Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA h=A BILL NO. DATE: September 24, 1981 DEPART=: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. At C. Mgr: SUB.7LC,T: A -783 Appellant /Applicant - Mr. and Mrs. Norm Epstein, 20279 ---- - - - - -- Pierce -Road (formerly UP -501) Issue SLMn ary Applicant has requested to add a second -story addition to their one -story single family home in the Argonaut area which contains predominantly single - story dwellings. There has been both neighborhood support and objection to the proposal as indicated in the correspondence. Privacy impacts, design consistency, and lowered property values are the major concerns. Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal or set a hearing de novo 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny 3. Staff recommended approval of the design review to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Imoacts None noted. Exhibits /Attachments I. Letter of Appeal 2. Staff Report dated August 14, 1981 3. Planning Commission Minutes of August 26, 1981 4. Exhibits "B" and "C" S. Correspondence received on the project Council Action 10/7: Watson/Mallory moved to continued to 11/4 at 8:00 p.m Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). 11/4: Jensen/Mallory moved to deny appeal. Passed 5 -0. - ---- ------ v - - - _ .......... -- - - -. - _---- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - _..- -- - MTG DATE /0 - %-�/ AGENDA # YK-11 I BIT _..... .. - - - - -- - -- -._... - -- - - -- -.. -- - - -; - - -- - - - ------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - . � J n� C C MTG DATE O — ?— Y( r AGENDA # EXHI -IT # Y 0(9 a h p,: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/14/81 Commission Meeting: 8/26/81 SUBJECT A -783 Norm Epstein 20279 Pierce Road REQUEST: Design Review Approval for a two -story ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption, Section 15101 Class 1 PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by publishing in t e newspaper, posting the site and by-mailing notices to 62 property owners in the vicinity. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING: R- 1- 12,500 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: SITE SIZE:. 1412.50 sq. ft. SITE SLOPE: 1% HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: Existing 161. Proposed 22' SIZE OF ADDITION: Existing: 2,187 sq. ft. New: 678 sq. ft. 2nd floor: 675 sq. ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 420 (58o is maximum allowed) SETBACKS: Rear: 50' Left side: 12' Right side: 14' Front: 25' Report to Planning Commission 8/18/81 A -783 Page 2 BACKGROUND: Addendum to A -783 This design review application has been reviewed at the two - story conversion permit hearings on June 30th, and July 28th, 1981. At both of thes.e meetings, there were neighbors present who opposed the addition in terms of privacy impacts and of design consistency with the existing homes in the Argonaut area. At the July 28th meeting the Planning Director recommended that the application be referred to the Planning Commission and reviewed under the new Design Review Ordinance. The project requires a public: hearing because it exceeds the Floor Area Ratio (within 50), is an infill project and is a major addition in height. STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposed addition will be located at the western por ion of the subject dwelling. The addition will add 1,353 sq. ft. to the existing 2,187 sq. ft. of the existing dwelling. The proposed total 3,540 sq. will be 60 sq. ft. over the maximum floor area ratio allowed for this zoning district. The Commission has the authority to approve residential structures which exceed the floor area.ratio by not more than 50 (NS3.47 Sec. 6). The proposed project complies with the standards set for impervious coverage and setbacks. Privacy and design compatability have been the two major concerns of many of the neighbors in the vicinity. The plans indicate that the design of the addition is compatible with the existing dwelling and is consistent with the other dwellings in the vicinity in terms of architectural style. The windows of the second story addition that could pose privacy impacts, are the windows of the greenhouse -room located off the master bedroom. The windows of this room are located on the north and east sides of the room. The windows that are "on the east sides do not create an impact because of existing evergreen vegetation. The windows on the north side,.face the rear -yard of the adjoining property to the rear and coulld pose privacy impacts. It should be noted, however, that the windows which face the neighbor to the rear will not be a new impact. The property to the rear is situated lower than the applicant's lot, and although there is a six -foot fence dividing the properties it is easily visible from the applicant's patio. Landscaping has been planted but is not yet mature enough to provide sufficient screening. Report to Planning Commission 8/18/81 A -783 Page 3 There are two options which could mitigate privacy impacts: 1. Plant landscaping, 24" box evergreen trees, along the rear property line. Large evergreen trees would provide some screening immediately, and given time for their growth would be an adequate mitigation measure. The pro- blem with landscaping however, is that it cannot be con- sidered permanent.. 