HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-1984 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSCITY OF SARA`i'OGA-
�`T � Initial:
AGENDA BILL N0. Dept. He
DATE: 12 -10 -84 (12- 19 -84) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT, FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SDR -1571, RICHARD JAMES III,
SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD (2 LOTS)
Issue Sturmary
1. SDR -1571 is ready for Final approval
2. All bonds and agreemnts have been submitted to the City.
3. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have
been met.
'Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1571 -02 attached, approving the final map of
SDR =1571 and authorize execution of contract of improvement agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attaclumnts
1. Resolution No. 1571 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Status report for Building Site Approval
4. Location Map .
Council Action
12/19: Approved '4 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1571 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Richard James III
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION l: The 0.549 Acres and 0.697 Acres Parcels shown as A
and B on the Parcel Map prepared by Jennings-McDermott-
Heiss, Inc., and submitted to the City Engineer, City.
of Saratoga be approved two (2)1 individual building
sites.
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 day of 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
MAYOR
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
•
*Amended 6/13/84
City of Sara g� n DATE: 6/5/84
APPRO4DY 84
: . 613 Commission Meeting: / / DATE: I\iiA
SUBJECT SDR -1571, Richard H. James III, 20260 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION REQUIRED: Grant Tentative Building Site Approval for a two
lot subdivision.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval,
Design Review Approval and Building Permits.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R -1- 20,000
GENERAL PLAN: Residential - Low Density Single Family. Project
complies with applicable General.Plan goals and policies.
QTTV nama
PARCEL SIZES (Net): Parcel A _ 23,000 sq. ft.; Parcel B - 30,000 sq.
EXISTING SITE: 55,200 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: A dense cover of trees and other
vegetation covers the northernmost corner of the lot.. A variety
of pine; oak, redwood and elm trees, many over 12" in diameter,
are contained on the property. There are also many shrubs along
the perimeter of-the site.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6%
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 6%
SETBACKS: Existing structures to be removed or relocated in
accordance with zoning ordinance standards.
HEIGHT: The existing house is a single -story structure less
than 20' in height.
Report to the Planni- Commission 6/5/84
SDR -1571, Richard Ja,-.,.,s III Page 2
SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage):
Existing Main Dwelling: 2,476 Sq. Ft.±
Existing Garage: 480 Sq. Ft..±
Existing Second Unit: 456 Sq..Ft.±
BUILDING SITE ISSUES: The subject property is adjacent to Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road which is a designated Scenic Highway. General Plan
Policy CI.4.3 requires increased setbacks of up to 100 feet for
structures, walls or fences along scenic highways to preserve the
scenic qualities of the highway. The applicant proposes a 75' set-
back from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. This setback combined with the
existing vegetation on site should adequately protect the scenic
qualities of this portion of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road..
There are two accessory structures on site (garage and second
dwelling unit) which the applicant will remove. The existing
house will be located on Parcel A and will need to have two
covered parking spaces.
Report to the Planning Commission 6/5/84
SDR -1571, Richard H. -ames III Page 3
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of
the 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..
This project is categorically exempt per Section 15315 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1571 (Exhibit :'B" filed May 3, 1984) subject to the following
conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordiance 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 the time of final
approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department regulations and applicable Flood Control
regulations and requirements of the Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further
particulars. Site Approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with
any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto,
applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord
with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation
(Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to-
scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a
25 ft. Half- Street on "Vickery Lane"
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide storm
drain easements, as required for existing'-storm drain..:.
E. Improve "Vickery Lane" to City Standards, including the
following: j
Report to the Planning Commission 6/5/84
SDR -1571, Richard H. Tames III Page 4
* 1. - Desigr�d- �t��e���al- See�3- ova- �xa.rl®n�d.- £rom. -oxi -sing
edge - - pajA&me4-%J_- ta.. grovi .de__.L8_f _betme�n_ Zan tear_
��a e --aid- lr�wi38 - glus _the _ interse�ti= wit]a. Saratoga = Ios_ Gatos_ Rd.. _
*(Deleted)
* ?• P.C. Concrete curb return to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
F. Widen, repair and overlay existing bike lane as
directed by the City Engineer or Cal Trans.
G. Trim or remove existing trees along Saratoga -Los Gatos
Road as directed by the City Engineer.
H. Conditions per Cal Trans.
I. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
J. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions
of view as required at driveway and access road inter-
sections.
K. Watercourses.must be kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow. .
L. No direct access allowed on• "8.aratoga -Los Gatos Rd. ", from lots.
M. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to
be done within State Right -of -Way.
N. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements.
0. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvement Plans.
P. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improve-
ments to be completed within one (1) year of receiving
Final Approval.
Q. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required im-
provements.
R. Existing Driveway at intersection to be removed and /or
relocated southerly on Vickery Drive.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES 1.
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Foundation
B. Bond..Amount: $500 for removal-of existing structures.
Report to the Planni --r Commission
SDR- 1571', Richard H._.,ames III
6/5/84
Page 5
C. Bring existing house -into conformance with current Building,
Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, based on re-
commendations by an appropriately licensed professional.
Post bond for these improvements.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4 as
outlined in,letter dated May 23, 1984.
B. Provide easements for building sewers to service adjacent
parcel to be created in accordance with letter dated
May 23, 1984.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS "'SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA'CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
.to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and
certification.
VIII.• SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to
issuance of permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits 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 sub-
division /building site.
C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable
City Ordinances.
* D. The two accessory structures shall be removed from the site prior
to final inspection /occupancy of either of the main structures.
E. Applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the accurate
location of the house to be relocated on Parcel A prior to issuance
of any Design Review Approval. f
Report to the Planning Commission Page 6
SDR -1571, Richard H. 'ames III 6/5/84
F. Applicant shall comply with the following conditions
from Cal Trans:
1. Submit detailed grading, drainage, and improvement
plans for review and approval by Cal Trans prior to
Final Map Approval.
2. The existing northerly driveway shall.be relocated
from the intersection of Vickery Avenue and Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road to a location further south on Vickery
Avenue. No access onto Saratoga -Los Gatos'Road is
.permitted.
3. No work may be done within the State highway right -of-
way unless authorized by a State highway encroachment
permit. Application for such a'permit should be made
to:
Permit Engineer
150 Oak Street
San Francisco, CA. 94102
Telephone (415) 557 -1984
The permit application shall be accompanied by three
sets of plans. In addition, most permit applications
also require that an adequate.environmental document,
prepared and processed in accordance with current State
requirements (State Administrative Code Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3), be attached. Application must
be accompanied by a fee, which will vary depending on
the nature of the encroachment.
APPROVED
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner.
MF /b j c
P.C. Agenda 6/13/84
'MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT.
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -1571 , Richard James III
(have) (4a�4i-&t) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 198,
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 $1700 Date Submitted
All Required Improvement Bonds yes Date
All Required Inspection Fees $1050.00 Date
Building Site Approval Agreement yes Date
Park and Recreation Fee $2600 Date
Date Submitted
Date Submitted
— =3 -84 Receipt
Submitted 12 -3 -84
Submitted 12-3-84
Signed 12-3-84
Submitted - -
12 -6 -84
# 6702
Receipt# 6702
Receipt #-M-2—
Receipt# 6702
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
NionAitAo ) (Final) Building Site Approval for Richard James III
SDR- 1571 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
FA2:�
M,
k Dlla 1
11
CITY OF SARATOGA
-7 Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. I Dept. Hd.
DATE: 12/11/84 (12/19%84)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
C. Atty.:
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Request for Deferred Improvement on Existing Trail —Tract 7382
(Groteguth, Ten Acres Road - Lot 1)
Issue Sunmary ;
The owner of Tract 7382 is requesting to eliminate the pedestrian - equestrian
trail on his site. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended elimination
of the "improvement requirement" for the trail at this time for safety
reasons. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved this recommendation
to the City Council. The easement has not been abandoned and is still of
record. Only the obligation to construct improvements has been deferred.
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission recommend
approval of a deferred improvement agreement for the trail adding to
Condition IX A. of Tract 7382 "Trail Improvement, D.I.A.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachm?nts
1. Applicant's letter
2. Staff Reports for SDR -1507 and Request
3. Recommendation from Parks & Recreation Commission
4. Minutes dated 11/5/84 and 11/28/84
5. Exhibits
Council Action
12/19: Approved 4 -0.
u
C.D.C. DEVELOPMENT CO.
3077 Corvin Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95051
(408) 749 -1300
October 16, 1984
Dan Trinidad, Jr.
Parks & Recreation Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070'
RE: Tract no. 7382
18846 Ten Acres Road,'Saratoga
Dear Mr. Trinidad:..
This letter is in reference -to the equestrian trail which is. shown
on the Final Map of the above referred subdivision.
,I would very much appreciate it if your department could take into
consideration our request to eliminate said trail for the reasons' outlined
below.
My main objection to the trail is one of safety. As rightfully
pointed out to me by Mr. and Mrs. Jones, the residents of the property
adjacent to our subdivision,, the trail ends on top of the hill on Ten Acres
Road. Horses will have to cross Ten Acres Road at an extremely dangerous.
location. Furthermore, that particular area of Ten Acres Road crosses four.
driveways serving eight residences, including the ones to be built on our.
subdivision. There is a line of trees between Ten Acres Road and the .trail
which renders the visibility for both riders and drivers very difficult.
'I have driven 'on Ten Acres Road and on the connecting roads and; as
the.Task Force recommended, I -have walked Ten Acres Road to familiarize
myself with the terrain. First, I have noticed that there are very few.'
horses.in the Ten Acres Road area. I was only able to locate two horses on Ten
Acres Road. I have also looked at the horse licenses issued by the City of
Saratoga and, although I,realize that not all horse. owners have a license,..
it does not. appear that my visual count is incorrect. Second, I have noticed
that the recommendations made by the Task Force are that the trail be
located on the other side of Ten Acres Road. I can only assume that the Task..,
Force's recommendations regarding the location of the trail took into
consideration the safety of riders and drivers.
I would appreciate your review of this request. Thank your for your
courtesy and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
. ' lilGl�Gu�
X.� A� Sorba
Consultant to
C.D.C. Development Co.
Encls: City of Saratoga Horse Licenses
Trail Section A -I
CITY OF SARATOGA HORSE LICENSES
HORSE
PERMIT NO. APPLICANT ADDRESS
DATE ISSUED i'IMBER OF HORSES
101
Ra nard Sandwick
13291 Pierce Road
2
102
Julia Pech
1385 Saratoga Sunn ale Rd.
2
-
103
Connie Tsakirio
13144 Pierce Road
6 30 75
104
Ronald Hills
18588 Woodbank Way
7/30/75
2
105
Ron Day
14070 Arcadia Palsm
10/29/75
2
106
H. Thompson
14906 Sobey Road
3/16/76
107
Virgil Voss c.
14982 Sobey Road
4/28/76
108
Sharon Jameson
19227 San Marcos Road
8/25/76
1
109
Frank C. Nelson
20851 Saratoga Hills Road
'8/26/76
2
-�
Joseph&Dorothy McDowell
14300 Maclay Court
1
8/27/76
111
Sarah Bates (Larue Moore)
20865 Wardell Rd.
3/31/77
112
John E. Painter
West Valley Freeway R -of -W.
2089 Winchester Blvd.
1
113
Rolf Slade
13397 Sousa Lane
4 11/77
11
13 01 -0 Sousa Lane
1
114
Daniel Judd
(APN 503 -13
18853 Allendale Avenue
6Z16/77
115
-68 &-116)
George Dal,
14525 Big Basin Way
1
_
P.O. Box 126 Saratoga
_ 116
M. Ramin
18632 Vessing Court
1/12/78
117
J. Lucus
18860 Ten Acres Saratoga
6/7/78
1
MA!-
2
l/7�'
j- -�' r10
'N
4'
t
CITY OF SARATOGA HORSE LICENSES
HORSE
PERMIT NO. APPLICANT ADDRESS DATE ISSUED NUMBER OF HORSES
( Z v
• L`( J ur
l[ So Y
Z -f
c f:f-� NIF•� '<� l
- / ! V �_
�. / .?
L� rE rl7l. -! C` %) .
0 t -(mss �4 ZOf
j L
1
i
r c
2
Trail Section A -I
,f 1
I N..
I
io i
7
103
DOJK
13q�
55
c
56 5 r.
e
30
IBM
-40-
W
•• Route of trail
End of section
-- - — . — .Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Boob Page
—TY a c-�- �F'
�- 3r2-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Saratoga
Arr.R0YED
*Revised: 5/12/82
GATE: 3/29/82
Commission Meeting: 4/14/82
SUBJECT: SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth, Ten Acres Road, Tentative
Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots
REQUEST: Grant of Tentative Subdivision Approval for 5 lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Negative Declaration
PUBLIC NOTICING: Noticed in the Saratoga News, posted and mailings to property
owners within 500 ft.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very low density
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
SITE SIZE: + 6.2 acres
SITE SLOPE: 17.6%
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to split a 6.2 acre site into
five 5 lots. The site, with an average slope of 17.6%, is surrounded by
existing residences and the lands of Kendall, which have received Final Map
Approval for seven.(7) lots. A swale runs through the site which will be
conditioned for drainage improvements at road crossings with an approval of
this application.
Access for this site is proposed as follows:
1. Lots 1 and 2 taking direct access from Ten Acres Road. Staff is concerned
about the length and grading for the driveway on Lot 2 and would prefer
the alternate building site.
* The building site & lot configuation have been revised to a lower site
per the Planning Commission recommendation of April 17, 1982.
• �. • � 3/29%8 2. -.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth Page 2
2. Lots 3, 4 and 5 taking access from a minimum access road which is less
400 ft. in length from Ten Acres Road., Lot 5 would access from a mini-
mum access road that will also service one of the Kendall lots. Lots
3 and 4 would access from a newly proposed minimum access street off of
the new cul -de -sac. The allowance of these minimum access streets to
connect to a private cul -de -sac does not require an exception from the
Subdivision Ordinance since the cul -de -sac is a private street. Central
Fire District has been active in reviewing the proposed access and is
now recommending your approval of the project as shown. None of the
other responsible agencies have expressed any.major concerns-. The City.
Geologist's comments are attached.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974
General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of
Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this
project, if approved under this application. Said determination date:.
3/17/82.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1507
(Exhibit "B-6', filed May 5, 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 improvements plans for any street work; and
compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable
Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars.
Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and
Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In
addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with
Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at.the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Tract Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay re-
quired Checking & Recordation Fees).
R ,
• �Y�
�1
Report to Planning Commission 3/29/82
SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth Page 3
C. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan"
and as directed 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.
D. Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double
seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from
Ten Acres Rd. to cul -de -sac having 32 ft. radius. Slope of access
road shall not exceed 1224 without adhering to the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between 1224 and 154 shall be surfaced
using 22 in. Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base.
2. Access roads having slopes between 154 and 1724 shall be surfaced
using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. Aggregate
Base. Slopes in excess of 154 shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
3. Access roads having slope in excess of 1724 are not permitted.
Note: 0The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft.
Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designated to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and
roadside ditches.
E. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
F. Construct Driveway 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders and turnaround
having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil
and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft.
of proposed dwelling.
G. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under drive-
way as approved by the City Engineer.
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at intersections.
I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard
or prevent flow.
J. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
raye 4
K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the t De o Community y Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
L. Engineered Improvement Plans - required for:
1. Storm Drain Construction
2. Access Road Construction
M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
* N. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approva-1 and a 2 year
Maintenance Agreement or any resulting corrective work.
