The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-09-1997 CITY COUNCIL staff reportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: MEETING DATE: July 9, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: 6A ORIGINATING DEPAR MENT: munity Development CITY MANAGER: ' DEPARTMENT HEAD: SUBJECT: DR -97 -008; Metzler, 12181 Mellowood Drive Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,071 sq. ft. one and two -story addition to an existing 1,830 sq. ft. single story home. The parcel is 9,750 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. City Code Section 2- 05.030(d) allows any two Councilmembers to "call -up" Planning Commission actions for Council review. At the June 10th adjourned meeting, two members of the City Council requested to have this item placed on the Council's July 9th public hearing agenda. This review is the same as an appeal hearing of a Planning Commission item. Recommended Motion Uphold the Planning Commission's determination that all of the necessary Design Review findings could be made, including the architectural compatibility finding, to approve the second story addition. Proiect Background The Planning Commission first heard this application at their April 9th public hearing. The original plans were for a contemporary two -story home that both staff and the Planning Commission found was well designed - but not compatible with this particularly homogeneous 1950's -era neighborhood. The Commission continued the item and directed the applicants to submit revised plans for a more traditional second story addition in keeping with the surrounding "California- ranch" style homes. The applicants submitted their revised plans for consideration at the May 28th meeting. These plans maintained the basic floor plan of the previous design, but replaced the contemporary/ industrial architectural elements with a more conventional exterior treatment, including a gable end roof and dormer windows on each of the upper front and rear elevations. In addition, though not requested by staff or the Commission, the building materials were changed from natural redwood siding and stucco exterior with metal and pewter details to an entirely stucco exterior with composition roofing. Metzler, 12181 Mellowood Drive Page Two The Planning Commission unanimously approved Commissioners noted at both meetings that architectural style of the first plans that were surrounding homes. Staff and the Planning Commi; two -story home in itself would not necessarily be as it was properly designed. the revised plans. it was the chosen incompatible with the 3sion both felt that a incompatible, so long Staff reports and minutes from both meetings are attached for reference. Public Notice A public notice was mailed to surrounding home owners within 500 ft. of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. Fiscal Impacts None. Follow -up Actions Staff will prepare a Resolution reflecting the City Council's action for the next available Council meeting. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion If the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's approval, the applicants would not be permitted to build the second story addition to their home as proposed. Attachments: 1. Design Review Approval Resolution #97 -008 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 9 and May 28, 1997 3. Staff Reports dated April 9 and May 28, 1997 4. Correspondence 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" james \memo.cc \metzler RESOLUTION NO. DR -97 -008 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA METZLER; 12181 Mellowood Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 1,082 square foot,two story addition to an existing 1,830 square foot residence at a maximum height of 22 feet, 4 inches; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS; the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreason- able interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed addition meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed and undeveloped areas, in that the addition requires no ordinance protected trees to be removed and the amount of grading is limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure's foundation. -The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding area, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements which minimize the perception of bulk and is similar in scale, style and size to other homes in the neighborhood. -The proposed residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the height and design of the addition is compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood and the residence is setback in compliance with the minimum required setbacks. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -The proposed addition will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, DR -97 -008, the application of Metzler for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporat- ing this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. The site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: • Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing around all ordinance protected trees shown with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. • Trenching for utilities shall be shown on the site plan and located, as much as possible, outside of the driplines of all trees which will be preserved during construction. • A revised site plan showing a row of evergreen screen trees along the rear property line. • A floor area schematic diagram included in the final plan set to verify floor area amounts. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall move the boat on the property to comply with the storage requirements of City Code Section 15- 12.160. 4. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading permits all of the protection measures shall be completed, which includes but is not limited to the following: • Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. Fencing shall consist of chain link material with a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on 2 inch galvanized pipe driven 2 feet into the ground. 5. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain- ing a Tree Removal Permit. 8. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic- es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 28th day of May, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None 12kzL C_ O Chair, P a ning Commission � ATTEST: 1(h �A f In RA/I ec etary, Uanning Commission Staff Reports REPORT TO THE- PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR -07 -008, 12181 Mellowood Drive Applicant/ Owner: Metzler Staff Planner: George White, Associate Planner Date: April 9,1997 APN: 386-08-035 Director Approval: I I ly ��J W 12181 MELLOWOOD DRIVE File No. DR -97 -008; 12181 Mellowood Drive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1/21/97 Application complete: 3/14/97 Notice published: 3/26/97 Mailing completed: 3/27/97 Posting completed: 3/20/97 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A request for Design Review approval to construct a new 1,071 square foot first and second story addition to an existing 1,830 square foot, one story, single family residence on a 9,750 square foot parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the request for Design Review approval by adopting Resolution DR -97 -008. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -97 -008 3. Correspondence 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. DR -97 -008; 12181 Mellowood Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Medium Density (M -10) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 9,750 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: none Max Depth: n/a Fill: none Max Depth: n/a MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Natural redwood and beige stucco exterior, metal trim and pre- weathered grey quartz zinc roofing. LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT• SIZE OF STRUCTURE: PROPOSAL 46% 23.75 ft. First Floor: 2,293 sq. ft. Second Floor: 608 sq. ft. TOTAL: 2,901 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 25.ft. Rear: 46 ft. Right Side: 7.5 ft. Left Side: 7.5 ft. .. PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review CODE REOUIREMENT ALLOWANCE 600 26 ft. 2,912 sq. ft. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 35 ft. Right Side: 7.5 ft. Left Side: 7.5 ft. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,071 square foot addition to a existing 1,830 square foot, single story residence at a maximum height of 23.75 feet above natural grade. The design of the proposed residence incorporates modern architec- tural elements and building m:;terials including a slanted, semicircular upper story with weathered metal roof. Compatibility Finding In pre - application meetings and early in the planning process the applicants and their designer were advised that the compatibility of the proposed second story addition to the existing neighborhood may be of critical importance. File No. DR -97 -008; 12181 Mellowood Drive This concern was confirmed after staff visited the project site. The neighborhood in which the project site is located dates from the 1950's and consists almost entirely of one story, single family homes of similar height and building style. Three second story additions exist in the immediate area with the closest being roughly nine or ten parcels to the south of the subject site on Mellowood Drive. Two other two story homes exist on Woodside Drive to the east and behind the project site. The absence of historical planning files on these properties indicate that these additions predate the City's current Design Review process. The homogeneous character of the neighborhood makes it extremely difficult to support the application as presented, particularly in making the required Design Review finding that the project is "compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood" [Section 15.45.080(d)(i)]. The proposal, at almost 24 feet in height, would be in marked contrast to the predominance of 14 to 16 foot tall residences in this area. Staff has discussed the possibility of redesigning the project to better comply with the Design Review findings. The applicants, however, have indicated that this is not a desirable option. Staff, therefore, recommends denying the project "without prejudice" - this would allow the applicants to resubmit a revised proposal without having to the otherwise required one -year. Correspondence: Attached are two letters opposed to the proposed architectural style. Th e property also notes concer windows looking onto their RECOMMENDATION received from nearby residents who are second story addition and the chosen neighbor directly behind the subject ns regarding the impact of second story rear yard. Deny the Design Review request by adopting the attached Resolution DR -97 -008. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070.o (408) 868 -1200 MEMORANDUM May 28, 1997 Planning Commission George White, Associate Plann cr;'� DR -97 -008, Metzler, 12181 Mellowood COUNCIL 1iEIIBERS Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe At the April 9 regular meeting, the Planning Commission continued this item and directed the applicant to submit revised plans for the proposed second story addition. At that time, the Commission expressed concern that the original contemporary design, while distinctive, was not compatible with the surrounding, established neighborhood. The minutes from the meeting are attached for reference. Since the ..continuance, the applicant has submitted two sets of revised plans. The first set still did not provide the needed articulation between the first and second floor and, as a result, staff request further revisions. The latest set of plans (attached, Exhibit "A") maintains the basic floor plan of the previous design yet exhibits a more conventional exterior treatment including a gable end roof and dormer windows on each of the upper front and rear elevations. In addition, though not requested by staff or the Commission, the building materials have been changed to stucco and composite roofing to better complement the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that the applicant has complied with the stated wishes of the Planning Commission in designing a more compatible second story addition. The redesigned addition is within all applicable setback, height, floor area and coverage standards. As a result, staff believes that all of the required Design Review findings can be made to support the project. To mitigate the privacy concerns of the rear neighbor, staff has included a condition in the attached Resolution of approval requiring a screen of trees along the rear property line. Printed on recycled paper. r Recommendation: Approve the revised plan and the Design Review request by adopting Resolution DR -97 -008. R tfully submitted, � eorg hite Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Resolution DR -97 -008. 2. Planning Commission minute dated 4/9/97. 3. Revised plans Exhibit "A ". Planning Commission Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 9, 1997 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Murakami asked if this design was similar to the three other designs proposed in the subdivision? He stated that the design lacked originality and that it was disappointing to see the same design repeated again. Mr. Bommarito responded that the subdivision proposes two street scapes; one of a stucco-look and the other uses stone and wood. He said that the base floor plans of the homes are similar. Commissioner Bernald stated that the Commission approved the previous design because it was a change in design from what was seen before. Commissioner Pierce said that the Commission liked the use of the design once but that it would not like to see it as a recurring design. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried said that the home was nicely designed, it meets all the design requirements and that it would fit in with the development. Commissioner Pierce said that he did not have a problem with a couple of homes looking alike. Commissioner Patrick stated that she appreciated that the home was not designed to use stucco. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIEDBERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96- 069. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. DR -97 -008 - METZLER; 12181 MELLOWOOD DR.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,071 square foot, one and two story addition to an existing one story home on a 9,750 square foot lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The site is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that staff could not make the necessary findings in terms of architectural compatibility, building mass and style, and privacy protection to approve the application. Staff recommended denial of the request. He informed the Commission that two letters attached to the report were received from area neighbors. One letter was anonymous. The other letter was signed by the neighbor locate directly to the back of the property who has stated the same concern as identified by staff and also expressed concern that the second story master bedroom windows would be an impact on the use, the enjoyment and privacy of their backyard area. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 9, 1997 PAGE - 6 - John Metzler, applicant, informed the Commission that the size of the original home was about the same size of that of a mobile home and that he wanted to add living area for three individuals. He said that the addition was sited to the rear so that it is hidden by the trees in the neighborhood. He did not believe that you could see the metal roof from the street. He said that the design is that of a California bay style home and that it is not a Spanish or Tudor style home. He requested that the wall arrangement be retained. He said that he would agree to use different exterior material. He said that the master bedroom is being isolated as much as possible to alleviate his wife's allergy problem. He would agree to opaque the second story windows or raise the height of the windows to address the neighbor's concerns. He said that the report states that there are not many two story homes in the neighborhood and no history of upgrades. He said that he could furnish a packet of information that has a history upgrades that have occurred in the neighborhood. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that Mr. Metzler has indicated that he would be willing to redesign the addition. She asked if Mr. Metzler would like to have this item continued to allow him the opportunity to redesign? Mr. Metzler said that he would like to hear the Commission's comments. Leonard Siemek, 12191 Mellowood, stated his opposition to any second story addition in the neighborhood. He said that the existing homes were built for privacy. He said that there are eleven homes that have increased in size (800 to 900 square foot additions), none of which have destroyed the structure of the neighborhood nor required second story additions. He opposed taking away privacy, light or sun from one individual to give to another individual. Amy Chang, 12171 Mellowood, representing her parents, expressed concern with privacy, obstruction of natural sunlight, and concern with the duration of construction. She suggested that the Metzlers use their rear yard to construct an addition. Mr. Metzler informed the Commission that the CC&Rs state that the height of the home is not to exceed two and a half stories. He did not believe that he would be shadowing the neighbor's property. He said that he understood the concern of neighbors relating to the privacy associated with the use of their hot tub /swimming pool. However, he said that this concern was not an active concern as the hot tub and swimming poor are not being used. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. Commissioner Abshire said that he understood the neighbors' concern with the maintenance of single story homes in the neighborhood. He said that two story additions were ones that need to be considered as they will be one thing that the City will be seeing more of. In this case, he felt that the design proposed was different from that of the neighborhood. He did not believe that the design would fit in with that of the neighborhood. Therefore, he could not support the design of the second story addition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 9, 1997 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Patrick said that the second story addition is located in the middle and felt that shadows are already shed. She did agree that privacy may be an issue but that a second story addition would not contribute to the privacy issue. She said that she was not opposed to the second story. However, the windows to the rear may need to be reconfigured. She liked the design but that she could not make the finding that the design would be compatible with that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Pierce said that this is a nice neighborhood with a lot of character. He said that he would have a real concern about approving two story homes without benefit of a neighborhood meeting to see if the neighbors would support second story additions. He did not like the design because it does not fit in with the neighborhood and therefore could not support it. Commissioner Siegfried said that he did not like the proposed design in this neighborhood as it does not fit in. He said that he was not necessarily opposed to a two-story home if it is carefully designed to fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Bernald agreed that the design was an exciting one that would fit elsewhere in the community but that it was not an appropriate one for the neighborhood. She felt that the second story windows would need to be addressed. Commissioner Murakami felt that the design was an original one but did not believe that it fit in with the neighborhood and that it would be more suitable in a rural setting. He said that he could not support the design of the second story addition. Chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She said that she liked the design of the second story addition and but that she would like to see it located elsewhere in the community. ' COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Metzler asked the Commission would approve a second story addition if he agreed to redesign? Commissioner Siegfried said that in order for him to approve a second story addition, it would need to be designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami said that he was not opposed to a two-story addition. He said that the design of the second story would have to be well done as the lot is large enough to accommodate a single story expansion. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 14 WITH REVISED PLANS DUE TO PLANNING STAFF FRIDAY, MAY 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 28, 1997 PAGE - 3 - Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 23, 1997. Technical Corrections to Packet Interim Planning Director Walgren noted one correction to the packet. The correction is to Public Hearing agenda item 3, page 4, the Design Review section. He said that this section correctly describes the colors and material to be used for the home. A-Z rum PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -96 -002 & UP -96 -001 - DAOU /CWITAF CORP., CHIQUITA COURT; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 26 acre hillside parcel into five individual lots ranging in size from 1.1 to 3.2 net acres. Approximately 15 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed to access off Comer Dr. Lots. 2 - 5 would be accessed via an extension of Chiquita Ct. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. from 5/14/97 to prepare and adopt denial Resolutions; City review deadline is 1/6/98). COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /KAPLAN MOVED TO REMOVE ITEM ONE FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR. Commissioner Kaplan referred to page 3, second bullet, and recommended that the word "eveidebly" be replaced with the word " is d" COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION AS AMENDED. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 2. DR -97 -008 - METZLER, 12181 MELLOWOOD DR.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,082 sq. ft., one and two -story addition to an existing 1,830 sq. ft. one story home on a 9,750 sq. ft. lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the city Code. The site is located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/14/97 for applicants to complete revisions; City review deadline is 9/14/97).' Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that a letter was submitted this evening from a resident across the street opposed to the addition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 28, 1997 PAGE - 4 - Chairwoman Patrick asked what siding material would be used? Interim Planning Director Walgren informed the Commission that the siding would be of a stucco painted finish. Chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Leonard Siemer, 12191 Mellowood Drive, spoke on behalf of area residents including Ms. Chang and stated the area residents' opposition to the request. He said that Ms. Chang felt that the second story addition would take away sun light and that it would eliminate her privacy. He said that his family room would reduce sun light by approximately 25 %. He said that it was the neighbors' belief that the design was denied. He informed the Commission that a petition would be circulated should the Planning Commission approve the request. He felt that the size of the lot would accommodate a 2,000 -foot addition without destroying elevations. He said that at least 75 % of the Mellowood Drive residents oppose the request. John Metzler, applicant, stated that he did not believe that this addition would take away sunlight from Mr. Siemer's home. He requested that he be allowed to install either stained glass windows or trees to the rear of the property to address the privacy concern. Stan Field, project architect, stated that he felt that the addition was compatible to that of the neighborhood and that it would not stand out. He informed the Commission that the existing wood siding is to be removed and replaced with stucco. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan asked who required the installation of the rear row of trees? She stated that the Commission does not recommend the use of plantings for architectural relief. She asked if there was anything wrong with the design that needs to be fixed? Interim Planning Director Walgren responded that there is a gap from the rear property line and the second story addition and that there was a concern with privacy impact. He said that an alternative to planting a row of trees would be to install stained or tinted glass windows. Commissioner Kaplan stated her support of retaining the row of rear trees to minimize the privacy impact: Commissioners Murakami commended the applicant on the design as it was an improvement to the original design submitted. He said that he understood the apprehensions of the neighbors with the construction of a second story addition but felt that it was a reasonably designed addition. He noted that the applicant has met all legal code requirements with the design of the addition. Commissioner Bernald stated her concurrence with Commissioner Murakami's comments. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 28, 1997 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that the height of the home is proposed at 22.5 feet and that the addition is centered. Therefore, he did not believe that the two story home would have a significant impact to the neighborhood. Commissioner Pierce concurred with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. He felt that the design is contemporary and that it would fit in with the neighborhood. He also felt that tastefully designed second story additions are reasonable requests. Chairwoman Patrick concurred with the comments as expressed and felt that this was the least obtrusive second story addition she has seen and that she did not believe that the second story addition would shed a shadow. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -97 -008 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT A LANDSCAPE PLAN BE SUBMITTED FOR STAFF REVIEW. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 3. DR -97 -011 - CHAPMAN, 20238 HILL AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,059 sq. ft. two -story structure and a request for an exception from the floor area reduction requirement for structures in excess of eighteen feet in height on a 43,691 square foot parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in a R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that there are a number of two story homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff believes that the findings to support the approval of the floor area reduction exception can be made. Commissioner Murakami inquired as to the square footage of the basement? Interim Planning Director Walgren responded that the basement is proposed at 1,300 square feet. Chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Walter Chapman, project designer, addressed the concern of the trees. He informed the Commission that the City arborist has not had the opportunity to review the latest drainage plan. He provided the Commission with a tree list. He indicated that the drainage lines and sewer laterals are to be shifted and that they would not impact the trees' root systems. The roadway realignment would also mitigate any impact to tree root systems. The drainage swale would be eliminated and be replaced by a solid wall to protect the trees. He said that four trees would be removed for aesthetic reasons and that three trees would be removed to allow construction of the home. It was his believe that once the City arbbrist reviews the revised plans, it will be determined that the trees would not be impacted. The swimming pool is proposed to be relocated to retain three trees. He indicated that a circular driveway is proposed at a 14 foot width with a center walkway to the front door. He informed the Commission that some previous material would be used in the front driveway and in the rear parking area. Correspondence June 17. 1997 City of Saratoga Plannino Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Mr. James Walgren Interim Planning Manager Re: DR -97 -008 Metzler 12181 Mellowood Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Walgren: Please find attached: RECEIVED `JUN 2 01997 PLANNING DEPT. • Documentation of most recent second story additions from Ms. Finnigan, Mr. Granger, and Mr. Neuhaus supporting their second story addition to their homes on Woodside Dr. and their support to my families project. • Letter from my healthcare provider. • Map showing second story homes in close proximity of my residence. Please forward copies, as appropriate, for the upcoming Council Review of Planning Commission Approval of a second story addition being held on Wednesday, July 2, 1997, at City Council Chambers. Regards, Ellen M. Metzler attachments ia,�c►Nolcd Ow0►� �alole rr,�a�ts • w;�l ►oe Apr -OB -97 02:08P Allergy Dermatology 408 773 9401 P_02 April 5, 1997 RE: Metzler, Ellen MR#: 395615 To Whom It May Concern: I have following Ms. Ellen Metzler for many years for several respiratory allergies. She has marked allergies to pollens,-molds and dust. A new constructed area would certainly be better in an attempt to minimize her allergies and a second story would likely have added an additive benefit as well. Please contact me for any questions or concerns in this matter. Sincerely, Steven Ru instein, M.D. Department of Immunology /Allergy SR:ST /jlv STJ47LT ( #07832) 04/08/97 15:11 TX /RX N0.1224 P.002 43 At ioug W33b9 12249 r` O' Odd 1 'J E • r GAS 1 3 8 1 008 8 1 ON 12 1 t� 0 N N 308, Cx cc C 1224 ~� D Q 12181 Q our �( O house J � --� 612199}— S 121624 12147(-.) � � 2109 faces Prospect Rd. W 1D sn1I1 � U 0 'b 0 b31S: i-- o 2 Nl 4d;71-- 1� `• b3111w 12291 12279 n 12257 m 41 • 12235 Nl--/ f � YONII3W C 7� r ° z � —J - 'ad �Ia Date: 6/23/97 To: Saratoga City Council Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk Mc.d c�25/17 On 6/21, I received notice of a proposed 1,082 square foot addition to the following property: DR -97 -008 (APN 386 -08 -035) - METZLER; 12181 Mellowood Dr. I live in the Brookview neighborhood within 500 feet of the proposed. After reviewing the notice and build plans, I would like to object to the proposal on two grounds: [ 1 ] Brookview is a homogenous neighborhood with most homes being single story ranging between 1500 square feet to 1750 square feet. Two story additions block neighbor views and in my opinion to do fit in with the ranch style homes which were built nearly 40 years ago. [2] After reviewing the build plans, I feel the design is a departure in both square footage and architectural style. I encourage you to disapprove of the two story addition on 12181 Mellowood Drive based on impact to neighbor views as well as architectural presence. Thank you. Sincerely, Adria &Donna Amelse RECEIVED ,JUN 17 1997 PLANNING DEPT' Dear Mr. Walgren, Mr. James Walgren Interim Planning Manager City of Saratoga Planning Commission 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 June 14, 1997 This is to inform you that we support the remodel of the Metzler home at 12181 Mellowood Drive, Saratoga, DR -97 -008. We do not take issue with the second story addition and are very impressed with the Metzler's efforts to work with their neighbors on all sides. They have reduced the number of windows on the second story, selected different windows for the second story and added trees along the fence line in order to protect the privacy of all involved. Sincerely, Anne and Hans Muller 12160 Mellowood Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 c.c. John and Ellen Metzler June 23, 1997 Dear Mr. Walgren, 9F, (, EIVEED JUN 2 41997 PLANNING DEPT We are homeowners residing at 12250 Mellowood Drive, Saratoga and understand that the plans for the Metzler's addition at 12181 Mellowood are again under review. We fully support their plans for the second story and welcome such changes to our neighborhood. These additions /remodels serve to enhance our street by creating a diverse and eclectic look to an otherwise boring street of tract homes. They also raise the property