2. Another mitigation measure which is permanent is to install obscured glass windows, stained glass as an example, in the greenhouse. This would provide an im- mediate screen to protect privacy. RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff Report dated 8/14/81 and Exhibits "B & C" subject to the.following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: A. Submit revised plans indicating obscured glass windows to be installed on the north side of the greenhouse addition. B. Submit landscaping plans which indicate how the northern property line will be screened to mitigate privacy impacts. Approved: Sharon Les e Planning Aide SL:jd P.C. Agenda 8/26/81 -' 9 } m llanni.ng Comission ( Pa *e 4 Meeting Mini 8/Z(�`.. \. MTG DATE /O' AGENDA # / f A -779 (cont.) EXHIBIT # 3 Commissioner Crowther stated that he was concerned about how close the trail is going to be to the house, with only a 3S ft. setback from the other side of the easement. The tract map was reviewed, and the Deputy City Attorney stated that perhans a provision could be added that no obstruction of any kind shall be erected in the right -of -way area. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern as to how that might influence the location of the structure. It was pointed out that a fence might be too restrictive, and the possi- bility of a hedge to delineate the pathway area was discussed. It was clarified that it is an equestrian - pedestrian lane from Sobey Road to the Montalvo area. The Deputy City Attorney commented that any future owner of the lot will be getting a survey which will show the location of the easement. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that, since the applicant was not present, he would like to continue the matter. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -799, for Lot #3, per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the Staff Report, amended to include a condition that the applicant be required to delineate the pathway easement along lots #1, #2 and #3 with appropriate landscaping. The Deputy City Attorney commented that he would have a problem-,of expand- ing the scope of the approval to include a lot that is not before the Commission for approval. Commissioner Zambetti amended the condition to read that the applicant be required to delineate the pathway easement along Lot #3 with appropriate landscaping. Commissioner Crowther commented that he was concerned about the fact that Lot #2 and Lot #3 are tied together in that they will be using a common driveway. Chairman Laden stated that she thought there was some delinea- tion about the easement in the subdivision of this land, and perhaps some of the problem about the easement could be resolved if the Commission could review the conditions of the subdivision before or at the time of another design review application for this tract. Commissioner King seconded to the motion to approve A -779, with the con` -1\ dition as amended, and suggested that Staff communicate with the applicant about the concerns of the Commission regarding the easement in general on al_1 lots. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 5'. AA -783 - Norm Epstein, 20279 Pierce Road, Request for Design Review Approval for a second -story addition to a single -story dwelling, per Ordinance NS -3.47 The proposal was described by Staff. They stated that conditions have been added to the Staff Report which would help mitigate any privacy impacts. They explained that there have been two 2 -story conversion hearings on this project, and this application is being considered under the new Design Review Ordinance. They noted that there has been considerable objection to it by neighbors who want to maintain the 1 -story neighborhood. The public hearing was opened at 8:5S p.m. Norm Epstein, the applicant, submitted photographs and noted that some of the neighbors who had signed the petition in opposition had rescinded their objection to the project after reviewing the plans. He stated that lie had acquired a report from an appraiser, which states that the addition would improve the neighborhood in general and would increase the value of the other homes. Mr. Epstein explained that his wife had been told that she was unable to have children; therefore, they had felt the present home was adequate. They now have 3 children, and his mother -in -law now lives with them, he added. Mr. Epstein stated that they had considered other homes but had found nothing that was suitable financially. He indicated that his architect had been unable to make the needed addition on one floor. fie commented that they had lowered the design another foot, and it is now 5 feet above the existing house. He explained that, because of the sloping terrain, the homes on the other side of the street are now about S ft. higher than his home. Mr. Epstein commented that he felt they had tried to satisfy the neighbors. - 4 - Planning Conuni.ssio Mect:ing Minutes 8/C "1 A -783 (cot.) -� A Page 5 C Commissioner King commented that one item which seems to be of concern to the neighbors is regarding the compatibility of bulk with adjacent structures, which falls under Section 4f, of the new ordinance. Mr. Epstein stated that he feels the Staff Report has dealt with the privacy issue. He added that the only impact on privacy is on the house directly to the rear. Dave Young, 20218 Pierce Road, stated that he had written a letter to the Commission and had talked to the neighbors. He commented that the general feeling of the neighbors was against two -story additions. Mr. Young stated that they feel the ordinances were established to protect the homeowners, and they bought their homes with that in mind. He added that the legislative aspect of the situation is that the ordinances either be changed to meet the public needs and requirements or that the people live by them until they are changed.. He indicated