 1983)
DEPARTMENT :_Community Development
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1526
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty�-
C. Mgr.
Issue Stm oxy
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.
Recomendation
Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site.
Release $3000.00 CASH bond - see warrant list
Fiscal Impacts
None ~
Exhibits/Attachments
1. Memo describing development and bond.
Council Action
7./20: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0.
P
I�IEMOO RANDt1M
U�uw @0 0&M&UQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council DATE: July 11, 1983
FROM: Director of :Community Development
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1526
Name & Location: Longmeadow Development, Douglass Lane
Public Improvements required for SDR -1526
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: Longmeadow Development Corporation
Address: 210 North Fourth Street
San Jose, CA. 95113
2. Improvement Security:
Type: Surety Bond
Amount: $32,000.00
Issuing Company: Covenant Mutual Insurance Company, A.L. Wing, Attorney
Address: 100 Pine Street #1750
San Francisco, CA. 94111
Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 014528
3. Special Remarks: $3,000 CASH bond to be released upon Construction
Acceptance
RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook fN.�
CITY OF SARATOGA
GENDA BILL NO. 7e
DATE: 7 -13 -83
DEPARTMENT: Admin. Services
--------------------------- - - - - --
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgr.
SU,bJECr: HCDA: Emergency Jobs Bill /Appropriation Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Issue Summary
The City has been allocated $77,500 under the Emergency Jobs Bill,
a component of the Housing and Community Development Act. The City
Council has allocated this sum to the improvement of Elva Avenue.
It is necessary to bring an appropriation resolution before the
Council in order to move forward with this planned activity.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution # appropriating $77,500 for public improvements
to Elva Avenue.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution #
Council Action
7/20: Approved Resolution 2073.2 on Consent Calendar 4 -0.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO: Dept. Head: ,8
DATE: July 20, 1983 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services : Community Center City Mgr
SUBJECT: Acceptance and Acknowledgement of al,Bumper Pool Table for the Community Center
Issue Summary
Mrs. Gerry English donated a bumper pool table to the Community Center's Teen Program.
It is in fine condition and the Center will benefit from this donation.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
The value of the donation is estimated at $350.00
Exhibits /Attachments
None.
Council Action
7/20: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0.
CITY OF SARATOGA
,/ pO Initial:
7
AGENDA BILL NO. 0 Dept. Hd.
DATE: July 11, 1983 (July 20, 1983) C. Atty
DEPARTMENT:_ Community Development C. M
SUBJECT: PIERCE ROAD EMERGENCY SLIDE REPAIR
Issue Summary
The project involved the construction of.a retaining wall along the
edge of Pierce Road southwest of Via Regina. The contractor, Ground
Stability Construction, has completed the work, for the contract price
of $102,200.00
Recommendation
Approve final acceptance and file Notice of Completion.
Fiscal Impacts
$102,200.00 which is 100% reimbursable under FAU.
Exhibits /Attachments
Notice of Completion
Council Action
7/20: Cal]_on /Clevenger_,mved to approve. Passed 4 -0.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Name
S',o ,
Add....
c,1, d L J
Sloe
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
i
"..
'Natirr of Tpmpinion
11fIIPi. s hereby given that ........ 1 ............. . the undersigned, .Jt..Wayne Dernetz
.............................. f the agent of]* the owner....... of certain lot............ piece..............., or,
parcel ............. of land situated in the .......City,.. P f ... Saratoga...................................... County, of
.... Santa ... Clara ................. ............................... State of California, and described as follows, to -wit:
PIERCE ROAD EMERGENCY SLIDE REPAIR
I
I III
That.... ....The...City...af..S.arato.ga .................................................... ............................... I�
................................................. ............................... .its owner...... of said land, did, on the ..5.th.........
day of ........ April ....... ............................... 19 .....8.3....... , enter into a contract with .........................
......Ground.,S,tability... Construction ............................................... ............................... for
Pierce Road
.............................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
.............. .......................... count Of State of California, on
the................. ............................... day of ................................................ , 19 ............;
That on the .............. 7t ;b............................ day of .......... a. ulY ............................. . 19...U....
the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
Ground... tab .I]Lt .QQnstrgq.t , 9. a ......................................................... ..............................:
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
and the mature of .....Salita .. ........ title to said properly is ........................ ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................. ...............................
................................................. ...............................
City of S.arataga .......... Owner ............
LIFO
.ST I {Nl
�I TE OF CA
ss. By ............... ...............................
County o Santa„ Clara ............................ J. Wayne Dernetz : tgent
ci ng, uh- sworn............ J ..... Kayne..I lerne-tz .......................................... ............................... sa%
1 run agent fthe agent off * the, owner...... of the, properly described in the foregoing notice. l ha'
read the foregoing police and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of uty own knotrled
.Subscribed and sworn to before me this
.......................... day of ...................... 19 ....... ....................... ...............................