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
* P. Repair of failed areas within street (Ten Acres) fronting property.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to included titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
B. Other Requirements:
1. Comply with recommendations of City Geologist's letter dated
March 10, 1982.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter
dated March 9,, 1982
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct turnarounds at the proposed dwelling sites having a 32
foot inside radius where any portion of the exterior walls of build
ing(s) are more than 150 ft. from the public road (Lots 1, 2 & 5).
Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire
Chief. Details shall be shown on the building plans.
Report to Planning P ssion 3/29/82
SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth Page 5
B. Developer to install one (1) hydrant(s) that meet Central
Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed
prior to issuance of building permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers insalled and
connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers
of the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval,
an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure
completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing abandoned swimming pool to be destroyed so as to prevent
water retention capability.
D. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards.
A $400.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
E. Seal well in accordance with County standards. A bond in the amount
of $300.00 to be. posted to insure completion of work.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing
the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD
for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Planning Commission approval.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual 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 opportuni-
ties on /in the subdivision /building site.
* D. Lot 1 - Ridge of roof to be no'more than 24' above natural grade.
IX. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
* A. Provide 15 ft. wide pedestrian /equestrian easement on the southern
side of Ten Acres Road (extending from the eastern boundary of the
driveway adjacent to Lot 2 to the western boundary of Lot 1).
Easement to be separate from road easement and pavement, unpaved,
graded so as to be comparatively level from side to side, unob-
structed except for existing trees, and may not contain any ex-
posed drainage area. P.E.E. to be recorded on final Map so as to be clear
to buyers.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth
Approved:
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 4/14/82
KatWy Ke us
Associate Planner
3/29/82
Page 6 `
JOR-
rowgum a & A
13 lk
W,;W� fir,
Lit
IOWA
,
^
v
- ^ '
i -07kro
NEW-7.1 i
r
,�
C� o� ao&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: 11/21/84
FROM: Kathy Kerdus
SUBJECT: Request to Eliminate Pedestrian - Equestrian Easement on Tract 7382
(Groteguth, Ten Acres Road - Lot 1)
Attached is a memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Commission re-
commending elimination of the "improvement requirement" for the Pedestrian -
Equestrian Easement on Tract 7382 on Ten Acres Road. The trail ease-
ment would be retained. The Secretary to the Commission explained that
the short segment of trail, if developed in itself, would be a potential
safety hazard if it were to end in this location.
If you agree with the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation
you would need to recommend to the City Council that they add to condition
IX.A of Tract 7382 (SD -1507) "(Trail improvement, D,.I.A.)"
�cu;lAy �
Rat y Kerdus '
Senior P anner
c
L
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 9, 1984
FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission
SUBJECT: Equestrian Trail
Attached is a letter addressed to the secretary of the Parks and Recreation
Commission from Francois Sorba of C.D.C. Development Company asking that an
equestrian trail shown on the final map (also attached) of Tract no. 7382,
18846 Ten Acres Road, Saratoga be eliminated.
The Parks and Recreation Commission at their November 5th meeting reviewed
the reasons outlined in Mr. Sorba's letter and by unanimous vote recommends
the elimination of the "improvement requirement" for the trail, but that
the Ci ty; fetai n the ,easerr}ent for possible future use.
Dan Trinidad, S cretary
Parks and Recreation.Commission
st
e
CRAFT
SARATOGA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TIME: November 5, 1984, 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER
19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: REGULAR
I. ORGANIZATION
A.ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Pakula, Franklin, Clemens, Ward,
Vallone, Saunders
Absent : Pierce
Others Present: Dan Trinidad, Roy Swanson, Sharon
Trejo, Francois Sorba
B. MINUTES
The minutes of the October 1, 1984 meeting, approved as
presented. •
II.
OLD BUSINESS
A. PARKS & RECREATION GRANT FUND
B. PARKS MASTER PLAN
C. MEDIAN MASTER PLAN
All of the above subjects were discussed under New
Business, Goals and Objectives.
III•
NEW BUSINESS
A. EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
Commissioner Vallone introduced Francois Sorba of
C.D.C. Development Company who requested that an
equestrian trail shown on the final map of Tract No.
7382, 18846 Ten Acres Road, Saratoga be eliminated for
safety reasons. After much discussion Commissioner
Clemens made a motion to recommend to the Planning
Commission that they eliminate the improvement
requirement but retain the easement for future use.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
B. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Commission discussed the necessity of setting
goals and defining objectives in _order to make some
headway on projects that have been on the back burner
for several months. Suggestions were made and
discussed and priorities were set as follows. Two
first level priorities were established. The
Commission's first priority is to review the Median
Master Plan and establish an approach to work toward
that plan. Next, the secretary was asked to arrange a
�'� C46 ��
IV.
meeting to discuss park funding in general. A State
representative could be invited to explain the
available programs so that the Commission can learn
how much is available and procedures for obtaining
funding. Two second level priorities were set, one
would be to re- evaluate and update the Park Master
Plan and to review the Park Contingency Plan and
determine where we are, and what can be done to
encourage park usage. This would include completing
as much as possible at Congress Springs, improving
Quito Park, and studying Central Park for its possible
development. The other second level priority is to
clarify the Commission's role in City operations.
A joint meeting with City Council is needed to
accomplish this goal. Also, a posible meeting with
Los Gatos and Campbell Parks and Recreation
Commissions to share ideas. Evaluating and updating
the Trails Master Plan is the next priority. Roy
Swanson wi 11 set up a tour of the Parks and Medians to
familiarize the Commissioners with the areas
discussed. Dates will be announced.
COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORTS
The secretary relayed to the Commission plans for the
formation of the Hakone Foundation. He will keep
Commission up to date on developments. Roy Swanson
and Jack Tomlinson will be traveling to San Diego to
bring back a variety of bamboo specimens for Hakone
from the San Diego Botanical Garden. Roy also
reported that all the historical sites and park signs
have been redone and installed. The work was
contributed by Mr. McIntyre. He will be receiving a
thank you letter from the City Council.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS
A. USE OF CITY NEWSLETTER
Terry Ward will be preparing a report on Congress
Springs for the January newsletter.
VI. ADJOURNMENT `
The meeting was adjourned ate :10 p /
Dan Triiniddd, Secretary
Parks & Recreation Commission
^ 4
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 1984 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- - - - - --
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and
Siegfried (Commissioner Harris arrived at 7:55 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioner Crowther
Minutes
Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of November
14, 1984 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motio
which was carried unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
<�f CONSENT CALENDAR
Regarding Item #4, Tract 7382, Staff clarified to Commissioner Schaefer that
the easement will not be removed, but the improvements will not be completed
C at this time. Commissioner Schaefer requested that the word "equestrian"
remain on the map.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar
listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
1. SD -1454 - John DiManto, Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads, 5 lots, Request
for One -Year Extension
2a. SDR -1508 - Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for One -Year Exte
2b. A-703'- sion
- 3. LL #5 _ Marie Gaspar, 14754 Pierce Road (Lot 5, Tract 5923), and Vintag
Lane (Parcel C), Request for Lot Line Adjustment
4. Tract 7382, Groteguth, Ten Acres Road, Request to Eliminate Pedestrian/
Equestrian Easement
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT C ENDAR
Items #7, V -669, Holmquist, and #10, C -214 (Appeals), were removed for discus-
sion. The public hearing w s opened at 7:36 p.m. on the balance of the items.
Commissioner McGoldrick mov to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peter
son seconded the motion, whi h was carried unanimously. Commissioner MCGoldri
moved to approve the balance f the Public Hearings Consent Calendar listed
below. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous
5 -0.
5. A -1029 - Blackwell Homes, R quest for Design Review Approval to construct
a two -story structu e on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning distric
at 12206 Vista Arro o Court, Tract #6528, Lot 715
6. A -1034 - Linda and Randy 'Thor ch, Request for Design Review Approval to
construct an additio and second -story deck to an existing two
story residence at 14 99 Saratoga Avenue, in the R- 1- 12,500 Zonin!
�. district
8. OP -569 - Galeb Properties (Finl, ), Request for Use Permit Modification to
allow the addition of a restaurant /concession area to the exist-
ing Saratoga Chamber Th ater in the AZUIe Shopping Center at
►; 12378 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
DISTINCTIVE BORDER
1-07-
4c
reS T
cl M �2
�a
th \
O
wr
I- a19,4C.
�2��2 �6�82 � � � •
t3
89" .n•arc��•o
14�
A
�s.
vJ�yea
�^ Jr�
o
4A \
/4•K.BS Y2�°
c-
0
y
v+2 °
c9oOp'ro �
\ ` O
s ••
F
8i
\ •10 JV � 2 j S �/
o
.4 pry
c
to
0.0,
v �Ofs as,�r si.fSl'I e'-
✓C/VN /N(,.� - /Y/CUCAC'M J/ /-
C /✓ /L ENGG EQS - La/Vp ALAAIA
SOLE / = 50 /
EASEMENTS OF RECORD WHOSE
AR INDETERMINABE:
1. BO 102491- OFFICIAL RECORDS
260FOR POLE LINE EASE:MEN'
9/22/52
2. BOOK 720- OFFICIAL RECORD!
FOR POLE LINE EASEMENTS
Tract
�ivlc,d my
15' Pec[e8wi av\'—
tA Lce sN i a v\
- Q Y Ease m ay&
•
•
Z07-
c 2
2 Fr \1'7 \aN
r1.363AC'�
89" .n•arc��•o
14�
A
�s.
vJ�yea
�^ Jr�
o
4A \
/4•K.BS Y2�°
c-
0
y
v+2 °
c9oOp'ro �
\ ` O
s ••
F
8i
\ •10 JV � 2 j S �/
o
.4 pry
c
to
0.0,
v �Ofs as,�r si.fSl'I e'-
✓C/VN /N(,.� - /Y/CUCAC'M J/ /-
C /✓ /L ENGG EQS - La/Vp ALAAIA
SOLE / = 50 /
EASEMENTS OF RECORD WHOSE
AR INDETERMINABE:
1. BO 102491- OFFICIAL RECORDS
260FOR POLE LINE EASE:MEN'
9/22/52
2. BOOK 720- OFFICIAL RECORD!
FOR POLE LINE EASEMENTS
Tract
�ivlc,d my
15' Pec[e8wi av\'—
tA Lce sN i a v\
- Q Y Ease m ay&
•
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. / 5 O
DATE: 12/11/84 (12/19/84)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: SDR -1539, UP-535,'A-989, Professi-onalVillage of Saratoga (Owen Co.) ,
SE Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues
Issue Summary The Owen Co. received final conditions from the Planning Commission
on November 28, 1984. These conditions include allowance for ingress & egress
from Mc Farland Avenue. The Council resolution on the appeal states that
"No egress from the project onto Mc Farland Drive will be allowed." The
Commission is recommending to the Council that the resolution be revised
in order to create better circulation and to allow both ways of access
since there was going to be an opening on Mc Farland. Additionally the
Commission felt that the access into the residential area could be controlled
t_,:�ough the medians as shown on the attached drawings.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends that the Council approve the revision
to the resolution on the appeal, thereby allowing ingress and egress onto
Mc Farland from the Owen site.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attaclumnts
1. Resolution No. 2189.1
2. Staff Report dated 11- 13 -84, revised and approved by the
Planning C.oM ission 11/21/84
33. Minutes dated November 28, 1984
5: Resolution 2189
Council Action
12/19: Adopted Resolution 2189.1, 4 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 2189.1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2189 PERTAINING
TO AN APPEAL BY THE OWEN COMPANIES
WHEREAS, on October 23, 1984, the City Council upheld an appeal by the
Owen Companies and granted a use permit, tentative building site approval and design
review approval, subject to certain modifications and conditions, as described in
Resolution No. 2189 adopted by the City Council on November 7, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the matter was referred back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration and clarification of the conditions set forth in the revised staff
report dated September 20, 1984, consistent with the decision rendered by the City
Council on the appeal; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1984, the Planning Commission approved the
final conditions for the project and recommended to the City Council that Resolution
No. 2189 be modified to permit McFarland Drive to be utilized for egress from the
project as well as ingress; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that utilization of McFarland
Drive for both ingress and egress will improve the general traffic circulation in and
around the project, provided McFarland Drive is channelized in the manner shown on
the drawing attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga that Resolution Number 2189 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Subparagraph 2(d) is deleted.
2. McFarland Drive may be utilized for ingress and egress in accordance
with the traffic channelization plan as approved by the Planning
Commmission, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 19th day of December,
1984, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
, I
!r�jy
s.
'Of f
w 4w,
th
dik
SARATOGA ' CENTER
MC FARLAND MEDIAN
MARK THOMAS & CO. INC.
OA 14
0E0' 0 f §=Al
00000
13777 FRUITVALL AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
�..Jl (408) 867 - :3,138
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission ** *Revised: 11/21/84 DATE: 11/13/84
FROM: Kathy Kerdus
SUBJECT: SDR -1539, UP -535, A -989, Professional Village of Saratoga
(Owen Co.), Southeast Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues
----------------------------------------
The City Council upheld the Owen Company's appeal on the subject site as follows:
2. ....- Subject to the conditions set forth in said staff report (o'f September 20, 1984)
together with the following additional conditions:
(a) The aggregate size of all buildings on the site shall not exceed 90,000 square feet.
(b) All buildings on the site shall be single story. No two story structures will be
allowed.
(c) Not less than 423 on site parking spaces will be provided.
(d) McFarland Drive may be utilized for ingress only to the project. No egress from
the project onto McFarland Drive will be.allowed.
(e) All buildings shall be located generally within the footprint of the proposed
structures as shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Commission.
3. Resolution No. 897, adopted by the City Council on May 2, 1979, was modified to permit
access for this project onto Saratoga Avenue, as shown on the site plan submitted to
the Planning Commission. Except as modified for this project only, said Resolution No.
897 remains in full force and effect.
4. The City Council duly considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report
prior to rendering its approval of the project.
5. The applications were referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration
and clarification of the conditions set forth in the revised staff report, consistent with
the decision rendered by the City Council on the appeal.
Attached for your further consideration is the Staff Report of September 20, 1984. After
discussions with the City Attorney over the needed specificity of conditions, staff suggests
that Condition 17 of the Use Permit be modified to state:
17.
The following improvements shall be done as required by the Director of Community
Development:
I. Channelization of Cox and associated widening, including dedication of R014 as
.required and landscape maintenance agreement.
Memorandum to Planning Commif on 11/13/84
SDR -1539, UP -535, A -989, Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Aves. Page 2
* * *2. Street improvements to alleviate traffic congestion in the vicinity, including a
traffic signal at Cox and Quito, as determined necessary by the City Council at a
Public Hearing. Bond for this condition required prior to Final Map Approval.
3. Modification of Cox /Saratoga Ave. intersection for left turn lanes and any
associated modifications to traffic signal device.
* * *4• Landscaped median barrier on McFarland Ave, to prevent U -turns in mid -block and
widening of McFarland, if necessary, to accomodate it (with associated dedication of
ROW and landscape maintenance agreement.)