that the other issue was emotion. Mr. Young stated that he could identify with Mr. Epstein's circumstances; however, when he put in his pool he made the changes to conform to the ordinances and the general architecture of the neighborhood. He quoted the ordinance which covers the location of two - stories. He added that he did not feel pine trees will mitigate the privacy impact, and this addition will impact his view of the hills. Commissioner King pointed out to Mr. Young that the portion of the old ordinance which he was quoting regarding two -story additions was eliminated in the new Design Review Ordinance. Commissioner King stated that he feels that this proposal meets all the exact requirements of the new ordi- nance. He added that he can only see one guideline under which Mr. Young may be protesting, which would be Section 4f. Mr. Young asked the Commission to defer their decision until he could review the new ordinance. Commissioner Crowther stated that this raises a concern on his part, since the new ordinance was being billed as being more restrictive and protecting the community more, and this example seems to indicate the opposite. Ann Dempsey stated that she lives immediately adjacent to the applicant on the west side. She commented that they feel very much that their privacy will be invaded by the proposed building and they will suffer economically. She added that most of her neighbors feel the same. Mrs. Dempsey noted that the trees on Mr. Epstein's side have been completely denuded of leaves twice from the frost, and they do not help mitigate the impact on privacy. She explained that they love to be in their back yard, and the Epsteins will be able to view into their back yard. Ray Oltman, 12770 Ione Court, asked for a clarification of the new ordi- nance. Chairman Laden explained that the prior ordinance was very subjec- tive in nature, with very few restrictions in height and bulk. She added that nine months had been spent on drafting the new ordinance, and there were many public hearings on it. She indicated that the new Design Review Ordinance is more restrictive and less subjective in size and in the determination of how an addition can be added. Chairman Laden added that specific attention was given to an addition or infill situation in an existing neighborhood. Staff explained that this sort of conversion pre- viously was a public hearing for a use permit by the Planning Director under the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Crowther pointed out that the partsof the ordinance that Mr. Young had previously referred to were in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.7 -2, which states that, where a single -story exists, no new multi -story resi- dential structure shall be allowed opposite to or contiguous to same. Ile added that there were standards on coverage for each of the zoning districts. Commissioner Crowther commented that the new Design Review Ordinance repealed this and repealed all of the standards with regard to coverage in Section 3.7. He noted that the 42% coverage exceeds what previously would have been allowed, which was 35a for single -story structures in a R- 1- 12,500 district, and 20% for a two -story structure. He stated that fie is concerned because he sees this as an example of a case where the new ordinance is much more lenient than what previously existed. Prank Reyda, 20227 Pierce, expressed his opposition to this addition, for the reasons that have been mentioned. - 5 - !Manning Commission,._ Page 6 Meeting Minutes 8/2C r A -783 (cont.) J. `1V -- narrow, 20243 Pierce Road, stated that he had lived in the neighbor- hood for 25 years and has known the applicant as a neighbor and friend for a number of years. He commented that he did not feel the addition was a bi.,� request, and it is not a commercial project that he is request- ing. lie added that he feels that the applicant deserves the chance to stay as a good neighbor. Mr. Epstein stated that he felt that this addition would in no way impact the Dempseys' privacy. He also indicated that Mr. Young cannot see his present home, nor will he be able to see the addition. Mrs. Dempsey brought up the possibility of the applicant or a future owner putting in windows at a later date. Chairman Laden explained that if the plans are changed from the existing building permit, the City has the right to ask him to fill the windows in. Carmen Lawrence, 20272 Pierce Road, stated that they had submitted a letter in favor of the project, and they would like to reemphasize their position at this time. Chairman Laden noted into the record the numerous letters, both pro and con, on this project. Commissioner King moved,to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissent- ing. The original CCF,Rs of the Argonaut Subdivision were discussed. Staff indicated that the CC &Rs had stated that there would only be one -story structures in the subdivision. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the CC£;Rs are subject to private enforcement. He explained that it is the City's position that if private parties are allowed to regulate through the CCF,Rs and took the position that the City is bound by them, that would be in effect a deferral of the legislative process and it would be allow- ing the private sector to in effect regulate and legislate on behalf of the public sector. He added that the exception would be those situations where the City itself insists on certain conditions to be put in the CCF,Rs for the public welfare, with the right of the City to enforce it. He commented that the applicant is not relieved at all from his obligation to abide by the CC$Rs; however, the City is not the body to enforce them. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Commission's determination should be made on the City code and ordinances, and specifically the Design Review Ordinance. Staff clarified that the bathroom windows face the Demsey home and normally would be obscured glass. They indicated that there is a requirement that there be secondary access from the second story a minimum of 42" above;. therefore, two -story windows where they could not see out is not practical unless there is another access from the second story. Commissioner Schaefer suggested having sky lights. She stated that she feels that the one -story design has been the one security that people feel they like. She added that she feels the people have a right to their second stories, but feels the Commission has an obligation to maintain the privacy of 'back yards because the back yard is part of the home. She indicated that she would like to exclude the windows and put in a sky light. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would not vote for the application because he feels it has a growing effect to produce more two -story homes along that street. Fie indicated that lie would be in favor of some kind of addition in the rear; however, he realizes this would be difficult on this lot because of the pool and equipment. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he feels this is a neighborhood decision, and lie feels the neighbors do not want two- stories. Fie added that, from a planning standpoint, if this two -story is approved there would be two -story homes throughout the whole street in a matter of years. Commissioner Crowther stated that, with regard to the Design Review Ordi- nance, Section 4, it is still somewhat subjective, and lie feels that many of the issues like views and privacy are really subjective in terms of the neighbors. He explained that if all of the neighbors came in and were in - 6 - P1al,ning Conunis� "" n Meetino Minute 26/81 lq -)33 j Page 7 A. -783 cont.) favor of it, I would have a different view. However, since many of them are concerned, he stated that he would vote against the application, because he feels the Commission has to consider those subjective views and he is somewhat concerned about the bulk of the structure and the appearance of it in that particular neighborhood. Commissioner Crowther added that he did not feel such issues should be pushed into court. Since the neighbors could enforce the CC&Rs in court, the Commission could be doing Mr. Epstein a favor by voting against the project, he added. He commented that he was opposed to the section of the ordinance where the existing ordinances were repealed and made more lenient. Commissioner King stated that lie believes the application does meet absolutely the intent of the ordinance. He commented that one of the major concerns of the community was the ability to make additions to homes. Commissioner King moved to approve A -783, feeling that it exactly meets the intent of the Design Review Ordinance of the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A -783 without prejudice, on the basis of Sections 4a and 4d of the Design Review Ordinance. Commissioner Monia commented that he had not heard any consensus that would allow any two -story building going in that location, and on that basis he felt: the motion should be to deny. Commissioner Schaefer stated that possibly there are some relatively simple adjustments that could make the proposal acceptable. Commissioner Crowther agreed with Commissioner Monia's comments and amended the motion to deny.A -783, on the basis of Sections 4a and 4d of the Design Review Ordinance NS -3.47. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Chairman Laden stated that she felt.that the Commission spent a great deal of time discussing the economics and realities of the City. She commented that the Commission has allowed second -story additions in the Quito area with almost no denials; they have allowed second -story addi- tions in many areas of the City. She added that she feels that this application meets the criteria of the new ordinance, and she feels it should be based on that. Chairman Laden indicated that she had done an extensive survey of the Argonaut area, and there are a number of two - story homes in what she feels most of the people in Saratoga would con- sider Argonaut. She added that, on the basis of the new Design Review Ordinance, she would be voting no on the motion. The vote was taken on the motion to deny A -783. The motion was carried, with Commissioners King, Laden and Schaefer dissenting. The applicant was informed of his right to appeal the decision to the City Council within ten days. DESIGN REVIEW 6. A -777 - Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc., Cox Avenue, Free - standing Sign, Final Design Review Approval It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on September 9, 1981. 7. A =781 - Cal -Neon, 12100 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Sign Logo, Final Design Review Approval Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -781 per the Staff Report and Exhibit "B ". Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS 8. SDR -1307 -- Saratoga Federated Church, Oak Place and Park, Modification to Parking Lot Staff explained that this is a modification of the building site approval man based on the expansion of the church parking lot. They noted that the City. Council had upheld the apneal of the church on this application. - 7 - ours Kor H T.. 0:1 To, oal:i Asa L 2 - E7 SITE r' - -,,,Aos Jy LAA Lo -VIC 1.LJ1 0 ILE_ VL . J.. - F� LLLE, -zJ I F IRST FLCXDF- ff" N Ile. i'.o' Ad 5:':.CONC) FLCXDfZ, PLAN e-'15GIA.FT. APOITI..j 1-3 fC 'all t t June 26, 1981 Mr. R.S. Robinson Jr. Planning Director f City of S axr a-ti o-g a 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,, Saratoga,.Ca. 95/1070 Re: UP -501 (Epoo *tein) ear Mr._.R•obinson, _ . _ .1r, •.