........................................... ............................... City C 1 e r ( per Govt. Code 408140
................................................ ...............................
Delete words in brackets it owner signs.
ro mina tttrPrc'trortrntrrt trop nrtiwHr:
"..
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 70 Q
.initia
Dept.
DATE: July 11, 1983 (July 20, 1983) C. Att
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr,
SUBJECT: PIERCE ROAD EMERGENCY SLIDE REPAIR
Issue Summary
The project involved the construction of.a retaining wall along the
edge of Pierce Road southwest of Via Regina. The contractor, Ground
Stability Construction, has completed the work, for the contract price
of $102,200.00
Recommendation
Approve final acceptance and file Notice of Completion.
U
Fiscal Impacts
$102,200.00 which is 100% reimbursable under FAU..
Exhibits /Attachments
Notice of Completion
Council Action
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. `i"91
DATE: July 7, 1983 (July 20, 1983)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: TRACT 6665 and SDR 1426, Parnas Corporation, Pierce Road, 4intage Lane,
Saratoga Heights and Congress Springs Road
Issue Sunnary
Per the Agreement between Parnas Corporation and the City, cetain lots are
to be combined. Reversion to acreage appears to be the most expeditious
process. Therefore, Parnas Corporation is requesting that con.tigious
Lot 2,3,16,17,27 and 28.of (Tract 6665) and Lot A and B of (SDR -1426) be
reverted to acreage (become 4 lots) as shown on the Parcel Maps at Pierce
Road, Vintage Lane,.Saratoga Heights and Congress Spring Road. All
improvements were completed under Tract 6665, Parnas Corporation.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a Public Hearing on reversion to acreage.
2. Determine the merits of the request.
3. Staff recommends approval of the reversion to acreage subject to the
appropriate findings of Section 66499.16 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1 • Resolution No?
2. Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Map Act relating to reversion to acreage.
3. Letter of request from applicant
4. Proposed Parcel Map
Council Action
7120: Mallory /Callon moved to continue to 8J3. Passed 4 -0. (Contractor did not mail
notices of hearing within legally required time for hearing 7/20.)
8/3: Callon /Fanelli moved to approve Res. 2081. Passed 5 -0.
(c) Retention of any portion of required improvement security or
deposits if necessary to accomplish the purposes of this division of
local ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
66199.18. Reversion shall be effective upon the final map being
filed for record by the county recorder, and thereupon all dedications
and offers of dedication not shown thereon shall be of no further
force or effect.
66499.19. When a reversion is effective, all fees and deposits shall
be returned and all improvement security released, except those re-
tained pursuant to Section 66499.17.
66499.20. A tax bond shall not be required in reversion pro-
ceedings.
66499.20%. A city or county may, by ordinance, authorize a
parcel rnap to be filed under the provisions of this chapter for
the purpose of reverting to acreage land previously subdivided and
consisting of four or less contiguous parcels under the same ownership.
Any map so submitted shall be accompanied by evidence of title and
nonuse or lack of necessity of any streets or casements which are to
be vacated or abandoned. Any streets or casements to t;e left in effect
after the reversion shall be adequately delineated on the map. After
approval of the reversion by tine governing body or advisory agency
the map shall be delivered to the county recorder. The filing of
the map shall constitute legal reversion to acreage of the land af-
fected thereby, and shall also constitute abandonment of all streets
and casements not shown on the map. The filing of the map shall
=::lso constitute a merger of the separate parcels into one parcel for
purposes of this chapter and shall thereafter be shown as such on the
assessment roll subject to the provisions of Section 66445. Except as
provided in subdivision (f) of Section 66145, on any parcel rnap used
for reverting acicage, a certificate shall appear signed and acknow-
ledged by all parties having any record title interest in the land being
reverted, consenting to the preparation and filing of the parcel map.
[Amended, Chapter 862, Statutes of 1975]
66499.20%4. Subdivided lands may be merged and resubdivided
without reverting to acreage by complying with all the applicable re-
quirenneunts for the subdivision of land as provided by this division and
any local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto. The filing of tine final
map or parcel map shall constitute legal merging of the separate parcels
into one parcel and the resubdivision of such parcel, and the real prop-
erty shall thereafter be shown with the new lot or parcel boundaries on
the assessment roll. Any unused fees or deposits previously made pur-
suant to this division pertaining to the property shall be credited pro rata
towards any requirements for the same purposes which are applicable
at the time of resubdivision. Any streets or easements to be left in effect
-'after the resubdivision shall be adequately delineated on the map. After
approval of the merger and resubdivision by the governing body or
=advisory agency the map shall be delivered to the county recorder.