5. Pedestrian walkway (meandering) 4 ft. in width.
6. Modification of Saratoga Ave. median as needed for stacking.
7. Area for bus stop, if required by Santa Clara County Transit.
* ** 8. Such traffic control measures for the Quito area deemed by the Director of Community
Development to be appropriate, based upon his reasonable determination that the measures
are required to mitigate traffic impacts from the project during a five year period
following issuance of the Occupancy Permit. I.f, in the judgment of the Director of
Community Development, a traffic study is necessary to ascertain the impacts from the
project, the cost of the study shall be 'paid by the applicant.
* ** Additionally, as,discussed:at Your:-Committee of the Whole of November 20, 1984, the follow-
ing condition is recommended:
* ** 20. Access onto McFarland shall be as shown on Exhibit "D" with egress only towards
Saratoga Ave. and in ,7ress only from Saratoga Ave.
Kathy Kerdus
Planner
KK /dsc
J
ft
oO O&M&
o e
0
REPORT TO PLANNING ** *Revised 11/21/8
C ®I�iI!/IIS�I ®10T * *Revised:ll /14/
* Revised: 9/20/84
Revised: 8/1/84
DATE: 6/22/84
Commission Meeting: 6/27/84
9/26/84
SUBJECT: UP -535, SDR- 1539, A -989, Professional Village of Saratoga
(Owen Co.), Southeast Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues
*ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Use Permit, Tentative Building Site Grading Permit and
Design Review for the construction of 115,600 sq. ft. of office complex in three (3),
bne -story buildings and one two -story building.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED/REQUIRED: Amendment or rescission of Resolution No. 897 (copy
attached). Final Building Site Approval and Building Permits.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: P -A (Professional and Administrative)
GENERAL PLAN: Commercial- Planned Development Mixed Use
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: 10.25 Acres (446,620 sq. ft.)
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Gently sloping site covered by grasses and other low
growing vegetation.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.7% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1.7%
* GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: Approx. 1,500 Cu. Yds. Fill: Approx. 1,500 Cu. Yds.
Cut Depth: 2 Ft.+ Fill Depth: 2 Ft.+
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
* SETBACKS: Northwest Side (Saratoga Ave.): 50' Min.
Northeast Side (Cox Avenue): 75' Min.
East Side (Quito Shopping Center): 105' Min.
South Side (Single Family Dwelling): 70' Min.(150' to the 2 -story building)
Southwest Side (McFarland Ave.): 40' Min.
Report to Planning Commissi
OF -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Aves.
* HEIGHT: Building l:
Building 2:
Building 3:
Building 4:
* IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
* LANDSCAPING: 40%
* SIZE OF STRUCTURES:
18' (1- Story)
30' (2- Story)
18' (1- Story)
18' (1 Story)
60% (Building and paved surfaces)
T*Revised: 9/20/84
6/22/84
Page 2
*Buildings 1 & 4: First Floor - 21,675 x 2 = .43,250 sq. ft.
*Building 2: First Floor - 28,900 sq. ft.
Second Floor- 28,900 sq. ft.
57,800 sq. ft.
*Building 3: First Floor - 14,450 sq. ft.
* TOTAL: •115,600 sq. ft.
* PARKING: Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each
400 sq. ft. of gross floor area for a professional administrative office building.
This project would require 323 parking spaces and the project will provide 423 parking
spaces. Two.(2)loading berths are also required by ordinance (12' x 45') and are not
shown.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed project meets the basic standards of the zoning ordinance. _l
*Exterior Materials: Wood .siding, painted natural. J
*Roof Materials: Natural.cedar shake.
GENERAL PLAN: This site was discussed by both the Planning Commission and City Council
during the hearings on revisions to the General Plan in 1983. At that time, the residents
of the Quito area expressed their preference for residential development of the site as
well as opposition to commercial development of the site. These views were incorporated
in the area F - Guidelines for Area Development under Item #3 which reads as follows:
3. The vacant parcel located on the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue between
McFarland and Cox Avenue should be developed only under conditions of uniform
design and with consideration given to combined land uses. The residents of
Area F support subsidized senior citizen housing or single family residential
use of this site. Development of the site may include professional and admini-
strative office uses which minimize traffic and noise, either separately or in
combination with residential uses upon the receipt of a Use Permit. Particular
attention should be given to landscaping, access, parking and site coverage.
Another shopping center should not be constructed on this parcel.
This guideline indicates that professional administrative office use separately or combined
with residential use would be acceptable on the site.
A list of General Plan Goals and Policies that pertain to this project have been attached,)
In review of these goals and policies, some have been complied with and others have not.
The major areas of Staff concern are those goals and policies which address the design
(particularly in conjunction with Resolution No. 897) and fiscal impacts of the project.
In particular, it is not clear that the project is "........compatible with the site and
adjacent surroundings "(LU.5.0) as discussed in the EIR.
*Revised: 9/20/84
Report to Planning Commisc._. 1 6/22/84
UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox A Saratoga Aves. Page 3
It is clear, however, that the construction of the project as proposed will be a net drain
on City Resources (See Fiscal Impact Section of the EIR). The Land Use Element of the
General Plan states the following:
LU.7.0 - Promote the long -term economic soundness of the City government through careful
analysis of land use decisions and fiscal practices.
LU.7.1 - The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the
City.
*To offset the loss to the City at a public meeting, the Owen Company has stated that-
they will make up the deficit to the City annually.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In review of the E.I.R. and the plans submitted by the applicant, staff has identified the
following major areas of concern with the project:
*1. Traffic: The EIR has indicated-that the project (129,264 sq. ft. - Scheme A) will
generate 1,580 vehicle trip ends per weekday and 285 vehicle trip ends during the
morning peak hour (20 in afternoon peak hour). The EIR indicates that this additional
traffic will not significantly reduce the existing level of service at the intersection-
of Saratoga and Cox Avenues. This also is true for the addition of cumulative traffic
J from potential future development on vacent parcels in the vicinity.
2. Circulation: The applicant proposes an entry to the property on its Saratoga Avenue
side which is inconsistent with City Council Res. No. 897. The applicant feels this
access is beneficial for the project in terms of distributing traffic. However, this
access may give the project more of a commercial appearance which the City Council wishec
to avoid. The City Council would have to amend or rescind this resolution if an:access.
were to be allowed on the site.
The applicant has provided a traffic diverter on McFarland Avenue to prevent on site
traffic from using residential streets.
3. Design: The City wishes to maintain the residential appearance of Saratoga Avenue
by Resolution 897. The height, materials, and windows of the structure and project /
landscaping are critical in this regard.
The visual and Aesthetic Resources section of the EIR states that the two -story structurE
proposed by the applicant would have the greatest visual impact because of their apparent
height as seen from Cox and'Saratoga Avenues and their contrast with existing one -story
buildings in the vicinity. The project could "tie" into, or act as a transition between,
the medical offices on the northwestern side of Saratoga Avenue and the commercial build-
ings on Cox Avenue.
The EIR suggests four (4) mitigation measures to reduce the commercial appearance of
*Revised: 9/20,184
Report to Planning Commiss(. o `. ` 6/22/84
UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Aves. Page 4
*.the proposed (129,264 sq. ft.) structures:
I
1. Redesign the facades of Buildings #1 and #2 to be more similar to the medical office
buildings.
2. Have single story structures along the street frontage of the site and two -story
structures to the rear.
3. Relocate parking areas along Saratoga Avenue to the interior of the site and reduce
the building setbacks.
4. Shielding of exterior night lights, prohibiting pole or building mounted lights
and spotlights, and limiting the intensity of permitted lighting.
*The current proposal, Scheme "C ", has 3, one -story structures adjacent to Saratoga Ave. and
the residences to the rear and proposes a two -story next to the Shopping Center on Cox, 150'
away from the residences. This will still impact the neighbors privacy. The applicant pro-
poses a 12' - 15' privet hedge to screen this visual impact.
*The coverage proposed by these buildings is 19.4 %. The ratio of total floor area (includes
second floor) to acreage is 25.9 %. A comparison of the professional offices (parking at 1:40
at the southwesterly corner of Cox and Saratoga Ave, yields a ratio of 27.1 %. The rest of tf
offices (medical and dental with parking at 1:200) have a coverage ratio of 20.1 %. The offic
(existing and proposed with parkina at 1:40) on Cox Ave. across.the street will have a
coverage ratio of 23.8 °10 and a ratio of total floor area to acreage of 47.6 %. ll
-J
*4. Parking: The applicant proposes to provide 423 parking spaces on site. According to
Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, a ratio of one (1) space for every 400 sq. ft..of
gross floor is required for Professional /Administrative Offices and a ratio of 1:200
is required for customer service offices (medical, etc.). If the entire site were
used for Professional /Administrative uses, 289 spaces would be required; 578 spaces
would be required if the complex were devoted to customer service. The project provides
parking at a ratio of 1:273 sq. ft. which lies between the parking ratios used by the
City. The common parking ratio for offices uses in the Santa Clara Valley'is 1:250.
5. Fiscal Impacts: The General Plan states that "The City shall consider the economic
impacts of all land use decisions in the City."
* The DEIR finds that "the project (129,264 sq. ft. - Scheme "A ") would be more beneficial
to the City than the residential alternative, but would be less beneficial than the ;;0-
Project Alternative or the other development alternatives." The direct costs in dollars
per year to the City (noting that approximate service costs have been used, any t1.(-1t u
decrease in the real value of property tax revenue compared to inflation rates ;rill occur
and an assumption of full occupancy of the project) would be $13,900, while revenues to
the City would be about $7,650. This results in a net annual deficit to the Cit; o`
about $6,250 (1983 dollars).
DRAFT FINDINGS:
Staff has prepared the following findings in accordance with Article 16 of the .onin,;
Ordinance:
*Revised: 9/20/84
Report to the Planning Commission 6/22/84
UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Page 5
*l. The proposed location andcbsign of the conditional use is in accord with the ob-
jectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the P -A
zoning district (given City Council approval of the access to Saratoga Ave.)
*2. The proposed location and design of this office use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health and safety or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
*3. The proposed office use will comply with all applicable provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan and Resolution No. 897, given City Council
determination on the access to Saratoga Avenue.
*RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project
subject to the Staff Report dated 9/20/84 and Exhibit "B -2" dated 9/14/84, per the
following conditions; after making one or more of the following findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the f.inal EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
CONDITIONS:
I. Tentative and Final Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval.required.
2. The project shall incorporate the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "E' part
of the project.,
3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Horticulturalist
and Planning Commission review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Landscaping shall be installed prior to ffnal inspection /occupancy of any building.
A minimum of 40% of the site shall be devoted to landscaping. Landscaping easements
shall be dedicated to the City along the street frontages of the site.
* ** 4. The hours of operation for all uses shall be limited to 7:00 a. m. to (10:00 p.m.) (VOTE)
*5. Fk�r -I� ( 9:00 P.M.)
* * x�c3. - s1� -1-1- -ba - px-0•v -i�d• -a-ir -ox� - s�ar�- -fir- -2�4 - scl... _£t.- -o.f _gr- ass -f 1-aci� .ar-ca .
No off -site parking. 423 parking spaces to be provided.
*6. Details for exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted for staff review and approval
prior to Final Map Approval. The purpose of this Condition is to ensure that adjacent
residential properties are not adversely affected by light and glare. All lighting not
J essential to security shall be turned off by(11:00 p.m.) Security lighting to be reviewed
by staff prior to issuance of building permits. (10:00 p.m.) (VOTE)
*7. Berming and landscaping is required along Saratoga and Cox Avenues and McFarland Ave. * **
to visually block the cars parked within the site.
C. 1 "Revised: 9/20/84
Report to the Planning Commission 6/22/84
/ /84
UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Ave. Page 6
8.. Any revisions to the site development plan or elevations shall be reviewed and appr�,ed
by the Planning Commission.
* *
*9. -el-i rjri tea t-e -pt°o-j t c c e ss rnrtro -S ra•tlaga- -A v-emxe -o-r - Pe-ti-ti-o1Y -the -e-i
* * C-Gu fc i-1- -to- - -rae•rr d- 44-.- I1 ft inn- 49-7- - t-o- ,aJ-()n r -pri c-r -t-o- -Fier}- -Ra-p• -A pprn ra-1-.
10. Incorporate passive solar energy use and install plumbing to allow retrofit for solar
panels in the design of all structures as suggested in the mitigation measures listed
on Exhibit "E ".
*11. Design Review required for all signs. All buildings shall follow a consistent sign
.program approved by the Planning Commission. No signs shall be interior illuminated.
12. All parking stalls shall be double striped and minimum dimensions of 9.5' x 20'.
** 13. All loading berths shall have dimensions of 12' x 45' or as required by Staff.
14. No medical or dental offices are permitted on this site or any other use which required
one parking space or more for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area as defined in Article
11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
*15. A 6' to 8' high masonry block wall or approved alternative shall be constructed along
the southern and a portion of the eastern property lines of the site to act as a buffer
between adjacent residential properties and the project in conjunction with the proposed
10' wide landscaping strip. The precise location and design of the wall shall be si-�
** mitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Sereen
of the second - story - privacy - impacts- through- }andscapfing -er buiid4Ng- ried4ffieatian -te -be
approved -by- the- P }annfng- Eommfssion- prior- to- isstanee- ef- a- ba44dfing- permit.
16. Per Section 16.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall retain con-
tinuing jurisdiction of the use permit.
* ** (See 11/13/84 Memorandum)
17. The following mitigation measures shall be made part of this project::.
* ** A. project could incl� e a channelization heme for westbound affic on Cox Ave.
If i talled, the Cox Ave. entrance to the sit could be channelize to discourage
vehicle in the westbound di ction from entering r leaving the iste, hus reducing
the incent for project traf to use Cox Ave. scheme would cause 0 vehicles
to be diverte way from Cox Ave. f-fic in the mornin eak hour. These v 'icles
would access the 'te by traveling on ratoga Ave. Durin the evening peak ho
six vehicles ���ould diverted from Cox
* ** B. The ty could require the oject sponsor to ma street improvemen in con-
t ith the project, to leviate traffic con tion in the vicini of the
site; one s i suggested improvem t could be a center ider on Cox Ave. t
would prevent orists from making n -block U -turns or le turns into the si
* ** C. City could require he project sponsor make street improv ents in con -
junc 'on with the projec such as making the ft lane on Cox Ave. 'nto a left
turn on lane, leaving on] ne through lane on x Ave. at Saratoga e.
* ** D. The City coul equire the project onsor to construe median barrier on
McFarland Ave. t revent U -turns in dblock.
*Revised: 9/20/84
Report to Planning Commission 6/22/84
UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Ave. Page 7
. * ** E. limit noise froi commercial act1 ty, the City cou require the sp sor to
con ruct a solid ma ry wall, at lea six feet high, long the site's oundary
with 'acent residenti development. is measure woul reduce noise im cts of
the prof t on adjacent r idents to an in nificant level.
*18. Per the developer's offer, an annual payment shall be made to the City to offset the
* ** deficit cost to the City of the project pursuant to a recorded written agreement to be
approved by the City Attorney. T44-s- - affio.-t- _i-s- t-o.-b-e- .-a4j4J&t4ad. f-o-r- -i.af 4t.i.=
* *
*19. L- otte,( -the- -b-u l4itKy 4ie i-gfrt -orr- #f -to- -2- 7-' -.-
0
-t "', 1, I:... - � - Uil
SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535, Owen Co.
TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL
-� 8/17/84
Page 8
If the Planning Commission approves the use permit for the project, then the Commissiu
can act on the application for Tentative Building Site Approval.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 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.