�q This letter is in reference to your notice announcing the Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 30, for the purpose of granting a Use Permit to allow the construction of a second story addition to a one story structure at 20279 Pierce Rd. per Ord. NS -3.31 and Art.. 16. We, the residents of the immediate, Argonaut neighborhood, oppose the granting of this permit (UP -501, Epstein) on the basis that the structure would destroy the unique architechural harmony, aesthetic beauty, and value of our area. We respectfully request that you not grant the permit in keeping with the original concepts and purpose of the ordinance to protect the tangeable and intangeable enviornment of the area. Sincerely, NAME (Print) H%iP, 2 54�;5NIL ADDRESS 2-0XI cS Cre -WI C aUasy P, Eec e 12-v3 -Y 2 Pi ere C R14 /NID 7 n SIGNETICS CORPORATION e Ell EAST ARQUES AVENUE e SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA v 9408E S IGNA.TURE Page 2 NAME (Print) 420 e- 13 Za a-, —'J CL" V nsoy, ADDRESS SIGNATURE Z c7 12 0 --D1 t I E v ty 2- 1,( , J. 2 © 22-7 Pier-,��- PA -7 61 �� - /��/ -- s�r�' -% lac -Y` l �. � �jj � j,�,,� � �. �/�/ �a ���, � ,GPs c .v � � j � 7 5 � L � �� �� � 1,2 SIGNETICS CORPORATION m ell EAST ARGUES AVENUE v SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA ■ 940BS RECEI VI- wg1LILYAM HOILILEI, 20261 PIERCE ROAD / SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 408.867.7397 Daytime phone 736 -6740 June 29, 1981 Mr. R. S. Robinson, Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA Reference : Use Permit 501 - Epstein Dear Sir, I am the neighbor immediately east of the above applicant. I was advised that he planned a two story addition for the western half of his house. This is to advise that I would object to a two story house that covered the entire building. I would not have any serious objection if the addition was restricted to the western half of the house only. Please advise if anything further is required. Thank you. William Roller 20261 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 12750 Ione Court Saratoga, CA 95070 June 22, 1981 Mr. R.S.Robinson,Jr. Planning Director Saratoga Planning Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mr. Robinson, Thank you for notifying us of he proposed second - story addition at 20279 Pierce Road. When we bought our home on Ione Court, it was our under- standing that the building restrictions specified all one -story homes in the Argonaut area. It is our desire that the one -story home restriction continue enforced. Thank you very much. I Si ncp�rely, Claire Ostrowski Joh L. 0 trowski. RECEIVED JUIL 2 1 g�tsl P-U4 20, 1981 IRIL. R. S. Ro)jt"or2, gt. Ptann,b -4 Dt,, ecton Ci4 o.� Sara toga 13777 T&u E tuc Le Avenue Sa,u tog a, CA 95070 aea i llln. Robin4on,: Thy L4 to expte44 out app�rova,L o.� the p&opojed addit oa to -the home o-� 12onm Cp4teta oa Ptc-tce Woad. Oe con ji&- i. it as attAar -t Lue pt an, and thtn k, it u tit ceh to t:n, 4 enhance P Leh ce Road. We hone Vo u ura.GL app wve fflt. CpiteLa .4 jaettt .on.. Stacehe.4 cjou/u, Mt. & MA,6. �. W. Tavwur 20243 Ptetce Road Sanatoca ca 95070 BUFORD L. BISSELL, JR. 12790 IONE COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Mr. R. S. Robinson, Jr. Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Robinson: c June 26, 1981 We are residents of Ione Court, near the property that is the subject of the proposed Use Permit UP -501 (Epstein). Please refer to the enclosed map. As we are unable to attend your public hearing, we wish to express, through this letter, our strong opposition to the granting of the use permit. Since there are no two story homes in the Argonaut section, a second story addition would totally change the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In addition, the privacy of the neighbors adjacent to the property would be invaded by a second story addition. The Argonaut area was built as a planned and coordinated community of single story homes and we feel it should remain that way. Yours truly, X, n u 75 �J t ,5;;. Kai IV AA, xW ... .. �y;3k�y"�hit ��l+#?� +�5� ���Ni�v�d �7 °rd "' i!d k'�� w' '`}°is 6i � 5�m .�1 t�e3�i.,'�;�a�'��v +, ���y��44Y�; �+.� +�r5fi. •� � � .n ,i �'� Y t�rt�,� c Jr . ' ,a t ,}�' „t ” i �iµr i i ��r!��r ! �xr:� ��•,F ICS � {� S,�k�lrr �, t`�� °�tll..'f "1 r�,.' r \ I � gib,. �uA �//►j/��, q `1 , %�. { Ib ... t .q1 'r(hro,c t�"v /'�,&.. J,.afhr +iii. i .`'•� "A'y1i "`" ridkiyc9il� vy ; .:' :• - .:. �'• tY 3`' 11"�'�h �j'ij 11 � yY'@ �'�`V�4)y. l `�1 +{' �Y����fi � - �r IS tk . �>r��%� � Z r°i !a -.• !i � r t rYV F ! 1#�f e t S.t u�'�z_..�++..Yr�tr� �:(4�ri , nPi.�k x , qNf.' fi J;yl SS � . t ! 4 f ^y \ ri � ♦ r r ( :'. "V t, r i } }I ) d'-IC 2 �,ryt;' ,n ;7j",�� z hU�•. „"lF�rrr�"�it +`� °�r kJ+�yaf +Y'.i•1�f��''KV��v� •:Ma n�;4,f.bk,}i� �rdi�a���irt�,,r� jaws k,t`�1rr,�� �„N X�. }, �. :�1 r'i,.f�'” �� }:r °�k 47�`a4 +f �z "'�' � Ile (�'.f V >j�'h Iv�i ,+}'�tf•'�� ti `^,�,w�a(i l;Yi .,w�'Y'C�3y 1:'r . ' ..: -•., ,', : .: ,j `' ;: �_ _ j tv ; e, �_ ,� r <` � i R Te' i � h f �r�' 1 v'.. v t i v 4 i .- •r r Pi .` �i'!ci rr r 4 f ;r RECEIVED JJL.2 8 1981 `T � z ii:7.l�r ' • r y;.iNz9 t V -.. Th,�w��• Jl y .. �..� `r �• a 'V "4jr�,vl�t r `r `., 4i �ti ��'"" �`..ja t yr^ �4kk'h-!