-Ttee filing of the map shall constitute legal merger and resubdivision of
0'_J�� . �-- ;�' — 62 —
tl►e land affected thereby, and ,hall :d,o:cou,litute abandonment of
all streets and easements not shy %sm ti.m the ►nap.
(Added, Chapter 23 -1, Slatutcs of 19771
ARTICLE 2. EXCLUSIONS
66499.21. Tine superior court of the county in which a subdivision
is situated may cause all or any portion of the real property- included
within the boundaries of tl►e subdivision to be excluded from such
subdivison and tine recorded map to be altered or vacated, in ac-
cordance with the procedures sct forth in this article.
66499.22. A proceeding for cxchu.sion shall 1)e initiated by filing
a petition therefor in the offices of the county surveyor and county
Clerk of the county ill which tine subdivision or the portion thereof
sought to be excluded is situated. Such petition shall accurately and
distinctly describe the real property sou �bt to be excluded by reference
:,o the recorded map or by any accurate survey, shall show the names
and addresses of all owners of real property in the subdivision or
Tn the portion thereof sought to be excluded as far as the same
are known to the petitioners, and shall set ford► the reasons for
the requested exclusion. Tire petition shall be signed and verified
by the owners of at least two - thirds of the total area of the real prop -
crty sought to be excluded.
66499.23. The petition steal:'. be accompanied by a new rnap show-
ing the boundaries of the subdivision as it appears after the exclusion
:Ind alteration, such new map to dcsignate as numbered or lettered
parcel:; those portions excluded and show the acrca -e of each such
parcel. If such map can be co ►piled frown data available, an actual
field survey shall not be required. If such ►nap meets with the ap-
proval of tine county surveyor, a certificate by an engineer or surveyor
shall not be required.
66499.24. Upon the filing, of a petition purstla nt to this article,
:illy judge of the superior court of the county in which (lie real prop -
-:rty is situated shall make an order directing the clerk of the court
to give notice of the fulinti of the petition. The notice sh:►11 he for once a
Week for a period .of not less Ihv► live conse: utice "chs and shall he
;riven by publication in sonic newspaper of general circulation within the
county, or if there is no newspaper published therein, by posting in
three of the principal places in the county; procidcd, that if such real
:property or any portion thereof is situated within a city, the notice
shall be given by publication i.n ionic newspaper of general circulation
Within the city, or if there is no newspaper published therein, by post -
ing in three of the principal places in tine city. Such notice shall con-
tain a statement of the nature of tine petition together with a direction
that any person may file his writtrn objection to tile. petition at any time
lbefore the expiration of the time of publication or posting. upon expira-
tion of the tinne of publication or posting, an allidavit showing such
publication or posting shall be filed with the clerk of the court.
—63—
x
kfi.0 i
d ja���
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
4683 Atbany C.ucate San Jobe, CA 95129 • (408) 249 -700
May 10, 1983
City Engineers Office
Saratoga•City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Tract 6665, Saratgoa Heights
Lots 2, 3, 16, 17, 27, 28
Dear Sirs,
Parnas Corporation is the owner of the captioned lots at
Saratoga Heights in Saratoga.
By this letter, we are requesting that these lots revert
to acreage as per Parcel Maps submitted to you by Jennings,
McDermott & Heiss, Inc.
This request is per the "Stipulation for Settlement"
between Parnas Corporation and the City of Saratoga which
provides for the following lots to be combined:
2/3, 16/17, and 27/28
The 6 lots would, accordingly, end up as 3 parcels.
Yours truly,
Edwin D. Charlebois
EDC:kjc
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
4683 A•2bany UActe San Joae, CA 95129 -(408) 249 -700(
May 10, 1983
City Engineers Office
Saratoga City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: SDR 1426 (Parcel Map - 488 M.38)
Parcels A & B
Dear Sirs,
Parnas Corporation is the owner of the captioned lots
on Vintage Lane in Saratoga.
By this letter, we are requesting that these lots revert
to acreage as per the Parcel Map submitted to you by
Jennings, McDermott & Heiss, Inc.
This request is per the "Stipulation for Settlement"
between Parnas Corporation and the City of Saratoga
which provides for the following lots to be combined:
PARCELS A/B
The 2 lots would, accordingly, end up as 1 parcel.
Yours truly,
X 7.�.
Edwin D. Charlebois
EDC:kjc
CITY OF SARATOGA
p� Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. CJ Dept. lid.