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and a Notice of Determination 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: August 8, 1984.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1539 (Exhibit B -1
filed 1/30/84) subject to the following conditions:
I. GFNFRAI cnnrnrrrnNc
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 other Ordinance of the City. In addition
thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which
are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required
checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of
record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required.
D. Improve Saratoga Ave., Cox Ave. and Mc Farland Ave. to City Standards,
including the following:
1. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.)
2. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
3. Repair damage to existing improvement.
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Blaster Drainage Plan" and
as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street,
Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following:
Report to the Planning
SDR -1539, P, -989, UP -535 C emission
:gib` a Co.,
1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
4. On Site Retention.
8/17/04
Page 9
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches except Mc Farland Avenue shall be
constructed so as to prohibit right turns into site and left turns out of
site.
G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
H. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements.
2. Storm Drain Construction
I. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
J. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
K. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
L. Dedications, Improvements Plans., fees, and bond as required for mitigation
measures as outlined in the final EIR.
M. Easements and improvements for driveway connection to Quito Shopping Center.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Soils
2. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and
proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, locations, etc.)
3. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record
data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided to this project through connection
into the 10 -inch trunk sewer in Saratoga Avenue.
B. Applicant to submit enumerated, fees to County Sanitation District No. 4
in accordance with letter dated 9/21/83 prior to issuance of permits.
Report to the Planning Vqlmission 8/17/84••
SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535 1 Co. C
. � � Page 10
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. The existing water system shall be extended to the site; contact San Jose
Water Company.
B. Developer to install four (4) public and t�vo (2) on site private hydrants
that meet Central Fire District's specifications. Hydrants to be.installed
and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. Contact should be made
with the water company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering delays.
C. The buildings will require the installation of an approved automatic fire
extinguishing system. Contact should be made with the water company as soon
as possible to avoid engineering delays.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank to be.pumped.a,nd backfilled to County Standards. Seal
well in accordance with County and Santa Clara Valley Mater District Standards.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT..
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the
location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review
and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
B. Dedicate a landscape easement for all landscaped areas along Mc Farland Drive
Cox Avenue, and Bucknall Road.
C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission Approval.
D. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way
that are to remain unimproved and the landscaping easement dedicated to
the City. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be sumitted to the Planning
Department for review acid approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements
shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the
right -of -way improvements or prior to final inspection /occupancy of any portion
.of the project.
E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the
City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and landscape
easement. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum
of one year after which the owners of the site shall be responsible for
maintaining the landscaped areas.
* ** F. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the build. s
and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station. Location of
detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief.
Report to Planning Commis (k *Revised: 9/20/84 8/17/84
SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535 Page 11
-� DESIGN REVIEW - A -989
*The applicant has substantially modified the design of the project to be more residential -
appearing per suggestions by the EIR and the Planning Commission. The structure will be
all wood (siding and shakes) with mullioned windows and sheet metal gutters.
*The two story building may have a privacy impact on the adjoining residences (150' minimum
distance away) which are suggested to be mitigated by landscaping and fencing.
*RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review
subject to the Staff Report dated 9/20/84 and Exhibit "B -2" dated 9/14/84 per the following
conditions:
*1. Plans showing the location of trash containers, utility meters, mechanical equipment or
other similar appurtenances and their screening shall be submitted for staff review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
*2. Any minor revision to the proposed elevations and site plan shall be subject to staff
review and approval. Major modifications will be referred. to the Planning Commission.
*3. Landscaping plans, drawn by a licensed landscape architect, shall be reviewed and
approved by staff and the City's_ landscape consultant prior to issuance of permits.
A deposit for the review is required. The landscaping shall be fully irrigated and
in place prior to Final Building Approval.
* *
*4. Maces -s- -o n -t-o- -t4h -- 4et*i -aT 4s7- 11-ot - p-erml-i t c-6 -om -tire- -t � -a-re -o-F i3tr -}rf-i-ng- 2 .
*5. Submit detailed grading and drainage plans with building plans to be approved by the
Community Development Department. Drainage to be approved by City Engineer. Pad ele-
vations to be in conformance with adjacent residences.
Approved:
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 9/26/84
J
Ka
i erdu
Planner
C
WTViATION Mf�A5aj2.
To reduce the impact of the Droiect on the need for increased police services. the
Sheriff's Office recommends the following mitigation measures:
- The sponsor could employ a private security service to periodically patrol the project
site to discourage vandalism and theft.
- The sponsor could fence the construction site to limit theft of materials and
equipment.
-- To reduce the potential for flooding on the site, the Depsrtment of Public Works
recommends the following measure:
The City could require the sponsor to design the project's drainage system for a
minimum of a ten -year storm. /5/
To reduce the visual similarity of the project to the nearby offices on Cox Ave. anc
- other office development in the San Jose area, the City of Saratoga could require the
sponsor to redesign the exterior facade of Buildings 1 and 2 to appear more similar to
-' - - -- - that of the medical /dental offices and to residential development in the area.
The City could require the sponsor to have a qualified archaeologist survey the site
--- - - - - -- prior to construction and make recommendations for protecting and preserving an%
significant archaeological resources found on the site. This measure is recommended
_ ...... .. ....._ .. by the Northwest Information Center.
To reduce energy consumed during construction:
The sponsor could select materials available locally for use in construction to reduce
the energy costs of transporting materials to the site.
- Where more than one construction material is available for the same purpose, the
sponsor could select the material requiring the least energy for its manufacture.
- '- - - To reduce enerav consumed by project occupants:
- -- -- - -- The'sponsor could design structures for passive solar heating by locating most of their
glazed area on the southern exposure and by locating few windows or doors on the
—_ - - -- northern exposures. The sponsor could enhance passive solar heating by incorporating
thermal mass materials (concrete, brick, plaster, adobe) in the interior of structures
where the mass can absorb solar heat entering windows on the southern exposure.
The City could require that plumbing and HVAC systems be designed to allow
retrofitting with solar heating units.
The sponsor could design structures with large windows and insulated skylights to
allow natural lighting of interiors aces, but
P provide eaves, overhangs, and vertical
partitions, and deciduous trees on the south sides of structures, to avoid excessive
solar heating of interior space during the warm season. This measure could reduce
electricity demand for lighting and air conditioning.
To limit temDOrary noise impacts Crom construction:
- The City could require the sponsor to limit construction activities to between
8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, to reduce disturbance to nearby
residents.
- The City could require the sponsor to certify that power construction equipment to
be used on the project site was furnished with state -of- the -art noise shielding and
muffling devices.
- During project construction, sprin{:Ic unpaved construction areas with water , ten
duce dust emissions by about 502
as needed to keep soil moist. This measure would re.
C
x
I� IUI i S
C
Require the project sponsor to design the site grading plan to balance cut and fill c
the site. This would eliminate the potential for oft -site impacts from grading.
- Require the project sponsor to retain a licensed eologist
engineer, or structural engineer to analyze the soils on tho
esitel
and the structur
design of the project in detail, and that the project sponsor implement tt
recommendations of this consultant.
To reduce the potential for structural damage from settlement or earthquake
require the project sponsor to use flexible materials and connections for pipes, utili
lines, and conduits.
To reduce potential hazards from earthquakes, require the project sponsor to instn
and label manual shut -offs for gas lines.
- - Require the project sponsor to securely anchor light fixtures, structural ornaments
any), water heaters, bookcases, and other fixtures to walls and ceilings.
Require the project sponsor to reduce slopes on berms to reduce the rate of runo
- -- - - from them.
- - -- --- - Require the project sponsor to construct a retention pond near the center of the siti
Runoff from the site could then be directed to the pond and released into
�the stor
- - - drain after peak storm runoff subsided.
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 11/28/84--
V -667, SDR - 1.583, anti A -1.030 (cont.)
Page 5
if the Commission c uld make the findings for the variance as a whole lie could
cut back the garage o a two -car garage and could meet the setback. There was
a consensus to have is matter continued to a study session at 7 :00 p.m. on
December 4, 1984, and all Commissioners were requested to visit the site. It
was directed that this be continued to the regular meeting on December 12, 1984.
16. UP -571 - Aaron Bern, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow construc-
tion of a 5 ft'. high cabana in the rear yard at 19140 Via Tesoro
Court, in he R -1- 40,000 zoning district
It was directed that this )patter be continued to December 12, 1984.
17. SUP -1 - Ken Wallace, P. quest for a Second Unit Use Permit for an exist-
ing second unit in the R -1- 20,000 district at 19978 Baroni Court
Staff explained the applicant n, noting that the applicant will enter into an
Indemnity Agreement since it s in a flood hazard zone. The public hearing
was opened at 8:52 p.m. Commi sioner McGoldrick moved to close the public
hearing. Commissioner Burger econded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved t approve SUP -1 per Staff Report dated November
16, 1984 and Exhibits "B" and "k'. The motion was carried unanimously 6 -0.-
18. C -213 - City of Saratoga, C side r amending the text of the Zoning Ordi-
nance (Ordinance NS- ) to allow compact parking stalls in the
Village District of lie City and establish standards for compact
parking stalls per Or inance NS -3, Articles 11 and 18
Staff explained the proposed amendm nt. They noted concern that applicants
will have to prepare two parking pl ns in order for them to be adequately
reviewed by Staff. The City Attorne stated that there is also the question
as to what the standard size of the Apaces should be. There was a consensus
to continue this matter to a study se sion on December 18, 1984. It was direct-
ed that this matter will be continued to the regular meeting on January 9, 1984.
Break - 8:55 - 9:10 p.m.
SCELLANEOUS
U b. UP -535 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Southeast
. SDR -1539 - Corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue, Clarification of
19c. A -989 - Conditions (City Council Referral)
Staff explained the modifications made to the Staff Report. Discussion
followed on the traffic light, channelization of Cox, and left -hand turn off
of Cox into the project.. It was determined that Condition 9 should state
"Better delineation of Cox Avenue for left turns ".
Steve Douglas, representing Owen Companies, addressed the hours of operation.
Tile Commission agreed that, whatever the hours are, the concept of normal or
regular shall be inserted, reflecting the fact that these are office buildings
and obviously someone may have to work beyond that time.
It was noted that the berming will be part of the landscaping plan which will
be reviewed by the Commission. Further discussion followed on the hours of
operation. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested that the normal hours be 7:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. The City Attorney pointed out the enforcement problem the City
would have, since people come and go in an office building. There was a con-
sensus to have the hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 9:OO p.m. Discussion
followed on the security lighting, and it was determined that it would be one
hour after the regular hours of operation.
Commissioner Schaefer moved that the hours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m., with the word "normal" added to the condition, and that the security
lighting cease at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend the conditions for UP -535, SDR -1539
and A -989 listed in the Staff Report, as modified, to the City Council. Com-
missioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
J
T
er--=
i
.�/�'. •:! ♦ _yet•
14,.
ZE/ i j},�e.rn. � Q:�• _� � _�;- i:31 <.f.'�- X31..'.
\�..�.`. �-f"� 'i� / /_• _..
.��` ' . �:;' "' � \• .`t" it ff' t � �
Ib /' /. // -� f'' / tb• ll 4Y / �fS_'� t T.� Z;L � `�. \' ,: J
E 4 /
1 "ioll
Jw
J\ _y0
\.C}•� /' // F (Th ~'fit•.'.'.'. :r •J.r�r'.::;`.i. 93• n nL
•ice }f•4 .n '� i� \� ��`Si.�i', (" l�_� t;: =:::1� •'f"._r �
• (a `�'S it f�11.r�`r\\\��J.. aa•�r�� I�!. :M1�I�>•. _'a�A ,.ry%� ` -.� P 1� +��!��(i
'A All 1. �' -if. J\ �c i.01\�,�.111� �<.._..,.,� .► +L:lwf3Lk2'irA. tK/._ � � ^�'.
SARATOGA. CENTER
'\\- FARLAND MEDIAN
AGENDA BILL NO.
ISM
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd. LA_:�
DATE: December 7, 1984 (December 19, 1984) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
C. Mgr.
C -211, City of Saratoga, Text Amendemnts to the Zoning Ordinance, r
SUBJECT: setbacks and non - conforming structures
Issue Summary
1. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the attached
ordinance on November 14, 1984 after several study sessions and a publ -ic hearing.
2. The major change proposed in the ordinance would increase HC -RD and NHR setbacks from
25' or 30' to 45',' but "Grandfathered in" existing approvals.
3. The 75' to 100' setback from arterials and collector streets would be limited to Pierce
Road and Mt. Eden Road in the NHR District.
4. Clustered units must maintain a minimum 10' side yard.
Recommendation
1. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission.
2. The public hearing must be opened, testimony taken, and then closed prior to Council Action
3. The Council must approve the Negative Declaration prior to the first reading and approval
of the ordinance.
4. The second reading will be conducted at the next Council meeting.
Fiscal Impacts
None Anticipated
Exhibits /Attache
1. Exhibit A -
2. Exhibit B -
3. Exhibit C -
4. Exhibit D -
5. Exhibit E -
C&inci hAction
nnts
Negative Declaration
Proposed Ordinance
Planning Commission Resolution No. C -211 -1
Staff Report dated 11/8/84
City Attorney's memosdated 9/24/84 and 12/13/84
Planning Commission Minutes dated 11/14/84
12/19: Introduced with amendments; Negative Declaration approved 5 -0.
1/2: Adopted Ordinance NS 3.61, 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed).
EIA -4 File No: C -211
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED _
(Negative Declaration) ±- !V,
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolu-
tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will
have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environmen
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Revision and clarification of setback requirements,
for single family residential districts, contained in the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga. Setback requirements will remain
the same with the exception of increased front yard setbacks in the
HC -RD and NHR hillside residential districts. Also, the zoning
ordinance will be amended to allow certain existing non- conforming
structures to remain on their sites without requiring a variance.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment
since the proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance are primarily
for the purpose of clarifying existing regulations with some minor
modifications which will not substantially increase construction
impacts.
Executed at Saratoga, California this
11th day of
October
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENV ONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SA OI;A _ n /v
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
19 84
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WITH RESPECT
TO SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND VARIANCES
FOR LEGALLY CREATED NON-CONFORMING. STRUCTURES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 3.7 of. Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended, to read .as
follows;
"Sec. 3.7 - Maximum Coverage and Minimum Yards.
(a) The maximum site area covered by impervious surfaces including
all structures, and. the minimum front yard, side yards and rear
yard of any structure on each site within an R -l. District shall be as
set forth in the table below, except as otherwise provided in
Paragraph (b) of this Section or Section 3.7 -1:
District
Coverage
Front
Yard
Side
Yards
Single -Story
Rear Yard
Multi -Story
Rear Yard
R -1- 10,000
60%
25 ft.
10 ft.
25 ft.
35 ft.
R -1- 12,500
55%
25 ft.
10 ft.
25 ft.
35 ft.
R -1- 15,000
50%
25 ft.
12 ft.
30 ft.
40 ft.
R -1- 20,000
45%
30 ft.
15 ft.
35 ft.
45 ft.
6, R -1- 40,000
35%
30 ft.
20 ft.
50 ft.
60 ft.
(b)
The minimum front yard,
side yards and rear yard of any
structure
on corner lots in each R -1
District shall
be as set forth in
the table
below, except as otherwise provided in Section 3.7 -1:
Front
Exterior
Interior
Single -Story
Multi -Story
District
Yard
Side -Yard
Side -Yard
Rear Yard
Rear Yard
R -1- 10,000
25 ft.
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
R- 1- 12,500
25 ft.
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
R -1- 15,000
25 ft.