values of the neighborhood. Since the Metzlers have followed all the guidelines and steps set forth by the planning commission , we are concerned about the setbacks experienced by the Metzlers and hope all details will be resolved shortly. Sincerely, Jose and Jar t Nunez 12250 Mellowood Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Council Members: Mayor Gillian Moran R E C E I V E D Vice Mayor Donald Wolfe Stan Bogosian JUN 2 31997 Paul Jacobs PLANNING DEPT. Jim Shaw Dear Council Members, The enclosed letters signed by the owners of homes on Mellowood support the addition of the second story by the Metzlers at 12181 Mellowood. I would like to point out that some of those that have signed the enclosed letters have also individually sent you a letter, but they felt in signing this letter it indicated a united agreement. All signatures are of Mellowood Homeowners. No attempt was made to obtain signatures where the house is rented. At some of the homes I did not find anyone at home after several tries, so I do not know their feelings. Only one person asked refused to sign the letter. On the enclosed map I have blanked out the Metzlers property. Those in green have signed the enclosed letters. Present 2 story houses in Brookview are shown in red. pectfully submiittte"d, arvin Becker June 21, 1997 To the City Council of Saratoga, CA ref. DR -97 -008 (APN) 386 -08 -035) We the undersigned homeowner's that live on Mellowood Drive in Saratoga would like to express our viewpoint concerning the addition of a second story by John and Ellen Metzler residing at 12181 Mellowood Drive. We have no objection to their planned addition. Presently there is only one house on Mellowood that has a second story. Esthetically it would look better to have more than one. When there is only one it sort of stick; out like a sore thumb. Further more,we feel their planned addition is very conservative. Others on the street have wanted to add a second story, but did not like the hassle. which caused one family sell their home and move. However, there are some that would like to stay in the area and add a second story, thereby saving their backyard for an area where their children can play. As part of our Neighborhood Watch Program,we are trying to get neighbors to be good friends and to have them watch out for each other. The Metzlers are good friends with many residents on the block. So we, the undersigned, ask that you reject the requests that have been made to deny the Metzler's second story addition. 1` —al SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS DATE 3 { i 4 6 7 u �1 12 V' i(,1 ,Q 13 14 !. /4.e L /Z A.L o « "V F2; �i 1� ,'14e� i9 - d t'1 ! /2� "" `� � _ l � C..� /�lJ i /i i� / r2 i J !� � �L i L G' :(_i00 ` `� ✓'� � / �-� // No 15 •�f��ic - ,U.�:F�,c: �.�I`tC�'.�' V _; /1± !/,%7iC � j c�.,i� - -_ ' /�'�'� ^� i /) .i- ry;!��7v� j` � i 17 Ino 114 P '.I i'� I/� r� _ � CI � � "'.(> U,/ L �� ,.Y I � � L ! � v �C�V✓ `� -�JO� �� . l /J ' r • No 15 •�f��ic - ,U.�:F�,c: �.�I`tC�'.�' V _; /1± !/,%7iC � j c�.,i� - -_ ' /�'�'� ^� i /) .i- ry;!��7v� j` � i Ii. To the City Council of Saratoga, CA ref. DR -97 -008 (APN) 386 -08 -035) We the undersigned homeowner's that live on Mellowood Drive in Saratoga would like to express our viewpoint concerning the addition of a second story by John and Ellen Metzler residing at 12181 Mellowood Drive. We have no objection to their planned addition. Presently there is only one house on Mellowood that has a second story. Esthetically it would look better to have more than one. When there is only one it sort of sticks out like a sore thumb. Further more we feel their planned addition is very conservative. Others on the street have wanted to add a second story, but did not like the hassle. which caused one family to sell their home and move. However there are some that would like to stay in the area and add a second story, thereby saving their backyard for an area where their children can play. As part of our Neighborhood Watch Program we are trying to get neighbors to be good friends and to have them watch out for each other. The Metzlers are good friends with many residents on the block. So we, the undersigned, ask that you reject the requests that have been made to deny the Metzler's second story addition. 2 3 4 5 6 SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 -, I f1 'Roro�e '14", ? ! m t� S� OU ia. NEB 7 5 L� , DATE T- f3uPL --f '/CL d S- O PROSPEC OAD In � r T O O O O r r O O O A2O/ T N N O N 1 2226 2173 N 2 121 012109 12041 N N 12091 147 1214 2121 1224 221 2123 r r _ '- N 12151 1215 2131 1213 HP2100 12088 12115 1214 2137 N C\j 12210 12163 1216 2141 cj w 12110 727 N 12131 Z 12130 223 � N 1215 2151 12132 3g Note 6 � 12175 1217 2151 12220 2165 0 � r w 12140 12187 12186 12161 W 1216 w 12154 '� �L r N N o= Q 1215 199 12198 12171 > 0 12170 12179 � Y 12176 N N r } > 12211 0 12210 12180 12193 0 12160 't r N r T N T cr z 12223 p 12222 12191 O � 12190 2207 m 12170 2198 12171 Note A 12235 12234 12201 Zj 1220 221 12180 2226 2173 N 2 12190 12247 1224 221 12 12250 12177 _ '- N 12200 12259 12258 1222 12 r N N C\j 12210 12271 cj 1 e r r N N 223 � N N N r '- 12220 12283 � r 1� CO O o 0 O 00 N CO c+� 0 0 � � 0 C� 12295 r2, 0. `acJ 0 0 O o N N r N r N N 2 N r N r 12307 N N r N r l LU O m 't N N 0 cV LO d O N C7 c 7 O O O ON O O O N N O O w r r r r > a BROOKVIEW DRIVE N F_ co rn r r w�dica�"ed • w��Ga'�cd �D Note A: Country Squire Court Note B: Country Squire Way