DATE: Community Deve 1 ogm n C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: .7uly 11; 19AI (July 20, 1983) . C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: UP-534& A-880, George Magnett,
and cabana addition exceeding
Sobey Road, Second Story Yxpansion
floor area standards, Appeal of P.C. decisioi
Issue SumRary
Applicant requested Design Review Approval to expand an existing two story
home into its attic area by 856 square feet and to place a 1380 square
foot cabana in the rear yard. Both approvals cause the floor area to
exceed the 6200 square feet standard for the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
by 2371 square feet. The cabana location in the rear yard also requires
grant of a Use Permit. After the.public hearing the Planning Commission
approved the Design.Review for the expansion of the two story home with
conditions on the proposed windows and for landscaping but denied the
Design Review and Use Permit applications for the cabana since they
could not make the compatible bulk finding. Applicant is appealing
the.decisions on the cabana.
Recommendation
Uphold the Planning Commission decision.
If the City Council wishes to grant the appeal they will need to make
the six findings (particularly findings numbers 1,3 and 5) required _
for design review approval and the 3 findings required for the-use permit,
as mentioned in the Staff Report.
Fiscal Impacts
Not applicable
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal letter
2. Staff Report dated June 1,
3. Planning Commission Minutes
4. Exhibits "B" and "C"
5. Resolution No. UP- 534 -1'
6. Correspondence received on
Council Action
1983, as revised June 8, 1983
dated June 8, 1983
project
7/20: Appeal withdrawn per attached letter.
Ap-
cdr�S�o-i,q, A -N \, e�)
RECEIVED
JUL 20 1983
COMMUNITY DEULOP_ME'NT
RECEIVED
JUN 1'71983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: G O :- E MP�C. ►)G��
Address: S 50�� R O
Telephone: _3-CA 5_ Li���
Name of Applicant: oQ-V-G
Project File No.: A -V�V l)('- ,5,-39
Date Received:
Hearing Date :
Fee C �J (�
CITY USE ONLY
Project Address: I �Up So (31�y �fl
Project Description: /a�Q �t,�J�� ,�� Cr,�s�,yc:� S��or►O S'icic�y
-C( rf S i fig/ C 4 6 to, D A
Decision Being Appealed: &,/J�L VJ ifWY2;i
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
APlease do not
City offices.
appeal please
Appel s Signature
sign this application until it is presented at the
If you wish specific people to be notified of this
list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
jUNt �� m3
._.�Ta � c��y �� saRA�acr -� P►- Aa��ac� �'MM \SS,�dn�
�t A-%%o / vP 534. Grs��G� MACr�1� ='F'� 15� SoWe'y. 9,0
Ste_ O 1wL - AtiONt WAS sErr - - -TO - T14IR%Y_ 1Wo �°�pttiT.y
�u�aL t�E\G��i�tc��JCr OFq TNiL SosTe`T Ptiv�E�r�i, Ad
___ Ai1�MPi
_ OcS�� nL5 It KE/(.cN AWE OiS CJ� T i = lc J =fc.SC£�_ JAw MAOE TNc WIT N ALL L(STLD Ov&Jt�tS wl7N ✓
i •�/(r
Q ) i tit.) QS W /���R i— O'i2 V A// A (...i4 /9 3 L E.
0 � E�'�. fLf�i o�.K7i
7 ru 2t. L A ✓A i �.A 6
6) r i r ,S Ert-Y ✓f. L'`/ E
aEL_6NTEn AT j N PCA i/rJLO CHAr'E-U tvNicti Tk�}'
Cv &)si oc o.Eo . Ad SJE-r iP TNbf i1EiGN0ctiNvv- O.
T14fsF. aW.,Jilts XvPpox.T TwF rocsic -,✓f Accpv,-T
r --(11c, SIXTY pT �Q ���e / �� 3 o�I✓� r
:.. C) A VAi1_iaacC_ Ou-1.05R.s Ae r7VVi,✓£-"' �-vrti t,�l�'lLI6�(I
�.� � rJ � 01 SS f �1i' I nl !� /'rta r°i rCry. p�v►✓i✓Z ;�✓rt -cTt ; w E..
��M1SSla►� A Li'TT�(L
_ S`SArF ccvto ►�d` MpLE, At-t, IJf. 2
c,oa A� Tw£rz ��c c�/►,lss�o „�
IJU.os To rr p"J.o We �t v c�Tr ,j
A�� k/ /JCr�K wrTN T/ d £
ar' 7Ne. ZaAh Alt- Cji c0) � �c F_ 'TNa� 7'/N£
NfiJ rt7�Tit r ��,�/aL.. ,Q�✓,o Car -1�°c r Fit' �lrN /�/'��LIC.�PLC
o t rJ: /✓A 0.l cz-,.r , , QUA S-I I A L'- G prcESE f n ,✓ %aim mil'
d� Q(��wlr✓(rS'/ iJ/C- 7'vrzfS � /�-i -G 1'T2A7lO�(' �'0 /di?►7iCi:.iS
rWCrL 1 di
i.