25 ft.
12 ft.
12 ft.
12 ft.
R -1- 20,000
30 ft.
25 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
R -1- 40,000
30 ft.
25 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
(c). In determining compliance with the requirements set forth in
Paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Section, the f.oIlowing special rules
shall be applied:
(1) On a corridor access lot with an average width that exceeds
its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered
the depth for the purpose of measuring the, front, side and
rear yards.
Rev. 12/19/84 -I-
(2) Where a single -story addition which does not exceed twenty -
two (22) feet in height is added to an existing multi -story
main structure, that portion of the single -story addition
located within the rear yard shall comply with the single -
story rear yard requirement for the applicable District, but
need not comply with the multi -story rear yard requirement.
(3) Where a second story is added to an existing single -story
main structure, the multi -story rear yard requirement shall
be applied only to that portion of the structure which is
multi- story."
SECTION 2: Section 3A.26 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended, to read as
follows:
"Sec. 3A.26 - Maximum Coverage and Minimum Yards.
(a) The maximum site area covered by impervious surfaces including
all structures shall not exceed either twenty-five percent (25 %) of
the site area or fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, whichever is
less.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (c) of this Section, the
minimum front yard, side yards and rear yardof any structure on
each site shall be as follows:
Front Side Single -Story Multi -Story
Yard Yard Rear Yard Rear Yard
30 ft 20 ft. 35 ft. 45 ft.
30
(c) ^The minimum front yard, side yai
on corner lots shall be as follows:
Front Exterior Interior
C9aA SoC Yard Side Yard Side Yard
'C vimt yS 30 ft 25 ft. 20 ft.
-d 30
•ds and rear yard of any structure
Single -Story Multi -Story
Rear Yard Rear Yard
20 ft. 30 ft.
a �� (d) In determining compliance with the requirements set forth in
Paragraphs (b) or (c) of this Section, the following special rules
�-a uSe shall be applied:
de
(1) On a corridor access lot with an average width that exceeds
its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered
the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and
rear yards.
(2) Where a single -story addition which does not exceed twenty -
two (22) feet in height is added to an existing multi -story
main structure, that portion of the single -story addition
Rev. 12/19/84 -2-
located within the rear yard shall comply with the single -
story rear yard requirement, but need not comply with the
multi -story rear yard requirement.
(3) Where a second story is added to an existing single -story
main structure, the multi -story rear yard requirement shall
be applied only to that portion of the structure which is
multi- story.
Sec. 3A.26 -1 - Height of Structures.
No main structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. No accessory
structure shall exceed twelve feet in height.
Sec. 3A.26 -2 - Grade of Private Access Roads and Driveways.
Unless otherwise permitted by the City Planning Commission, no private
access roadway or driveway to or on any site shall exceed a grade of
eighteen percent (18 %) for a distance in excess of fifty (50) feet."
SECTION 3: Section 3B.10 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended, to read as
follows:
"Sec. 38.10 - Maximum Coverage and Minimum Yards.
(a) The maximum site area covered by impervious surfaces including
all structures shall not exceed either twenty -five percent (25 %) of
the site area or fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, whichever is
less. .
(b) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraphs (c) and (d)^ of this
Section, the minimum front yard, side yards and rear yard of any
structure on each site shall be as follows:
Front Side Single -Story
Multi -Story
-6-6-6t Yard Yard Rear Yard
Rear Yard
a
e.�
3e -- 30 ft. 20 ft. 50 ft.
60 ft.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (d^)) of this Section, the
minimum front yard, side yards and rear yard bf the
main structure
on corner lots shall be as follows:
Front Exterior Interior Single -Story
Multi -Story
N�
e�
Yard Side Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
Rear Yard
lima N�
_6(,� qY
- — 30 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
30 ft.
-�-0 30
(d) The minimum side yard requirements set forth in
Paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this Section shall not apply to clustered
dwelling units
Rev. 12/19/84 -3-
and such units may be located at any point at least ten feet from
the side property lines; provided, however, the space between
clustered dwelling units on adjacent sites shall be not less than
thirty (30) feet.
y atN d�ii 4�e4 A �j (e) In determining compliance with the requirements set forth in
Paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) of this Section, the following special rules
e1e� el shall be applied:
-7S-1 yeT Rey- (1) On a corridor access lot with an average width that exceeds
�jrUyh, P1',eAee its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered
aiw.d M1 - �7aex the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and
de )4a rear yards.
(2) Where a single -story addition which does not exceed twenty -
two (22) feet in height is added to an existing multi -story
main structure, that portion of the single -story addition
located within the rear yard shall comply with the single-
story rear yard requirement, but need not comply with the
multi -story rear yard requirement.
(3) Where a second story is added to an existing single -story
main structure, the multi -story rear yard requirement shall
be applied only to that portion of the structure which is
multi- story."
SECTION 4: Section 15.2 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended, to read as
follows:
"Sec. 15.2 - Continuation —In GeneraL .
(a) Nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures, lawfully
established prior to the enactment of the rezoning, reclassification
or change of regulations making the same nonconforming, may be
continued only in conformity with, and only so long as permitted
by, the provisions of this article. Subject to the provisions
hereinafter set forth, routine maintenance and repairs may be
performed on a structure or site, the use of which is
nonconforming, and on a nonconforming structure.
(b) In each of the following cases:
(1) Upon the processing of an application for a use permit,
variance or design review approval or an application for a
building permit to construct or modify any improvements
upon a site, it is determined that an existing main or
accessory structure which is not the subject of the
application does not comply with the applicable setback
regulations; or
(2) Upon the processing of an application for a Iot split or
building site approval pursuant to Ordinance NS -60, it is
determined that an existing main structure or detached
Rev. 12/19/84 . -4-
garage does not comply with the . applicable setback
regulations,
then. no variance shall be required as a condition for approval of
such application; nor shall removal of the nonconforming structure
be required as a condition for. such approval, if the applicant
establishes to the satisfaction of the approving authority that the .
nonconforming structure was legally created; provided, however,
nothing herein shall prevent the approving authority from imposing
any requirements with respect to the nonconforming structure
which may otherwise be imposed as a condition for approval of the
application."
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, . clause or phrase of.. this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
,phrase thereof., irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on the day of
1984, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Rev. 12/19/84 -5-
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. C -211 -1
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE SET-
BACK PROVISIONS IN ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS (ARTICLES 3, 3A and 3B) AND PROVISIONS.
FOR EXISTING NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURES (ARTICLE 15)
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
was initiated by City Staff and the Joint Code Revision Committee to
clarify and modify the setback requirements in single family residential
districts and to allow existing non - conforming structures-to remain on
their sites without a variance, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following
time and place to wit: at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 14th day of
November, 1984, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration the proposed amendment as
it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the General Plan of the City
of Saratoga, and after consideration of the staff report, the Commission
has made certain findings and is of the.opinion that the proposed amend-
ment attached hereto shall be formally recommended to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of .the
City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the
same as hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of
the Zoning'Ordinance of the City.
2. That the report of Findings of this Commission, a copy
of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ",
be and the same as hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send
a copy of this resolution of recommendation with attached proposed
amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by,this
Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with
State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the.City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 14th day of November, 1984, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and
Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
rman, P
ATTEST:
(L
Secretary
J I / C
e
ng Co is on
L'
EXHIBIT "B"
C -211
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
are required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan
and zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the
zoning ordinance in that:
a. The revisions are primarily for the purpose of clarifying
existing regulations.
b. The modifications dealing with new front yard setbacks
and existing non - conforming structures are minor and
consistent with the City's goals.
21 The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to properties in the City.
I "A.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/8/84
Commission Meeting: 11/14/84
SUBJECT: C -211, Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance - Setbacks
and Non - conforming structures
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
At its November 6th Committee -of- the -Whole meeting the Planning
Commission briefly discussed the amendments described in the City
Attorney's memo dated 9/24/84. Staff confirmed that the Commission
wanted to require 45 foot front yards in the HC -RD and NHR zoning
districts and suggested a rewording that clarified that the setbacks
proposed would apply to any structure not just the main structure.
The text of the ordinance has been revised accordingly.
Staff has also inserted language in the R -1 district ordinance indicating
that these setbacks would not apply to accessory structures in the
rear yard. These are covered under Section 3.7.1 which is currently
being studied for revision by Commissioner Schaefer. There are no
special provisions for accessory structures in the rear yard for the
HC -RD and NHR zoning districts.
In the latest draft prepared by the City Attorney's Office, there
is a provision to eliminate the 75' or 100' setback from arterial
or collector streets required in the NHR and HC -RD zoning districts.
When the site development plans for the subdivisions in the western
hillsides were prepared and approved, there was only one major arterial
in that area'- Pierce Road. Since that time Parker Ranch Road (a
portion or the SW /NE Road) has been designated as an arterial and a
portion of Saratoga Heights Road has been designated as a collector.
These factors combined mean that the site development plans previously
approved are non - conforming in that they will not meet the-43 "requirements
and, considering the topographic and geologic constraints of these
developments, they might not be able to comply with.the 75' -100'
setback requirements. Considering this, it makes.sense to eliminate
this setback requirement rather than going through a series of variance
applications to make existing site development approvals conforming.
Report to the Planni - -T Commission 11/8/84
C -211, Text Amendmer.._3 to the Zoning Ordinance =--- Setbacks Page. 2
These concerns were discussed by the Planning Commission at its study
session of November 6, 1984. The Commission recommended that the
ordinance be amended to require the 75' setback only for certain roads -
Pierce Road and Mt. Eden Road. The Commission also wanted existing
site development plans, approved through the Tentative Subdivision
or Tentative Building Site process,. to be "Grandfathered" in and
exempted from the 75', or the new 45' front yard setback, to avoid
a multitude of variance requests. The City Attorney has.incorporated
these changes in the new version of this ordinance.
The Commission also wanted
for clustered units in the
structure to be located any
allowed under Section 3B.10
has also been incorporated
APPROVED
MF /bjc
P.C. Agenda 11/14/84
a minimum side yard setback -(about 10')
NHR district rather than.allowing the
where within the side property lines as
of the zoning ordinance. This change
in the ordinance.
Michael Flo es
Associate Planner
PAUL B. SMITH
ERIC L. FARASYN
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
STEVEN G. BAIRD
JACK L. BRIDGE
GREGORY A. MANCHUK
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ATKINSON - FAB.ASYN .
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
DIOUNT.%.IN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 940 =1°
(415) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
Saratoga Planning Commission
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
Saratoga City Attorney
J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -19791
Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Relating to Setbacks on Residential
Structures and Variances for Legally Created Nonconforming .Structures
September,24, 1984
The proposed ordinance submitted herewith represents the first series of
amendments resulting from discussions conducted by the Joint Code Revision
Committee. The main objective of the ordinance is to simplify and clarify the existing
regulations pertaining to setbacks on residential structures. The amendments would
also eliminate the requirement of a variance in certain situations where such a
requirement is not necessary or appropriate. The existing setback regulations can best
be described as a confusing maze which is difficult for staff to apply and for the
general public to understand. Most of these regulations were adopted prior to
enactment of our design review ordinance, which generally provides a more effective
method of controlling the impact upon adjacent properties of new structures or major
additions to existing structures.
The proposed ordinance amends Sections 3.7, 3A.26, 313.10 and 15.2 of the
zoning ordinance, copies of which are submitted herewith. In addition, I have also
prepared charts showing the existing and proposed regulations in order to provide a
summary basis of comparison. The proposed amendments can briefly be described as
follows:
A. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3.7:
No change has been made to the table of figures set forth in this
section. The amendment is intended to simplify the regulations pertaining to corner
lots by deleting some rather complicated language and clarifying that the rear yard
setback for a multi -story structure on a corner lot is the same as the setback for a
single story structure. The last paragraph in this section relating to accessory
structures has also been'deleted since the subject of accessory structures is already
covered in other sections of the zoning ordinance.
The amendment also adds the special rules as set forth in
subparagraphs (e)(2) and (3). Subparagraph (c)(2) states that wherIp a single story
addition not exceeding 22 feet in height is added to an existing multi -story main
structure, that portion of the single story addition located within the rear yard must
Memorandum to Saratoga Planning Commission
September 24, 1984
Page 2
comply with the single story rear yard setback but need not comply with the multi-
story rear yard setback. The Commission may recall that you have dealt with
numerous variance applications dealing with this situation. Most if not all of the
applications were granted. If the proposed special rule had been in effect, no' variance
Would have been required.
The special rule set forth in subparagraph (c)(3) is similarly intended
to clarify our regulations and reduce the number of variance applications. This rule
provides that where a second story is added to an existing single story main structure,
the multi -story rear yard setback shall be applied only to that portion of the structure
which is multi- story. This rule will address the situation of a second story addition
being constructed toward the front of the residence with a back portion of the
structure remaining single story. It should be remembered that any conversion of a
single story residence into a multi -story residence constitutes a, major addition in
height requiring public hearing design review.
B. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3A.26:
This section establishes the setback regulations for the HC -RD
Zoning District. The amendment changes the front yard setback from the present 25
feet to 30 feet. It also establishes a larger rear yard . setback for multi -story
structures on standard lots. In addition, the present ordinance contains no regulations
specifically governing corner lots. The amendment would add. such. regulations.
Finally, the amendment would establish the same special rules as discussed above.
Section 3A.26 as published in our existing code still includes
paragraph (c) relating to the method for measurement of . height. This method was
specifically superseded by the method set forth in the design review ordinance.. See
Section 13A.3(g).
C. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 313.10:
This section establishes the setback regulations for the NHR Zoning
District. The existing regulations require a different front and side yard setback for
multi - story structures on standard lots. This distinction has not been made in the
regulations' for any other zoning district. There does not appear to be any logical
reason to distinguish the NHR District from the HC -RD District, particularly when
design review approval will always be required for any new residential structure in the
NHR District. Moreover, a larger front or side yard setback on multi -story structures
may not be appropriate in the hillsides where the topography of the site may dictate
placement of the 'structure toward the front of the lot in order to avoid excessive
grading or placement of structures on adjacent lots closer to each other in order to
maximize open space.
The existing regulations also contain no provision for corner lots.
The amendment would establish the same requirements as applied to corner lots within
the IiC -RD District. The amendment also establishes the special rules relating to
single story additions to multi -story structures and multi -story additions to single
story structures, as discussed above.
Memorandum to Saratoga Planning Commission
September 24, 1984
Page.3
D. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15 -2:
This section is being amended by adding paragraph (b) in order to
change and simplify our current policies on the treatment of nonconforming structures
which are discovered during the course of processing an application for unrelated
improvements. We have encountered numerous cases where an application for design .
review or a building permit is submitted and upon examination of the drawings
furnished in connection with the application, the existence of a nonconforming
structure (typically an accessory building) is discovered which is not the subject of the
application. In such instances, the applicant has been required to either remove or
relocate the nonconforming structure or apply for a variance (which may or may not
be granted depending upon whether the Commission is able to make the findings). The
amendment will eliminate the necessity for the applicant to either remove or relocate
the structure or apply for a variance in certain cases where the applicant establishes,
to the satisfaction of the approving authority, that the nonconforming structure was
legally created. The amendment applies to the following situations:
1. Applications for a use permit, variance, design review or
building permit where the nonconforming structure is not the
subject of the application. The nonconforming structure may
be either the main structure or any accessory structure.
2. Application for a lot split or building site approval pursuant to
the Subdivision Ordinance. In this case, the exemption from a
variance applies only to the main structure or a detached
garage, and does not apply to any other accessory structures.