� 1 Aar x;yy� hf � 4',,7; w4+. L . �r } � -r .v-•o� t - �!. v d\ rp rK ti � f �1 �f -NED 1111 �y 20272 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 July 20, 1981 Mr. R. S. Robinson, Jr. Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Robinson: We urge you to approve the Epstein request to build an addition to their home at 20279 Pierce Road. We have carefully reviewed the architect's plans and feel that our home (located across the street from Epstein's and to the left) would not be adversely affected in any way by this addition. In fact, it should be a definite asset to the area. We appreciate the concerns and efforts of the Planning Commission to preserve the beauty and continuity of our community; we also feel that the Commission must be responsive to the needs of Saratoga residents. The Epstein's need more space for their growing family. They have provided well designed plans to enlarge their home. Please respond affirmatively to their request. Sincerely yours, Carmen K. Lawrence Leo C. Lawrence,II July 25, 1981 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Members of the Commission: I live approximately one block from the home of Norm and Joan Epstein, who live at 20279 Pierce Road, Saratoga. The Epsteins have applied for permission to remodel their home, including plans for a modified second story. I have examined the blueprints and drawings of these plans. I offer my support to the Epsteins in seeking approval of the plans. In my view, the plan shows balance, attractive- ness, and an appreciation of the neighbors' need for privacy. I feel the remodeled home would add, rather than detract, from the overall desirability and value of the neighborhood. Any change proposed by a homeowner should be evaluated on its own merits. It is my understanding that the Epsteins have been working with the Planning Department and making suggested alterations in the plan in a spirit of cooperation. I feel their attempt to upgrade their home in a quality and style befitting the neighborhood should be commended. Sincerely yours, Anne Cathcart Crosley ( :' 20152 Pierce Road Saratoga, California Mr. R.S. Robinson, Jr. Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Robinson, I have reviewed the plans for the proposed building addition to the residence at 20279 Pierce Road, and I withdraw my objection to the project. Sincerely, YKMl !/l la ma^•_ l% �N .,✓ ^�/ .i.3 -f �J—� �-C-�- tom...... �4it -f�.� � ��i,.�.. /C.�.�j.' c- �-c..v �..Y` l J 1 f � � 1 ' UL� FD Mr. R.S. Robinson, Jr. Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Robinson, T I have reviewed the plans for the proposed building addition to the residence at 20279 Pierce Road, and I withdraw my objection to the project. Elf) Sincerely, (2 01 e- '00-0, o2- D RECIE-11TE. Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. c/o Planning commission g Saratoga, California 05070 Dear Council Members: I. Michael and Gloria Tomars 12771 Tone Court Saratoga, Californ-J.a 95070 Ji:;ly 28, 1981 lie are in opposition to the addition to the residence of Mr. Epstein on Pierce -Road in Saratoea. Ile believe that if this is allowed to be built. it i.,Ti I l establish a -Precendent-. that will eventually destroy the beauty of our community. Yours truly, ...,:.:RECEIVED JUL,2 9 1981 III I II II! tll... h I lull. I..L_ 1. ! 1.!t °I _ y +1 f- I h',I LI ! L-:.:F ! iF:ll: Hh ri C _ _ i!I,F. �F'ILII !,!F hl rlI �'I!!,'F! f - _H !=1 r!!aA F L'Ht111 1IIt ';I![:F I li I t'1E I I: j r 7 F F:,! !,1 1 , v'I1Lh = - WJE:.t1!..I Sri HLT( F` 1.1 !i rv- �F.A e.Wt i3'r 1+.•+ 1'(�2L a��'�r�RtF`I! .t� llr Y °�.:S rC1Y � ( '«K .1`' V..L...'�`v � ��....r f le jb.Sl +` .r. .• -. 1r .i r<: -5 ,_. _.... ,. l f t 1 •' l� v i i.., � I ". b4 � j r �• 1. :. r 1 1 t+ v :L ! 1 ! ! ! I I I I I I 1 ! ; i-;1... 2 Li 2 P 1 E, t!•L.. h!!II..! wL..If:! IaIIIAI "I "'HE L tl .. I G1!ilI I 1 Ir.. _. _ ._(... T` E hl'II'T T!:_! F. E. I...II��I` FBI f:.:_,.i.: F' E° T I T T i i H (a F' F' E_ ! _! T f i E::: C:. !-:: ! :! h'd I+ .: F I :1:! T:! :L ..i.. 7: C! d r I' I L I''1 TITIO!I ! E:'= i_:T.t'a:!.!:!�!.:, ';L_II- 'h °'i::!I...L. !!h._ ..(H!�: +::!h°'h'!::i'';:f.!'!!:; ;-E.T.T..h.!!::!td,: I! (:! 1..1 y T 1.,41 Fi 11 T T I 7: ' ' i !:- ' :: ( °i t 111 .! 1 !-! F I I I _ T! ! t 1 ' r I. 1 =11'd I :. .... .... + :...:.. !; ! F I I ! I:! .,. F; d 1::.. . !_IF:IitIT!.II +_ !..�I _!:` !. Ir..._L.,.I .I:.I L:.I L'h:'.L:.!I.:'.!.11....1I1 h::!::!' i ..i.. T. I lil...., I,..!L.:L._ F." .!.:!I °I 1.1_:L T. I'.LI'!!:::I :: k:::!::;.ai'i:L1 `_;..1_!:1f'.'r' FI1.1!!a...1..:1:!;11'!''; Lli.n..11._I:! f.:!:: E F` F: i ! •C! E:: I! [? �' !; F F:I !.A ..�.1. I ..! -I° I...I 'I: F' L: h I ° I :!:1 W i_E1=:'T1=i:i:hdL. -'j' r, I!I °It.I..L' I:::IL'I.� �_!F.. ..h.1...1!:::: L'I!':!hr!E::';:: !: 1r11 ,!E:::!' +:I:!.I..1..E:L...'i' '1!_!I'! !:!!..i:i !:!i,.il!,:::: ..!..!:! E, E. != F. Ia ..1.. La ! , '1 ';' L.! III ! ..I_ L I 1 -:` E::: 'T F'I E: F' I -: I::_ L..:1: hd !:::1 !::! F' L._ I° I !::: '..: !_Fib!'_;EI! E!`j' F!tI'v'II-A A "I "I.-I:i "I "h''j'. hIi.1I'I!- Fi11.Ij::11: C::t.I..L. .T!..! f::!Li1; _ 1.1IF%'E,ELIL:Ir1__ ..I -HI_. hd! I!,(IC!..!I.li!.:!!.!1.! Ia!1!_!l...l.! la!•1!' L...l.�!..!I' li.. !..��..!!!.!_! 11�I..1..!i fll+:' I °!.il,,j, L.!!:ih'!F I. •..1:1 "! 1., L...I i taI::. F ..I l_!i.,ll 1..1..:it�.'..f::.: ;,'i:!!!