T'Yil(v f
YLAAS
_ +►'C. yi.►�'LS. -- /�RLIo.�_i �c7� oz� ti '1 S i
- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -W� i . vA, q S_d►� �13t. �T�i'E
-- -
--
cVD a 4 mwft t o.)
PNTL
a
K 0
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised June 8, 1983
DATE
Commission Meeting:
SUBJECT UP -A -880 GEORGE J. MAGNETT, 15200 SOBEY ROAD
REQUEST:
June 1, 1983
June 8, 1983
The applicant requests Design Review approval to expand the
second story of an existing two story structure and Use Permit
and Design Review approval to construct a cabana in the rear vard
of the subject site. In addition, both of these proposals cause
the site to exceed the standard floor area,:for this zoning district.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 48,526 sq. ft.
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
STTR DATA-
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
SITE SLOPE: 10.9%
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density, Single Family
NOTICE: Notice of this project
has been posted on site, ad-
vertised in the newspaper and
mailed to surrounding property
owners
Single family residential
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 12.3%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site contains some shrubbery
along the rear. However, the rear of the site is mostly un-
landscaped, as the main structure has just been newly con-
structed.
Report to PlarC_ ng Commission Page 2
GRADING REQUIRED (for Cabana) CUT: 240 CU. YDS. FILL 240 CU.YD
CUT DEPTH: 7' FEET FILL DEPTH: Varies
SETBACr,S: (Cabana) Rear: 20' Right Side: 20'
HEIGHT CABANA: 16' MAIN STRUCTURE: 25.5'
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing Residence 6,335 sq. ft. (including
garage)
SECOND STORY EXPANSION:
856 sq. ft. CABANA: 1,380 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 8,571 sq. ft.
FLOOR AREA: 6,200 sq. ft. is the standard allowed for this
zoning district
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 23 %, 37% is allowed by ordinance
COLORS & MATERIALS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Cedar shakes for the roof with off -white stucco,
brick and 1/2 timbering for trim
The applicant is proposing to expand 856 sq. ft. of attic area
of the existing second story of the main structure to living
area. The proposed expansion is located on the eastern portion
of the dwelling. The expansion involves the addition of three
(3) dormer windows as indicated on the roof plan exhibit. This
proposal does not increase the size or the height of the existing
structure.
The applicant is also requesting use permit approval to construct
a 1,380 sq. ft. cabana to the rear of the main structure. The
proposed cabana follows the type of design of the main structure
also utilizing matching exterior materials.
FINDINGS: DESIGN REVIEW
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views & Privac
Staff noted no interference with privacy as a result of the
second story expansion. The dormer to the rear of the struc-
ture does not pose a significant impact as the view oriented
toward the rear yard of subject site rather than the rear of
the adjacent site.
Staff did not note significant visual or privacy impacts as
a result of the cabana. Some of the structure will face the
rear yard of the adjacent site. However, since the two win-
dows on the eastern elevation are of single story height, the
adjoining property line can be relatively easily landscaped
to avoid impacts.
Report to Planrg Commission
2. Preserve Natural Landscape
C Page 3
The design of the cabana indicates that it will conform to
the contour of the site. The majority of the grading for
the site is to accommodate a cellar below the structure.
3. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk, Compatible Bulk,
Heig t
Staff noted no impacts of bulk due to the attic expansion of
the main structure.
With the addition of the proposed cabana, the standard floor
area for this zoning district will be exceeded by 2,371 sq. ft.
A portion of this square footage (1,000 sq. ft). is already ex-
ceeded by the main structure. It appears to staff that with
the proposed cabana there would appear to be a significant amount
of bulk on the site, as both structures are relatively large in
size. Structures on this site are also fairly easily seen
as this portion of Sobey Road contains open, gently rolling
topography.
4. Current Gradinq & Erosion Control Standards
Staff has reviewed the plans and does not see any difficulty
with the proposals ability to meet the City's grading
standards.
5. Infills: Compatibility, Views, Privacy and Natural Features
Staff did not note a significant impact to views, privacy
or natural features. However, staff is concerned with that
the proposal exceeds floor area standards and will add an
appearance of "bulk" to the site.
6. Preservation of Natural-Contours
Staff did not note a significant impact to the natural contour
of site as a result of the cabana construction.
FINDINGS: USE PERMIT
Since staff cannot make all of the necessary findings for design
review of the cabana, staff recommends denial of the use permit
for the cabana. If the Commission wishes to approve the proposal
they need to make the following three (3) findings:
Report to Plan Ong Commission Page 4
1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in
accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the
conditions under which it would be operated or maintained
will not be deterimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or im-
provements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of
the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the design review for the second story
expansion and denial of the use permit and design review for the
cabana.