The reason for this distinction is that we anticipate presenting
to the Commission a revised nonconforming use ordinance
which will not. require the eventual removal of legally created
single family residences which have become nonconforming by
reason of subsequent change in the zoning regulations. If such
residences will be "grandfathered," there should be no reason to
require a variance to legitimate the structure if the owner
should apply for building site approval (for example, upon a 50`uo
or greater expansion of the residence). However, a variance
would still be required for any accessory structures except a
detached garage.
The foregoing amendment is confined solely to the issue,-6!f ' variance, and does not
prevent the Commission from imposing any other of itio s or req 'rements with
respect to the nonconforming structure.
LDS.T P,
Saratoga City Attorney
HST /ns
J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
RE: Amendments to 'Zoning Ordinance; Setbacks in Residential Areas
DATE: December 13, 1984
Reference is made to my Memorandum dated September 24, 1984, directed
to the Planning Commission which describes in detail the various amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance concerning setbacks in residential districts and nonconforming
structures. This Memorandum is intended to explain the changes to the original draft
as made by the Planning Commission and now incorporated into the form of ordinance
transmitted by the Commission with recommendation for adoption by the Council. I
would suggest that you first review my Memorandum of September 24th before reading
this Memorandum. A quick reference to all of the setback regulations can also be
found on the charts attached hereto. Chart No. 1 shows the setback regulations for all
residential zoning districts as they now exist. Chart No. 2 shows the proposed
regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission.
The changes made by the Planning Commission to the original draft of the
ordinance are as follows:
1. Front Yard Setbacks in HCRD and NHR Zoning Districts
As shown by Chart 1, the existing ordinance provides for a 25 foot
front yard setback for a standard lot in the HCRD District and either a 30 or 45 foot
front yard setback for a standard lot in the NHR Zoning District (depending upon
whether the structure is single story or multi- story). There are no separate
regulations for corner lots. Staff had recommended a 30 foot front yard setback for
both standard lots and corner lots in the HCRD and NHR Districts. The Planning
Commission increased this setback to 45 feet. There is some concern on the part of
staff as to whether such increased setback is desirable for the hillsides where the
topography may limit the placement of a home upon a site and the necessity for longer
driveways could result in substantial increases in the amount of grading activity.
Staff also pointed out to the Commission that a 45 foot setback
would create a problem with respect to site development plans approved under existing
regulations. In order to avoid a multitude of variances, the Commission
"grandfathered" these site development plans in Subparagraphs 3A.26(d) and 3B.10(e)
of the proposed ordinance. Although this may solve the problem of creating variances,
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL B. SMITH
660 WEST DANA STREET
ERIC L. FARASYN
P.O. BOX 279
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
GREGORY A. MANCHUK
(415) 967 -6941
STEVEN G. BAIRD
JACK L. BRIDGE
ALEXANDER A. TRAFICANTI
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Saratoga City Council
FROM:
HAROLD S. TOPPEL, Saratoga City Attorney
J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
RE: Amendments to 'Zoning Ordinance; Setbacks in Residential Areas
DATE: December 13, 1984
Reference is made to my Memorandum dated September 24, 1984, directed
to the Planning Commission which describes in detail the various amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance concerning setbacks in residential districts and nonconforming
structures. This Memorandum is intended to explain the changes to the original draft
as made by the Planning Commission and now incorporated into the form of ordinance
transmitted by the Commission with recommendation for adoption by the Council. I
would suggest that you first review my Memorandum of September 24th before reading
this Memorandum. A quick reference to all of the setback regulations can also be
found on the charts attached hereto. Chart No. 1 shows the setback regulations for all
residential zoning districts as they now exist. Chart No. 2 shows the proposed
regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission.
The changes made by the Planning Commission to the original draft of the
ordinance are as follows:
1. Front Yard Setbacks in HCRD and NHR Zoning Districts
As shown by Chart 1, the existing ordinance provides for a 25 foot
front yard setback for a standard lot in the HCRD District and either a 30 or 45 foot
front yard setback for a standard lot in the NHR Zoning District (depending upon
whether the structure is single story or multi- story). There are no separate
regulations for corner lots. Staff had recommended a 30 foot front yard setback for
both standard lots and corner lots in the HCRD and NHR Districts. The Planning
Commission increased this setback to 45 feet. There is some concern on the part of
staff as to whether such increased setback is desirable for the hillsides where the
topography may limit the placement of a home upon a site and the necessity for longer
driveways could result in substantial increases in the amount of grading activity.
Staff also pointed out to the Commission that a 45 foot setback
would create a problem with respect to site development plans approved under existing
regulations. In order to avoid a multitude of variances, the Commission
"grandfathered" these site development plans in Subparagraphs 3A.26(d) and 3B.10(e)
of the proposed ordinance. Although this may solve the problem of creating variances,
Memorandum to Saratoga City Council
December 13, 1984
Page Two
it results in a new problem of staff being required to apply and keep track of two
different standards depending upon the date of site approval. To this extent, our
objective of code simplification has not been achieved. It should be remembered that
any home on a hillside lot will require design review approval and the Council might
consider the question of whether appropriate front yard setbacks can be assured
through this process as opposed to multiple standards.
2. Setback from Arterial or Collector Streets
The existing regulations for the HCRD and NHR Zoning Districts
provide for a minimum setback of any building or structure from any planned or
designated arterial or collector street of 75 feet from the curbline or 100 feet from
the centerline of the street where no curbline exists. This setback requirement would
apply to any portion of a lot adjacent to an arterial or collector street, regardless of
whether such portion is the front, side or rear yard. This provisions has caused some
problems in the past and was expected to cause additional problems in the future since
most of the proposed development along Parker Ranch Road could not satisfy a 75 foot
to 100 foot set back. Staff therefore recommended the provision be deleted.
However, the Commission decided to preserve the setbacks at least with respect to
that portion of Pierce Road and Mt. Eden Road within the NHR Zoning District. See
Subparagraph 3B.10(f).
I should also make the observation that I personally find the organization
and format of the existing code to be rather confusing and difficult to follow with
respect to setback regulations. The proposed amendment was drafted within the
framework of the existing code. I will certainly attempt to simplify the presentation
of such regulations when the code is redrafted.
SARATOGA CITY.CODE
SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
PROPOSED REGULATIONS .
AS PBM%Z ED BY PI.ANNTTINS MMMISSION
(Note: Figures separated by diagonal line indicate single story /multi -story setbacks)
Zoning
Standard Lots
r
Front
c
SARATOGA CITY.CODE
SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
PROPOSED REGULATIONS .
AS PBM%Z ED BY PI.ANNTTINS MMMISSION
(Note: Figures separated by diagonal line indicate single story /multi -story setbacks)
Zoning
Standard Lots
Front
Corner Lots
Exterior Interior
Rear
Front Side Rear
District
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
Side Yard
Side Yard
Yard
Coverage
Agricultural
30 ft.
20 ft.
50 ft.
-
-
-
-
20%
R -1- 10.000
25 ft.
10 ft.
25/35 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 /10 ft.#
60%
R- 1- 12.500
25 ft.
10 ft.
25/35 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
loft.
10 /10 ft.#
55;6
R -1- 15.000
25 .ft.
124t.
30/40 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
12 ft.
12/12 ft.#
50%
R -1- 20.000
I 30 ft.
15'ft.
35/45 ft.
30 ft.
25 ft.
15 ft.
15115 ft.#
45`X�
R -1- 40.000
30 ft.
20 ft.
50160 ft.
30 ft.
25 ft.
20 ft.
20/20 ft#.
35'>j
HC -RD
I 45 ft.
20 ft.
35/45 ft.*
45 ft.{
25 .ft.#
20 ft. �`
20130 .ft. //
25;6 or 15,000 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
NHR
45 ft.'*
20 ft.*
50/60 ft.
45 ft.*
25 ft.1/
20 ft.fi
.20/30 ft. //
25% or 15,000 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
* - Indicates Change
# - Indicates New or Clarified Regulation
CIA1rt �d1 _ 1
I�
SARATOGA CITY CODE
SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
EXISTING REGULATIONS
(Note: Figures separated by diagonal line indicate single story /multi -story setbacks)
Zoning
Standard Lots
Corner Lots
Front Side Rear
Front Exterior Interior Rear
District
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
Side Yard
Side Yard
Yard
Coverage
Agricultural
30 ft.
20 ft.
50 ft.
-
-
-
-
20%
R -1- 10.000
25 ft.
10 ft.
25/35 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
60%
R -1- 12.500
25 ft.
10 ft.
25/35 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
55%
R -1- 15.000
25 ft.
12 ft.
30/40 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
12 ft.
12 ft.
50%
R -1- 20.000
30 ft.
15 ft.
35/45 ft.
30 ft.
25 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
45%
R -1- 40.000
! 30 ft.
20 ft.
50/60 ft.
30 ft.
25 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
35%
HC -RD
25 ft.
20 ft.
35 ft.
-
-
-
-
25% or 15,000 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
N H R
30/45 ft.
20/30 ft.
50/60 ft.
-
-
-
-
25% or 15,000 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
C9iLV,1+ #1'',
ag Commission Page 5
ng Minutes 11/14/84
SD -1582 and A -1024 (cont.)
feels that there has to be some considerable appearance of reduction in density,
whether that be by number of unit's or size of units.
After further discussion there was a consensus that the Commission would not
consider anything more dense than what the Staff has suggested, and it may be
something less. There was also a consensus that the Commission would like a
minimum of eight single -story units and would favor paired or duplexed units.
It was determined that the Commission needs to see what the sizes are going
to be in relation to the flow of traffic and relationship to setbacks. The
applicant was requested to bring some conceptual ideas as to how the concerns
can be addressed. There was a consensus that this matter be continued to a
study session at 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 1984. Mr. Riding indicated that he
felt he could put all of the information desired by the Commission together for
that meeting, and would then like a vote on the application on December 12, 1984.
Mrs. Sabella expressed concern regarding the traffic flow.
Bob Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, expressed concern about two -story buildings,
stating that he feels the Commission should be consistent and make this project
one - story, as with the Owen project. He also expressed concern about setbacks,
density and traffic.
Jim Russell, of the Saratoga Park'Woods Homeowners Association, discussed.den-
sity, setbacks and size, expressing concern relative to these issues.
Joseph Stillman, Saratoga Parkside, noted that their project has a setback of
25 ft., and he does not believe that a 15 ft. setback is ample for two -story
building in this situation. He also expressed concern about the location of
the solar panels.
It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on November
20, 1984 and the regular meeting of December 12, 1984.
16. C -211 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning Ordi-
nance (Ordinance NS -3) to revise and simplify setback requirements
in the R -1, HC -RD, and NHR zoning districts (Articles 3, 3A and 8B)
and allowing certain nonconforming structures to remain without
a variance, per Ordinance NS -3. Article 18
The text amendment was explained by Staff and the City Attorney. The public
hearing was opened at 9:08 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer questioned the 10 ft. setback for clustered units in the
NHR district. She asked if any clustered units were scheduled and commented
that she felt the setback should be 20 ft. She explained that she feels 10 ft.
is a small amount of setback for the 'size of homes that are coming in. It was
clarified by Staff that the current ordinance has a 0 setback from the lot line
but a 30 ft. setback in between structures. They explained that the suggestion
by the Commission at the study session had been that the setback from the lot
line be 10 ft, but that there still'be the 30 ft. setback between structures.
They added that there is no proposal for clustered units before the Commission
at the moment. It was noted that any proposal would be subject to design review.
Discussion followed on the setbacks. The City Attorney clarified that if a
project has gone through the Tentative Map Approval which required a larger
setback, this would not serve to reduce that setback.
Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution C- 211- 1,.recommending this text
amendment to the City Council. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would
like it in the record that she does disagree with the 10 ft. and feels it should
be a 20 ft. setback.
17. C -212 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning Ordi-
nance (Ordinance NS -3) to: 1) require a parking ratio of 1:250
(space /gross floor area) for office uses; 2) require al'Public Hear-
ing Design Review for Commercial, Industrial, P -A and Multi- Family
Residential projects; and 3) Revising the method for measuring the
height of a structure per Ordinance NS -3, Article 18
Staff explained the text amendment. It was noted that the Compact Parking
- S -
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 7S2- Dept. Hd.
DATE: December 5, 1984, (December 19, _1984) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr-
SUBJECT: C -212, City of Saratoga, -- Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Heig t
Measurement, Office Parking, and Public Hearing Design Review
Issue Summary
1. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the attached
ordinance on November 14, 1984 after a study session and a public hearing.
2. The ordinance establishes a consistent means of height measurement for all zoning
districts and clarifies how this measurement is made.
3. The ordinance establishes a parking ratio of 1 space /250 sq. ft. of gross floor
area rather than the current ratio of 1/400.
4. Requires public hearings for the Design Review Approval of major industrial, commercial,
office, multi - family residential and community facility projects.
Reconmiendation
1. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission
2. The public hearing must be opened, testimony taken, and then closed prior to Council,.
Action.
3. The Council must approve the Negative Declaration prior to the first reading and
approval of the ordinance.
4. The second reading will be conducted at the next Council meeting.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachrrents
1. Exhibit A - Negative Declaration -
2. Exhibit B - Proposed Ordinance
3. Exhibit C - Planning Commission Resolution No. C -212 -1
4. Exhibit D - Staff Report dated .11/9/84
5. Exhibit E - Planning Commission minutes dated 11/14/84
Council Action
12/19: INtroduced and Negative Declaration approved 5 -0.
1/2: Adopted Ordinance NS 3.62,5 -0.
CIA -4 File No: C -212
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and.Resolu
tion 653 of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will
have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance to:
1) clarify how structure height is measured but maintain existing
height limits; 2) require a parking ratio of 1 space /250 sq. ft. of
building vs. 1/400 for office uses; and 3) require design review public
hearings for commercial, industrial, multi- family and institutional
structures.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
This project will not have a significant, direct effect on the environment
since it only affects the text of the zoning ordinance. Indirect effects
will be minor and will be dealt with on case by case basis for projects
that are affected by the new development standards.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 8th day of
November 1984
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENWOAAL ROL OF THE CITY OF
SA
DIRECT.OR 'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
ORDINANCE NO.
x 4 + r �
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY: 1)
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
FOR CERTAIN OFFICE USES (ARTICLE 11); AND 2)
REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR COMMERCIAL, PRO-
FESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE, INDUSTRIAL, AND MULT-
FAMILY STRUCTURES; AND 3) REVISING THE METHOD.
FOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT (ARTICLE 14)
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 11.2(j) of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to
reas as follows:
j. Offices, business, administrative and technical services
(including but not limited to accountants, architects, attorneys,
engineers, insurance, real estate and other comparable professions).
One space for each two hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area,
or one space for each separate tenant (business establishment) in
the structure or structures, whichever is greater.
SECTION 2: Section 13.2 -1 is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 of the
City of Saratoga, to read as follows:
Section 13.2 -1. Plans to be reviewed at a public hearing.
A public hearing shall be required for design review approval
of any of the following plans:
(1) Any new structure in a C, P -A, M or R -M District.
(2) Any expansion over 500 sq. ft. to an existing structure
in a C, P -A, M or R -M District
(3) Any new structure or addition to an existing structure
over 22 feet in height in a C, P -A, M or R -M District.
(4) Any parking lot in a C, P -A, M, or R -M District covering
an area of 1000 square feet or greater.