• i!!Li i... - r• i:i r r . r;, : ° . .. ..I.. • �..I I I ! .!.:! .i i., :1 !.. I....:.! r._ c... F' ! `: < .L I. I.... I:::. ! i l'.'I I I —I t :. F. I' : i ! I..! h I !': l L... i::! !:::! h:: I l .i.. l ! ...... i I:::I .L.....:. I I ..:I I SLESNICK hECEj vt 20254 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 City of Saratoga's Planning Commission 12777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California August 14, 1981 Re: A 783 (Epstein) "GRANT DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL for a second -story addition to a single- story.dwelling" Dear members of the Commission: My wife.and I would like to make it clear that our opinion is in no way influenced by the persons involved, but rather by the issue involved. We have lived in our present house at 20254 Pierce Road essentially the entire period we have lived in California, i e for 17 years. The basic beauty of our area is sustained by the individual uniqueness of each home,coupled with a certain harmony of appearance sustained by a conformity of single level home designs. In the rare instance in our neighborhood when it became necessary to add living space, it has been done inconspicuously by adding to the rear of the home. Had it not been for the recent construction of a pool at the rear of the Epstein's lot such an addition could have been possible for them. This pool was built after the arrival of the twin girls and Airs. Epstein's mother. Therefore we see no justification for altering the harmonious esthetic nature of the immediate neighborhood by altering this one first residence to a frontal two level type house. We Slesnicks, residing at 20254 Pierce Road, do not approve of the conspicuous alteration to a house in our neighborhood. Thank you for allowing us to express our opinion. Very trulyi yours, Harry J. Slesnick, D.L. . i - .RECEIVED AL.IS 2 1 1981 BUFORD LYLE BISSELL, JR. •+ i tt „ r ,y r 12790 IONS COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 August 19, 1981 Planning Commission , ` I tCity of Saratoga Y 13777 `Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California f ,'Dear Planning'Commissioners: ;. Approximately two months ago we wrote a letter 3 a �r-to Mr. R. ,S. •Robinson, Jr., Planning Director, in ` r ,opposition to a second story addition in our neighborhood r A -783, Epstein ) After attending a public hearing at the Saratoga Planning Department, regarding the proposed addition, we feel it is necessary to reiterate our opposition on 'the following grounds: 1 The Argonaut area was planned, designed, approved and built to be a neighborhood of single story homes. We have been residents of Argonaut for twenty g y years. Until now, no one has attempted to change the single story design of the neighborhood. We thought that the request for a �,.....,­..,...,,Second story additio'�would be automatically rejected by the Planning Directs# We feel that an approval of a second story addition will drastically change the Argonaut '....area and set a precedent that can only lead to the further deterioration of a planned area that has existed for over twenty -five years. 2. We are opposed to the invasion of privacy that a second story addition will mean to the-neighbors on the three sides of the property in question. While our home is not immediately adjacent to Mr. Epstein's, the approval of his variance will start a new precedent that will mean a loss of privacy throughout the Argonaut area. Yours truly, J� r A ! I rte`� /! 2F OWED OCT 11981: 12790 Ione Court Saratoga, CA 95070 September 30, 1981 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA Dear City Council Members: RE: Notice of Hearing October 7th, 1981 - Epstein Approximately three months ago we wrote a letter to Mr. R.S. Robinson, Jr., Planning Director, in opposition to a second story addition in our neighborhood (A -783, Epstein), appeal of design per ordinance NS -3.47. After attending a public hearing at the Saratoga Planning Department, regarding the proposed addition, we feel it is nec- cessary to reiterate our opposition on the following grounds: 1. The Argonaut area was planned, designed, approved and built to be a neighborhood of single story homes. We have been residents of Argonaut for twenty years. Until now, no one has attempted to change the single story design of the neigh- borhood. We thought that the request for a second story addition would be automatically rejected by the Planning Commission. We feel that an approval of a second story addition will drastically change the Argonaut area and set a precedent that can only lead to the further deterioration of a planned area that has existed for over twenty -five years. 2. We are opposed to the invasion of privacy that a second story addition will mean to the neighbors on the three sides of the property in question. While our home is not immediately adjacent to Mr. Epstein's, the approval of his variance will start a new precedent that will mean a loss of privacy throughout the Argonaut area. Yours truly, S c? 3 01981 WILLIAM ROLLER 20261 PIERCE ROAD/SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 408.867.7397 September 29, 1981 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: hearing October 7, 1981 on Yappeal of design review denial, etc 20279 Pierce Road. appellant, Norman N. Epstein To whom it may concern: Due to prior commitment I will be unable to attend the above hearing, and wish to have my feelings known. I am the immediate East neighboring home of the above dwelling, I have seen and reviewed the plans submitted and wish to state that I have absolutely no objection at all to the addition that is being planned. I would also like to observe that in a terrible real estate market such as exists today and, in addition, with money rates what they are, it seems totally inequitable not to allow someone to utilize fully the potential of a home that he presently occupies. I would assume the construction would comply withthe plans, in which case the addition, aesthetically, would probably improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. Please re d my being in favor of allowing the addition to go in. r Willi m Roller 20261 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 SLESNICK 20254 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 September 28, 1981 Saratoga City Council City Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 S EP 2 91981 Re: Appeal of design review denial for second -story addition to a single -story dwelling at 20279 Pierce Road per Ordinance NS- 3.47 (Applicant /appellant, Norman N. Epstein Dear Members of the Council: My husband and I are opposed to the Epstein request to build a second -story addition to their single -story house. Our street, and area, is one of twenty -five year old single -story homes. In our opinion a two -story house would look out of place because of it's size, would impair the view and would infringe on the privacy of the immediate neighbors. If you would drive through the Argonaut tract and specifically Pierce Road I think you would agree. Thank you for the chance to express our opinion. Very truly yours, Melicent Slesnick Harry J. S snick 20254 Pierce Road � Saratoga, Ca. P.S. But for the fact that Wednesday Oct. 7 is Yom Kippur, the holiest of Jewish holidays, we would assuredly attend this meeting. Ira ,-� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ;t (408) 867 -3438 NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set the hour of 8: 00 p.m., on Wednesday , the 7th day of October 1981, in the City Council Chambers, at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: Appeal of design review denial for second -story addition to a single - story dwelling at 20279 Pierce Road per Ordinance NS -3.47 (Applicant/ appellant, Norman N. Epstein) A copy of which appeal is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS may appear and be heard at said time and place. Written communications should be filed on or before October 1, 1981 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk a f QT O O&M�ly(OS& WW NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set the hour of 8: 00 p.m., on Wednesday , the 7th day of October 1981, in the City Council Chambers, at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: Appeal of design review denial for second -story addition to a single - story dwelling at 20279 Pierce Road per Ordinance NS -3.47 (Applicant/ appellant, Norman N. Epstein) A copy of which appeal is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS may appear and be heard at said time and place. Written communications should be filed on or before October 1, 1981 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk a Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. c/o Planning Commission Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Council Members: SEP 2 91981 .e 7bRy„` Sept. 28, 1981 We oppose the addition to the Epstein home on Pierce Road in Saratoga, It seems at the last hearing, there was a strong oppo- sition to this passing. Yours truly, :Michael and Gloria Tomars 12771 Ione Court Saratoga Phone message received 10/1/81: Dear Counci] members: As neighbors of the Epsteins located directly across the street my wife and I wish to express our support in favor of the appeal of the design review denial for a second story addition to their present single -story dwelling. We support the conversion in that the plans which we have reviewed have been prepared in keeping with the new City ordinance covering such matters in that the impact on the neighborhood has been held to a minimum and in that the plan has been prepared so as to provide an attractive addition. Having myself served for five years on a city planning commission in the Cincinnati area, I can understand the pressure the Commission was under by the people attending the Planning Ccnndssion meeting where this addition was denied. It distressed us to find that so many of the neighbors did not live close or adjacent to the Epstein, but actually some distance away. Mr., and Mrs. Dempsey are the only people opposing the addition who are directly affected, and she considers that her privacy may be invaded. I have looked carefully and no view of the hillsides will be impaired by teh addition of five feet in height, only the obscuring of an ugly telephone pole with transformer and wires. We feel the new City ordinance permits such additions under controlled conditions, and that the Epstein have met the conditions. We urge the City Council to act in favor of the appeal request. Respectfully, Leo and Carmen Lawrence 20272 Pierce Road Saratoga StP 2 9 1981 LGUGr,(11 ��u� -rP.tQ • ��'% 'L^ �� vlom ojfelt� D J n � ca, �C.c.cw AAN- fwAv I,ro�w� • lie A�-� -� �.e � rvRJ- NA" -itt-k< " u� Atz 41� 0 Ace" j 1 Z �j � 3 0 � 3 i i �J o 0- qlkll�vov\ Ct4 :AW D &Ct Yea kMtke_ K"p4xy ol o ��at.►�ucP �.Q.u�erQ . m ' 3L a +' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 November 9, 1981 Mr. and Mrs. Norman Epstein 20279 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Epstein: This is to inform you that the City Council considered your appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a second -story addition to a single -story dwelling at 20279 Pierce Road. After conducting public hearings on October 7, 1981 and November 4, 1981, the City Council moved to deny your appeal, based on the fact that the proposal does not meet the criteria of the Design Review Ordinance NS -3.47. If you have any questions regarding the action of the City Council, please.feel free to conta -ct the Department of Communi- ty Development at 867 -3438. S-' c :ayneD�r 1 y, W etz City Manager JWD /RSS:cd