* C_c�nc3itic�ns_
1. Eliminate window in east side of the north projecting dormer
addition.
2. St.ained glass window in the east side of the south projecting
dormer addition.
3. The landscaping and screening along easterly property line to be
large trees as approved by Department of Community Development.
APPROVED
Sharon Lester
Planner
SL:mlh
P.C. Agenda 6/8/83
.: I
ME
F i
..7A
0 0 'q C'_ n - "��)a' 0
Planning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 6/8/83
V -609 (cont.)
ings for the solar variance and recommend approval of it.
Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. He noted that the fence
was fully constructed at this time and the Staff Report speaks to the problems
with it. He stated that the site is somewhat unique and sits down in a swale
area, and there did not appear to be any real impacts with the solar panels.
Commissioner Nellis added that the fence is very visible from the street.
A letter received in support of the application was noted.
The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. The applicant was not present.
Rosemary Haxim, who lives adjacent to Mr. Renna, spoke against the application.
She stated that she feels that the fence looks like a prison wall and the pro-
perty is now totally built up.
Jean Francis, Sobey Road, indicated that she feels that the fence is too high
and she would prefer landscaping instead.
It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Siegfried agreed with the comment that the fence looks like a prison
wall and stated that it is unfortunate that it is already built. He commented
that it gives him difficulty to say that it must be undone, particularly when
a lot of money has been spent doing it. He added that the fence is an unsightly
nuisance and has significant impact. He indicated that he did not have any
particular problem with the solar panels and did not feel that they are going
to impact anyone.
Commissioner Crowther asked if it had been determined whether the impervious
coverage added by the solar panels would exceed the allowable coverage. Staff
reported that they did not know how they would be placed but would look into the
matter. It was determined to continue the application and notify the applicant
that there is consensus that the Commission has serious problems with both
requests. It was directed that this item be continued to June 22, 1983.
6. V -610 - Hiroyuki Hiraoka, 18635 Montewood Drive, Request for Variance Appro-
val to construct a tennis court with a side yard setback of 15'
where 25' is required in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
Staff explained that the plans which had been approved for the tennis court were
approved for a 20 ft. setback, which was in error in itself, since a 25 ft.
setback is required. However, the tennis court was built with only a 15 ft.
setback and there was no final inspection requested. They added that, notwith-
standing those irregularities in construction, Staff can make the findings rela-
tive to the variance and recommends that you approve it with the condition that
the opaque screening be removed from the fencing. They indicated that there
will be a clarified building permit with doube fees if the Commission approves
the variance.
Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. Commissioner Siegfried
noted that there is essentially one corner of the tennis court that encroaches.
Commissioner Hlava added that it does not abut another neighbor and there is no
privacy impact.
The public hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m.
Robert Elaine asked w}lat the specific objection was to the opaque screening.
It was explained that it is prohibited by ordinance and the general problem is
that it does have impact.
It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V -610 per the Staff Report dated 6 -1 -83
and Exhib.it B. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which %vas carried
unanimously 7 -0.
--------
�L-1 - 880 George Magnett, 15200 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review
7fi— tfP -�3d Approval to construct a second story expansion to an existing
two -story dwelling and Use Permit Approval to construct a cabana
in the required rear yard
aa�'Ck ^
Staff decC.i�.e.7 ti.a 1�C.1t�0:1. Th..- �tatCd tai_
�pP cy at uuc to the excessive fluor
3 z
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 6/8/83
A -880 and UP -534 (cont.)
area of the cabana, Staff feels that there will be the appearance of bulk and
is unable to make the findings and recommends denial. They stated that, rela-
tive to the design review for the second story expansion, they can make the
findings and recommend approval.
Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. fie noted that there is
a very large concern regarding the finished grade of this house as it is right
now with respect to the adjoining residences. Commissioner Siegfried commented
that he does not have any particular concern with the second -story addition or
dormers provided that something is done regarding the windows that look out on
the next door neighbor. He added that his major concern is the cabana since it
has significant impact.
A letter from Mr. and birs. Johnson, in opposition, was noted.
The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m.
George Magnett, the applicant, discussed the proposal. He submitted pictures
and indicated that he would put stained glass windows in the second floor dor-
mers facing the neighbors. He commented that he had contacted the majority of
the neighbors regarding the project.
Claude Johnson spoke in opposition to the cabana, stating that it would obscure
his view and would be adjacent to his bedroom. He cited the noise and dirt from
the project and the impact of it.
Mrs. Adrian Iwanaga spoke against the dormer windows.