(5) Any community facility as described in Section 2.3(a),
3.3(a), 3A.22 or 3B.4 or any addition over 500 sq. ft.
in size to any community facility in an R -1, HC -RD, NHR,
or A zoning district.
Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten (10)
calendar days nor more than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date
of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and
place of the hearing to all persons whose names appear on the latest
adopted tax roll of Santa Clara County available to the City as owning
property within five hundred feet (.500') of the boundaries of the site
upon which the structure expansion, or parking lot is to be constructed.
c c
Notice of the public hearing shall also be published in a newspaper
having general circulation'in-the City of Saratoga not later than
ten '(10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing.
SECTION 3: Section 14.8 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Section 14.8. Height Limitations - Measurement
The "height" of a structure shall be measured by a vertical
line from the highest point of the roof to either the natural grade
or the finished grade of :the pad , whichever distance is greater,
excluding basements or crawl spaces completely below the grade around
the structure not created by a fill.
SECTION 4: Subsection 13A.3(g) of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(g) The height of a structure shall be measured as provided
for in Section 14.8 of this ordinance provided, however, that
chimneys, flagpoles, radio and television aerials, and other mechanical
appurtenances may be erected to a height not more than twenty -five
feet (251) above the maximum height permitted under the regulations
applicable to the zoning district wherein the structure is located.
The method of measuring height for single family residential and
accessory structures, as set forth herein, shall supersede the
definition contained in Section 3A.26(c) of Ordinance NS -3, and the
exceptions set forth herein shall supersede the provisions contained
in Section 14.9 of Ordinance NS -3.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid or unconsititional, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council
of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed
this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentences, clauses or
phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in .full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced
and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of 1984, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
r1_; L.._ -1 -.-1-
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. C -212 -1
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO: 1) INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN OFFICE
USES (ARTICLE 11); 2) REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
FOR COMMERCIAL, PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE,
INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI - FAMILY STRUCTURES; AND,
3) REVISING THE METHOD FOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
(ARTICLES 13A AND 14)
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance was initiated by City Staff to clarify and modify the
,method of measuring structure height, increase the amount of
parking required for certain office uses to prevent parking
deficiencies, and require Design Review Public Hearings for
Commercial, Professional Adminstrative, Industrial, Multi- Family,
and Institutional structures to ensure that citizen concerns are
adequately addressed, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the
following time and place to wit: at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the
14th day of November, 1984, at the City Council Chambers,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration the proposed amendment
as it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the General Plan of
the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of the staff
report, the Commission has made certain findings and is of the
opinion that the proposed amendment attached thereto shall be
formally recommended to the City council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commisssion
of the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be .and the
same as hereby affirmateively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City.
2. That the report of Findings of this Commission, a copy
of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit
"B ", be and the same as hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to
send a copy of this resolution of recommendation with attached
proposed amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings
held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in
accordance with State Law.
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by
Commission, State of California,
by the following vote:
the City of Saratoga Planning
this 14th day of November, 1984,
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson,,Schaefer
and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
ATTEST:
� ecre ar
2
Chairman, Planning;, /po,mmission
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
are required to acheive the objectives of the General Plan
and zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the
zoning ordinance in that:
a. Increasing the parking ratio for certain office pro-
jects will prevent parking deficiencies and congestion.
b. Requiring public hearings prior to the approval or
construction plans for commercial, professional admin-
strative, industrial, institutional, and multi - family
structures will ensure that citizen concerns are
adequately addressed.
C. Redefining the method of structure height measurement
will clarify it, make it more workable, and will more
accurately describe the visual impact of a structure.
2.. The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to properties in the City.
PAIN&I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/9/84
Commission Meeting: 11/14/84
SUBJECT' C -212, Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance - Office Parking,
Public Hearing Desgin Review, Height Measurement
PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
As the Commission reviewed recent office projects (i.e., Owens Company
and the office complex across from the Quito Shopping Center) concerns
arose regarding the adequacy of the City's current parking requirements
for office uses (1 space /400 sq. ft. of gross floor area). As part of
Staff's review of the Owens Company project, the parking requirements
of other communities were reviewed and it was determined that a parking
ratio of 1/250 would more adequately provide for the likely parking
demand created by such uses.
The City of Novato conducted a parking survey of other communities in
the San Francisco Bay Area which found that a ratio of 1/250 was the
median of the 50 bay area communities that required office parking.
This also is close to the parking ratio used by many communities in
the Santa Clara Valley.
PUBLIC HEARING DESIGN REVIEW
The amendment proposed by staff would require all new structures, and
some additions, in C, M, P -A and R -M Districts to receive Design Review
Approval only after a public hearing. Also, institutional projects
(e.g. churches and schools) would require public hearing design review.
These types of projects could have significant impacts on adjacent
properties and it is reasonable to require public hearings for these
projects to ensure that citizen concerns are adequately addressed.
HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
Both staff and the applicants have had problems in interpreting how
structure height is measured particularly for single family dwellings.
The amendment proposed by staff is an attempt to clarify this measurement
and use the same method of measuring for all structures. Currently
the height for single family structures.is measured from top of roof
to either the natural grade or finished grade whichever is greater.
Report to the Planni r Commission
C -212, Amendment to -fining Ordinance
11/9/84
Page 2
For all other structures height is measured from top of roof or mid-
point of roof (depending on the roof type) to the average finished
grade of that portion of the site covered by the structure.
The problem with using the term "Finished Grade" is that the applicants
wish to use a point on the exterior finished grade which minimizes
this measurement. Staff, on the other hand, uses a cross section and
measures to the pad beneath the structure which is the actual finished
grade the structure rests on and is the most accurate measure of the
worst case visual impact of a structure. One of the purposes of the
zoning ordinance is to protect properties from adverse visual impacts.
By changing the ordinance to measure from top of roof to natural grade
or the finished grade of the pad the visual impact of the structure is
more accurately measured. Further, this type of measurement would tend
to penalize those structures that require significant grade modifications
and allow more flexibility for those structures that preserve the site's
natural topography.
There are provisions in the ordinance which would exclude crawl spaces
and basements, completely below the grade around the-5cructure, from
the height measurement. However, this below grade status can not be
created by a fill pushed up against a structure merely to avoid the
more stringent height measurement.
The effect of this ordinance amendment on height measurements for single
family dwellings will not be significantly different since it clarifies
an existing procedure used by staff. It should, however, make it
clearer to the applicants and building designers so that there is less
confusion at the Design Review and building permit stages of a project.
In the case of structures other than single family dwellings, the pro-
posed amendment could significantly reduce the height of structures,
especially those on hillside lots. However, this change would make it
easier for staff to make height measurements for these structures, it
would allow a consistent means of measuring height rather than a con-
fusing system with different methods in different zoning districts,
and would more accurately measure the visual impact of these. structures.
The two methods of height measurement used by the City of Saratoga are
attached for the Commission's information.
APPROVED
Mi hael lores
Associate Planner
MF /bjc
P.C. Agenda 11/14/84
ag Commission Page 5.:,
ng minutes 1.1/14/84
SD -1582 and A -1024 (cont.)
feels that there has to be some considerable appearance of reduction in density,
whether that be by number of units or size of units.
After further discussion there was a consensus that the Commission would not
consider anything more dense than what the Staff has suggested, and it may be
something less. There was also a consensus that the Commission would like a
minimum of eight single -story units and would favor paired or duplexcd units.
It was determined that the Comm:i.ss: ion needs to see what the sizes are going
to be in relation to the flow of traffic and rel.ati.orishi.p to setbacks. 'rho
applicant was requested to bring some conceptual ideas as to how the concerns
can be addressed. There was a consensus that this matter be continued to a
study session at 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 1984. Mr. Riding indicated that lie
felt he could put all of the information desired by the Commission together for
that meeting, and would then like 1 vote on the application on December 12, 1984.
Mrs. Sabella expressed concern regarding the traffic flow.
Bob Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, expressed concern about two -story buildings,
stating that he feels the Commission should be consistent and make this project
one- story, as with the Owen project. He also expressed concern about setbacks,
density and traffic.
Jim Russell, of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, discussed den-
sity, setbacks and size, expressing concern relative to these issues.
Joseph Stillman, Saratoga Parkside, noted that their project has a setback of
25 ft., and he does not believe that a 15 ft. setback is ample for a two -story
building in this situation. He also expressed concern about the location of
the solar panels.
It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on November
20, 1984 and the regular meeting of December 12, 1984.
16. C -211 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning Ordi-
nance (Ordinance NS -3) to revise and simplify setback requirements
in the R -1, HC -RD, and P41-IR zoning districts (Articles 3, 3A and 3B).
and allowing certain nonconforming structures to remain without
a variance, per Ordinance NS -3, Article 18
The text amendment was explained by Staff and the City Attorney. The public
hearing was opened at 9:08 p.m. No one appeared to address. the Commission.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer questioned the 10 ft. setback for clustered units in the
NFIR district. She asked if any clustered units were scheduled and commented
that she felt the setback should be 20 ft. She explained that she feels 10 ft.
is a small amount of setback for the size of homes that are coming in. It was
clarified by Staff that the current ordinance has a 0 setback from the lot lane
but a 30 ft. setback in between structures., They explained that the suggestion
by the Commission at the study session had been that the setback from the lot
line be 10 ft. but that there still be the 30 ft. setback between structures.
They added that there is no proposal for clustered units before the Commission
at the moment. It was noted that any proposal would be subject to design review
Discussion followed on the setbacks. The City Attorney clarified that if a
project has gone through the Tentative Map Approval which required a larger
setback, this would not serve to reduce that setback.
Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution C- 211 -1, recommending this text
amendment to the City Council. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would
like it.in the record that she does disagree with the 10 ft. and feels it should
be a 20 ft. setback.
1.7. C -212 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning Ordi-
nance (Ordinance NS -3) to: 1) require a parking ratio of 1:250
(space /gross floor area) for office uses; 2) require a Public Hear-
ing Design Review for Commercial, Industrial, P -A and Multi - Family
Residential projects; and 3) Revising the method for measuring the
height of a structure per Ordinance. NS -3. Article 18
Staff explained the text amendment. It was noted that the Compact Parking
- S -
Ag Commission Page 6
ng Minutes 11/14/84
-21.2 (cont.)
Ordinance wi.11`be addressed at the next meeting. Staff commented that they
would have data from other.cities rela.t:ive to their ordinance.
The public hearing was opened at 9:18 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the puhli.c hearing. Com-
missioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The City Attorney recommended that there be some additional language to define
what an institutional structure means, and it was determined that this modifica-
tion will be made. Commissioner P4cGoldri.ck moved to adopt Resolution C- 212 -1,
recommending the text amendment to the City Council. Commissioner Burger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
DESIGN REVIEW
18. A -1011 - Cox Avenue Professional Center, Inc., Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a two - story, 15,000 sq. .ft. office building
on Cox Avenue across from Quito Shopping Center (Building "B "),
in the C -N zoning district; continued from October 24. 1984
It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on December 4,
1984 and the regular meeting of December 12, 1984.
MISCELLANEOUS
19. Consideration of Addition of Neighborhood Public Storage as a conditional
use in the C -C (Community - Commercial) Zoning district in the Village
The request was explained by Staff, who noted that the applicant has submitted
the information requested at the last meeting by the Commission. The procedure
and noticing were discussed. There was a consensus that the Commission feels
that the concept of this use as a conditional use would be feasible in the
Village. However, they agreed that the applicant should apply for a General
Plan Amendment and Change of Zoning, so that a public hearing can be held to
gain more input. Staff was directed to contact the applicant regarding these
applications.
COMMUNICATIONS
Oral by Commission
1. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a brief report on the City Council meeting
held on November 7, 1984. A copy of these minutes is on file in the City Admin-
istration Office.
2. It was determined that the conditions for the Owen Company project will be
reviewed by the Commission at the Committee -of- the- IVhole meeting on November 20,
1984 and the regular meeting of November 28, 1984.
3. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good
Government Group for attending and serving coffee.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned
at 9:31 p.m.
R . pectfully submitted,.
L\—
Ro Shook
Secretary
RSS:cd
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO 7S3
DATE: November 27, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Community Center
SUBJECT: Increase in Rental Rates of Civic Theatre
Issue Summary
Initial: /
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
An increase in Civic Theatre rental rates is being recommended to help defray the
escalating maintenance and operational costs. The proposed fee increase will be
effective May 1, 1985.
Recommendation
Adopt resolution number altering the fee schedule for Civic Theatre rentals as
follows:
Proposed Rate
Use Present Rate Effective 5/1/85
Rehearsals /Auditions $ 55 /day $ 65 /day
Performances 185 /day 205 /day
Partial Use 55 /day 65 /day
Move In/ Move Out 20 /day 30 /day
Fiscal Impact
Revenue from Civic Theatre rentals would increase by $2800 per year.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Background Memo
2. Theatre Survey
3. Resolution
Council Action
12/19: Adopted Resolution 780..26 as of 911,. 5 -0.
r'
FY S 1
d
Qq
,x ;.. St ��•t.,F�4 u,.�F >, .ate ..,. .�,.s
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 12/12/84
COUNCIL MEETING:
SUBJECT' Increase in Rental Rates of the Civic Theatre
In keeping with the City Council's policy to recover the full cost of programs offered
through the Community Services Department, staff is recommending a theatre rental rate
increase. Fees were last increased in January, 1983. Currently the theatre rental
revenue is $21,200 per fiscal year.
The recommended rates have been computed based on the estimated operations.cost of 1984-
1985 and cost of staff to administer the rentals. Also, taken into consideration were
major repairs incurred during this past year. Expenditures totaled $18,700 and in-
cluded the following: 1) a new curtain: $2500. 2) interior painting: $9500. 3) aggregate
floor cleaning and sealing: $750. 4) a new public address. system: $1245 and 5) rebur-
bishment of the heating and air conditioning system: $4705. Staff also surveyed six
local theatres and made a comparison of seating capacity and fees charged to users.
Based on this past year the Civic Theatre was used 268 days or 74% of the available time.
Of this total, 217 days were used by drama groups, 48 days were used for City meetings
and three days were used by one time users. Yearly it costs the City $34,200 to maintain
and administer the Civic Theatre. A daily cost has been computed based on the average
number of days used by drama groups. The 217 days used by these groups costs $27,800.
At this time the City recovers 76% of this cost through rental revenue.
Based on the new rate and average use, rental fees will increase by approximately 13%
or $2800 per year. If approved the City will recover 86% of its cost. While the staff
recommendation falls short of recovering the full cost, it minimizes the impact on the
drama groups but it moves closer to the City's goal of 100% cost recovery.
-Joan Pisani
Community Center Manager
JP:pe
THEATRE FEE SURVEY
.isted below is a survey of six local theatres. It is difficult to make a comparison because
!ach theatre differs in size, quality, seating capacity, equipment available, staff involvement
ind rate structure. This survey is simplified showing only rehearsal and performance rates and
:omparative performance fee based on five hours of usage.