Robert Darby, interior designer, addressed the proposed windows. Possible alter-
natives were discussed relative to skylights or smaller windows.
Commissioner Hlava noted that there are four windows across the back of the
playroom, in addition to the one window on the side which looks over the Iowanga
property; therefore, it is not a totally dark room without that window.
Bob Moore, landscape architect, gave a presentation on the proposed landscaping.
At Commissioner Siegfried's request, he specifically explained the landscaping
that is planned around the cabana and the screening between the two homes.
Mrs. Iwanaga stated that she objected to the planned landscaping between their
home and that of the applicant.
Mrs. Dorothy Johnson, 15160 Sobey, spoke in opposition to the cabana, its size,
the pool, and the noise.
Veda Call, realtor, addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of the project.
Tom Tavares suggested that the cabana be at a low height and that the windows
should be narrower.
Mr. Magnett indicated that he would like to keep both dormers to maintain the
architectural balance.
It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried
unanimously.
The application for the second story expansion was first discussed by the Com-
mission. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he was not particularly troubled
with the dormers and feels that the applicant's point is well taken that thev
provide architectural balance. fie added that lie feels that steps can be taken
to minimize any impact on privacy; it then makes space usable that is there.
He stated that he felt that the one window could be removed hecause there is
significant window space in the back of that room. He added that Ile is very
troubled by the size of the cabana.
Commissioner -McGoldrick moved to anprove A -880 per the Staff Report dated June
1, 1983 and Exhibit B, with the condition that the window in the cast side of
the north projecting dormer addition be eliminated and that the window in the
east side of the south projecting dormer addition be stained glass opaque.
Commissioner Hlava suggested that some fairly large size trees be requested
along the side between the applicant and the [wanagas. She commented that she
feels that the house already has some privacy impact on the Iwanagas that could
eau,
re
Planning Commission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 6/3/83
A -880 and UP -534 (cont.)
be addressed at this time. It was determined that a condition Would be added
to the motion that there be landscaping and screening along that area, to
include some large size trees. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Siegfried
and was carried unanimously 7 -0. It was noted that the approval is for the main
structure only.
Chairman Schaefer noted that there has been very strict adherence recently to
having a total of 6200 sq. ft. built on a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. She stated that
the Commission has approved many cabanas but most of them that have been
approved were around 6S0 sq. ft.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she could not envision anything that could
be done to mitigate the closeness of the cabana to the Johnsons. She compli-
mented the architect and landscape architect on their work but stated that the
bulk of the total square footage is not what she cares to see. She moved to
deny UP -534, per the Staff Report dated June 1, 1933. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. The 10 -day appeal
period was noted.
Break - 9:30 - 945 p.m.
8. V -611 - Mr. and Mrs. James Mair, 19221 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (near E1
Camino Grande), Request for Variance Approval to construct a fence
over 6 feet in height in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. They noted that this fence is along scenic High-
way 9, and under normal circumstances Staff would probably not be able to make
findings for this variance. However, the wall is located 2 or 3 feet below the
elevation of the roadway and there has been recent substantial plantings along
the highway side of the wall which will quickly screen the wall. Therefore,
Staff is able to make the findings and recommends approval.
The public hearing was opened at 9:47 p.m.
Mike Dillon, landscape architect, appeared to answer questions. It was moved
and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -611, per the Staff Report dated
6 -1 -83 and Exhibits B and C, making the findings. Commissioner Nellis seconded
the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0.
9. A -881 - Bud Johnson, Lot k9, Tract 6528, Farr Ranch Road (near Farr Ranch
Ct.), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story
• single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district
Commissioner Crowther abstained from the discussion and voting of this matter,
by reason of pending litigation involving the Parker Ranch project.
Staff explained the project. Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee
Report. He indicated that one of the items noted was primarily the color of
the home which is being proposed as a light gray exterior with a white trim,
and the applicant has been advised that a requirement of the Parker Ranch sub-
division was that the color be earthtone. He also noted that the structure was
set at an angle, to its benefit.
The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m.
The applicant indicated that he had no problem with having an carthtone color.
Discussion followed on the definition of earthtone color. There was a con-
sensus that earthtone does not always have to be a brown tone and that a gray
color would be satisfactory.
Russell Crowther asked about the square footage being allowed in this home,
given the tentative map restriction of 4600 sq. ft. Staff oxnlained that when
the Design Review Ordinance was developed it was determined that the sub-
division would conform to the ordinance standards and the CC,,Rs were modified.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to anprovc A -381, suhject to the Stuff Report dated
June 1, 1983 and F.xhihits B and C. Commissioner Illava seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously 6 -0.
- 5 -
N
USE PERMIT C FILE N0.: UP -534
f
RESOLUTION NO. UP -534 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of GEORGE MAGNETT to construct a cabana
in the required rear yard in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for.the Use Permit
be, and the same is hereby
09XXMXX) (denied) subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report dated June 1, 1983 and Exhibit "C ".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
kRKX :kRxkXXXNRXRXKAXHXAXXANNXHA3 (the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 8th day of June 19 83
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners, Schaefer, Hlava, Bolger, Crowther, Nellis, Siegfried
and Mc Goldrick
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTES
L�k C airman, Planning Com ission
Secretai,ry, a+nning ommission
•
Mrs. Arthur W Anderson, Jr.
15201 Sobey Road, Saratoga, Cali -nia 95070
June 2, 1983
15160 Sobey Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. and Mrs.
Please be advised of our intention to sell our property
in the very near future.
We are giving our neighbors an advance notice of our intent
to sell prior to listing the property with a realtor.
We, therefore, request that you contact us before June 16,
1983 if you are interested.
Please call: 354 -2239 AFTER 6:00 P.M.
Sincerely,
Claude E. John n
Dorothy J nson
CEJ /DAJ /jmf
i
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Gear Commissioners:
June 8, 1983
15160 Sobey Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
We respectfully request that approval be denied to Mr. George
Magnett's petition for the following additions to his property
ai 15200 Sobey Road:
1. Construction of a second story expansion to the Existing
2 -story dwelling.
2. Construction of a cabana in the rear yard.
We ask the Commissioners to consider the adverse impact upon the
privacy of Mr. Magnett's neighbors.
We selected a rural environment as the location of our homes for
the following reasons: _
To enjoy an unobstructed view of the hills and the valley.
.Jt�l
To ful fi 11 a need of peaceful solitude.
q-!p 3. To live i n an area where we could feel close to nature
u N
� T-hese attributes have been destroyed by the intrusion of ostentatious,
structures th.at attack the quality of a rural environment.
We also dSK tiiC ✓v/ ii » ion rs o coo -de m of f C1 i 0`ti i ^9 f aC.u_
0V9 a� 1. The Planning Commission neglected to inform us of the
`. pending plans prior to construction of the 2 - story dwell -
��` ing at 15200 Sobey Road.
1 .0 ��cv�� t� . The existence of this dwei iing has hampered our view of
the hills from the front of our property.
2. We have experienced a serious water drainage problem due
to the extensive excavating done on Mr. Magnett's property
which has resulted in several undesirable conditions:
aV,� (a)_ A constant draining of silt, mud and water across
Al 0`Tt� our driveway during the rainy season. (This can be
verified by a site inspection and also by snap-
shots that we took during the last rainy season.)
5
v�5 ti
��^ c44� (b) A constant draining of mud and water from Mr.
LP Magnett's property into our lower orchard when-
ever his construction crew cuts bricks.
(c) A portion of our lower orchard is so water - logged
that our discing man's tractor became bogged down
when he attempted to cut the weeds and work up the
soil on May 24, 1483.
(d) Concrete residue and sand draining into our lower
orchard from building activities of Mr. Magnett's
construction crew which is not conducive to healthy
trees.
We beseech you to declare a moratorium on the continuing erosion
and "rape" of the environmental quality of $obey Road. This
moratorium would give the Commissioners the time necessary to
reflect upon the detrimental effect this "building boom" is having
upon the long -time residents in this area._
Let us join together to preserve the magnificence of natural beauty.
and the aesthetic quality of life in Saratoga.
Thank you- for your consideration.
Sincerely,
tl and E. Johnson Zq
1 • • •'� •
CEJ /DAJ /jmf
i
'v
J
verified by a site inspection and also by snap-
shots that we took during the last rainy season.)
5
v�5 ti
��^ c44� (b) A constant draining of mud and water from Mr.
LP Magnett's property into our lower orchard when-
ever his construction crew cuts bricks.
(c) A portion of our lower orchard is so water - logged
that our discing man's tractor became bogged down
when he attempted to cut the weeds and work up the
soil on May 24, 1483.
(d) Concrete residue and sand draining into our lower
orchard from building activities of Mr. Magnett's
construction crew which is not conducive to healthy
trees.
We beseech you to declare a moratorium on the continuing erosion
and "rape" of the environmental quality of $obey Road. This
moratorium would give the Commissioners the time necessary to
reflect upon the detrimental effect this "building boom" is having
upon the long -time residents in this area._
Let us join together to preserve the magnificence of natural beauty.
and the aesthetic quality of life in Saratoga.
Thank you- for your consideration.
Sincerely,
tl and E. Johnson Zq
1 • • •'� •
CEJ /DAJ /jmf