Performance fee
heatre Canacitv Parfnrmanra FPP RPhParCal' Poo hnenA nn r, k_'
aratoga Civic Theatre
Saratoga, CA
301
$185.00 per day
$ 55.00 per day
$185.00
ubberly Theatre
Palo Alto, CA
328
If tickets $5 -$8
$250.00/5 hours
$125.00/5
20.00 /hr
hrs
over
$250.00
ment &
plus equip -
personnel
20.00 /hr over 5 hrs
5
hrs
125.00 2nd performance
same day plus equip
ment & personnel
ontalvo Carriage House
299
$325.00/1 -4 hrs
$ 10.00 /hr
$475.00
Saratoga, CA
475.00/4 -8 hrs
50.00
plus $50 custodial
$525.00
fee plus caretaker
after 5 p.m.
est Valley College
392
$120.00 + technician
$ 60.00
$760.00
plus
Saratoga, CA
16.00 dressing rm
16.00
technician
16.00 dressing rm
16.00
/hr
$ 92.00/hr
plus
technician
alo Alto Theatre
428
$ 75.00 /hr
$415.00
Palo Alto, CA
8.00 /attendant /hr
.00 /hr
50% additional for
non - resident groups
ary Lou Mello Auditorium
350
$ 45.00 /hr
$ 45.00 /hr
$225.00
Santa Clara, CA
ontgomery Theatre
538
$350.00 all day
$275.00
$350.00
San Jose, CA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ALTERING FEE SCHEDULE
FOR CIVIC THEATRE RENTALS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby established for
payment to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the following uses
of the Civic Theatre. This fee schedule shall become effective on May 1, 1985,
and shall be applicable to all applications for reservation after its effective
date.
TYPE FEE
Rehearsals $ 65.00 /day
Performances $205.00 /day
Partial Use of Stage $ 65.00 /day
• Move In /Move Out $ 30.00 /day
The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of.Saratoga held on the day of
1984, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
•
City Clerk
I
LJ
AGENDA BILL N0: -754
DATE: December 12, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Parks & Buildings
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr:
SUBJECT: Increase in Fees for Hakone Gardens
Issue Summar
Increased use at Hakone Gardens for weddings, receptions, etc.
has caused a need for more maintenance and custodial care. Many
improvements have been made to better the gardens, including low
level lights which have been installed along the paths, and
tables and chairs which are now supplied to renters.
We conducted a survey of surrounding locations which provide
sites for similar use, to determine the appropriateness of
increasing our rental fees. As can be seen on the various rental
schedules attached, there is a considerable spread between
locations. The recommended fee schedule falls well within the
range.
Based on the current years usage the proposed fees will raise the
revenue generatedabout $18,000. Added to the money collected
through the donation box, the total revenue should reach $25,000
during 1985. We feel this increase is needed to help defer some
of our cost, and feel the increased rate will not reduce Hakone's
use.
Recommendation
Adopt resolution estalishing the new fee schedule.
Fiscal Impact
Revenue increase of 20% (Approximately $3,100)
Attachments
Resolution
Report to City Council
Fee schedule for Saratoga Springs
Fee schedule for Montalvo
Fee schedule for Saratoga Community Center
Council Action
• 12/19: Adopted Resolution 780. -27, with amendments, 5 -0.
1
"d
C7
•
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 12 -12 -84 -
COUNCIL MEETING: 12 -19 -84
SUBJECT: Increase in Fees at Hakone Gardens
Page 1 of 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Three years ago, when it was decided to rent Hakone Gardens for private functions,
(weddings, receptions, etc.) a fee schedule was established which we felt would
pay all direct costs of the usage and would pay a portion of the overall operation
and maintenance of the gardens. Since that time Hakone has become a popular
location for these functions. The increased use has caused a need for additional
maintenance and custodial care. Many additions have been made to improve the
gardens, such as theJow level lights which have been installed along the paths,
and tables and chairs which are now supplied to renters. While the present fee
schedule covers the direct cost, little or no surplus funds are raised. The fees
have not been increased but all labor and material costs have raised significantly.
It is for the above reasons that we conducted a survey of surrounding locations
which provide sites for similar use, to determine the appropriateness of increasing
our rental fees. As.can be seen on the various rental schedules attached, there is
a considerable spread between the various locations. The recommended fee schedule
falls well within the range.
Existing fee schedule:
$150 - up to 75 people for the first hour
$200 - 76 to 150 people for the first hour
$ 30 - per additional hour
$ 50 - for use of the Lower House
$ 50 - non - resident fee
$ 50 - deposit made when rental forms are submitted to reserve date
$100 - security /damage deposit
Proposed fee schedule:
$150 - up to 25 people for the first hour
$175 - 26 to 75 people for the first hour
$225 - 76 to 150 people for the first hour
$ 40 - per additional hour
$ 75 - for use of the Lower House
$ 50 - non - resident fee
$100 - deposit made when rental forms are submitted to reserve date
$200 - security /damage deposit t
V
0
0
Page 2 of 2
$ 20 - per hour or fraction thereof for rehearsals
$ 35 - per hour photography sessions
The proposed fees will generate approximately a 20% increase in revenue. This
translates into about $3,100 based on the current years usage and would raise
the revenue generated to $18,300. Added to the money collected through the donation
box, the total revenue should reach $25,000 during 1985.
We feel that after three years of making no adjustment, this increase is needed to
help cover some of our operating costs. We do not feel that this modest increase
will lessen the rental use of Hakone.
L`
HAKONE REVENUES
- MAY 84 THRU OCTOBER
84
•
Fees Paid
Period
Number of Events
'84 Rates
'85 Rates
Difference
May 1984
7
$1,675
$1,950
$ 275
June 1984
8
1,835
2,395
560
July 1984
7
2,330
2,770
440
Aug. 1984
11
3,305
4,055
750
Sept. 1984
11
2,960
3,480
520
Oct. 1984
6
1,680
1,985
305
TOTALS
$13,785
$16,635
$2,850
L`
J
COMMUNITY CENTER - Fee schedule attached
• LOS GATOS LODGE - Weddings only, $275. (includes chairs, runner, arch,
354 -3300 organist, consultant & changing room.) Can provide minister.
Reception - $12 per person for hor d'ourves & champagne
$17 per person hot buffet & champagne
Dinner of sit down lunches vary depending on menu.
JAPANESE FRIENDSHIP GARDEN - Maximum capacity - 174
(San Jose) 286 -3626 $205 for maximum 5 hours
$ 25 per hour for setup and cleanup max. 3 hrs.
$250 cash security /damage deposit
If liquor is served, 2 officers required $13.50 per
hour per officer.
SANBORN PARK - $50 up to 30 $125 up to 100 $200 to 200 maximum
298 -0670 available 9:00 a.m. to sundown - no drinking or smoking inside
Kitchen and restrooms available.
SARATOGA SPRINGS - AVAILABLE ONLY BETWEEN 7:00 p.m. - midnight, catering available
$300 minimum - area 1
$500 minimum - area 2
VILLA MONTALVO - Library - maximum 30 persons $385
867 -3421 Indoor pavilion - maximum 99 persons $435
Oval garden (May thru September) 200 max. $585 + $50 traffic
control
Limited to two hours only, no receptions.
• Add $35 membership fee required for use.
WOODLAND ACRES - 150 maximum occupancy $75 for wedding $400 reception
(Normandin Home) Includes set up of chairs and use of kitchen and parking'
257 -8493
FEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED FOR - COMMUNITY CENTER
•
MONTALVO CENTER
SARATOGA SPRINGS 1.
SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL RATES
Effective. September 1, 1984
• ,�;;
'A PROCESSING° FEE:
=: +T he non - refundable processing fee of $25 is to be paid, at. the time the
,Reservation Form is completed.. ,
SECURITY DEPOSIT
JJ:���l rr.
.y'.�
S
The Security Deposit is..:to be paid at the time: •the Reservation-•. orm s.iT
F comp��ted
;.
Function without alcoholic beverage yy .$100^ y'
'r. ! •.., t i 7. 1 -_. A.J `! .1�!' ^,ti +} {:l''',�'' .�;• Zr.» ti r,tM r, •�t+4f ..-�
SSSSSS'''"''' "' . a.• .faction i c e
;, �+ ,, ,w�.ttl ; a1 cQhol � verage d f�-
`� > �� •tJ; 7:;.!' �G.t tr !:YtI { i � r i, i ;, r i f,i }? °� 4�J7.t fr1.i' C,
ROOM !ROOM RATES
tif�r r+ t ^�1 ' tr al 3
F ! a r�3 lit J(
.. Y,Z 4 lr�.j: v. < t:)�11 t J f p c: f�k1Rf v t s
The reptal feesare to be .paid. at least ,30�days inf advance of'your:;f4ncJ ion, y` t
}IifNon- Resident
C c� / a.i S.'r t }nr J j�
k+ t 1.. ort�munity.Center Multi- Purpose Room $ 35 /hr, ,
k t F t� j Tg t45 h(r..
-� <. '.r. r1 ;. )i "r . .. y'•``''' "E ^D? t' - ' {. `'d ?'l�.` L. J•'. T..-.3Vt /.f�
f Senior ,CenteryLarge Room t+r, y r�,r 4� ,rJ ; i�,. 40 /hr: t, l �� 1 Yidf SlS•
,r
(includes
adjacent. kitchen) $ 50 /hr.
3: Snacki, Bar Area + , ,rt j�'i�r J+ t h� t1iw3;x.r ^,t�' 4 �i irl 1$
$ 25 /hr 30 /hr
•PT�r t i +.',. .� t . , tr t 1 + ai _, .� S r'. t I J.' .f .r 1.
Multi Purpose Room "Area,""
ti
1 & Snack Bar 45/
r1'l , _. C'F YIi }iY +9: P�: ?�; t,"''•:i Z ': 1 o� hr,y� t`-j r 5 r•
9
' Meetin
�< 5w g Room or' Arts &`Crafts Room ` $ 12 /hr' J` J#
F ♦{ t r .
•a^�/�4- ifJ{.. J}, t�'ih �l lY 'hr
Y iinll.6:
'i K�tchen'w�thout use ofd�shes /utensils "� t tr
("i':ifi
t
25 d J
J i J. ti t isJ i. 1�0 a,i:r.l J1
`1. ` ?! 1 � ,. t , .:.: .; �:: { +,.,, �� 1`iai'', r: tr. t'.'�;S t l,; f trod s a ri 4 +�. �•N .�� )9 rriS ;r-t,4 0
7. Kitchen with use of dishes /utensils
�',.,� tY,n. > �, _,;1,Lr': , "- r,�•:,.,..;,,
t. t,. ..s. ;�:: #:�' ;fi•`.'.•;�f:� ?.i.r`+ 'f, t`�, �1, t•,rre i,: s,fly .t-i �•t'� r T$tl. � >Y �JJ f� � � t :� z z +'
.t
�4� r $t Backyard r� r7fJ Y l ; It i rx �I r f r �' iii l
r'- i t t a e, c � , Y +t 'rf' l i i;' '. r4J IY �� I t l , GJq- 5���'?c�J�� �a �"tE� �S'4, '-•,,
D ADDITIONAL FEES;
41 'l (( SS t t+, °� t .' ti, a1 f !1,• {. ti.y l,�}Y ,Ai' >tt+ 1� , +,j` �. ,
l��r 1 ., . ,..' ::. ' l - , t -, r ♦ ._1. i. Lt t,r .tj S 1 +. �r t T `rt -� y Yt ft� »!fi i Z Zht,y 1
The regular °roomVrental •rates- are 'not- charged'for -the time spent settin u � ;,a, �t ,r
and cleaning up. This fee is charged for all time spent in the Center befo re,
Yr'A
` an.d�.aft.er.Lthe event. >,',
v #
-
,f�,•.frr, t, =`Set Up'and Clean Up Time $.20 /hr:'����
(Mimi mum 'of 2 hours char ed if.n'ot' rio'r to 1
9 p or after function (tame }s ,
_
An employee of
the Community Center shall be present during all hours of, -use
2rt ` 4
t:,• of the facilit The staf t.
Y• f person is not responsible for.set -up or}clean -up^
Building' Supervisor Fee'
Y ;•+;,t, 1, <. $ J /hr before- midnight,U�' L �t
t i • 1
A
.t' ai ?ty! iTi S,?J '.V .,,s J F 5 .� sin•' . r...{. .it ii -' a ?s• 7 ``r E,
8 /hr. after midnight
.
(City +Holidays depending on availability; minimum charge will be double)
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLIrCANT TO HAVE FULL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE.; -
'30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF FUNCTION.
!Y
ifG l.. r t ' c r -•' `A-
5/84 Ta K > ti a 3 act k r i ,,yy
d �.ys ��tSr�fa,1rS yFr3 �l'7"�R
6< "
T.: l Wedding Information Packet - Page Three
Traffic /Security Control: The grounds surrounding the Villa are
open to the public seven (7) days a week and as a result parking
As extremely limited. Carpooling of the wedding party and•guests
is encouraged and recommended. Parking lot #2 (and Lot #3:if`nec-
essary) will be reserved for guests.
------------------------ - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - --
Wedding' Fee Schedule _
----------------- --------- ----------------- --------------- ----------
---------
"``'' Oval Garden Wedding (May thru September only)
Family Refundable•Dam� e.._
# of Guests Rental Fee Membership Deposit g TOTAL FEE
` (tax deductible)
up to 50 $300. $35...__ .__,._ $50.._�..__ ..,._ $38,5.-
`.
51 to 75 $325. $35.,.... $50. $410.
76 to 100 $350. $35. $50. $435.
101 to 125
$ 375 .
... _...._..: _ ...__ ..... $35..__ � $50
126 to 150 .__,.w_. <_•�.._.... .._.��_.$460,.,
$400. _,:$35. ....._ . $50. .$485.
• "`''' 151 to 175
$475. $35. $50. $560.
176 to 200 $500.
$35. $50. $5856
* ** Traffic Control Officer required for weddings, with OVER 100 guests:
Please add $50.00 to the total fee
Pavilchon Weddings (Not available November 12 thru December'.7
up to `99 $50. $435.
:?>> (maximum allowed
zR Library Weddings (Not available November 12 thru December 7 )M` ±'r
.up to 30 $225 -$35 ...._.........._.... $50. _ _ w$310
'~ (maximum allowed)
- r - - - - -- - - -- - - -- ------ - - - - -- - -------- - - - - -- ----------------- - - - - -.
Payment of fees.; --
First payment, which consists of the Family Membership and 60% of the
rental fee, is due within TEN days after receiving the wedding contract.
The entire 60% is NON- REFUNDABLE should you cancel your reservation at
any time. Please, rescheduling the date can only be done once, pending
S availability of space.
Second payment is due prior to 60 days before the wedding.date.At con-
sists of the 40% balance of the rental fee and the refundable damage de-
posit.
r
A�.:,Grounds
Charges
;Generally there are no additional
admission charges
or catered events. However, should your not
group
rtneet certain minimums, there will be a charge in ad-
:- Ation,to your cost for food and beverage service.
.
GROUP
stn �:,: •., AREA . " .:
SIZE •.. COST
:ixCLUSIVE USE
800- 2000+ $ 0.00
OF THE PARK
600 -799 1000.00
J "0 ...
400 -599 2000.00
Sri: ;
up to-399 3000.00
:LONGBRIDGE
400 -800 0.00
..
300 -399 900.00
200-299 1000.00
'� "�it•:;' :
100-199 1800.00
up to 99 2200.00
CATHEDRAL
150 -250 0•00
>, -GROVE
i.•.
100 -149 400.00
<<t'r•.; .. • <<�,;'
u P to-99 600.00
CREEKSBEND ::
150 -250 0.00
it', • ; :.
�+; •'
100 -149 200.00
�.
to,•.`'.!.;:;.
P. 400.00
REDWOOD GROVE :.,, :::;
50 -100 0.00
up t049 200.00
`ILL TOP OR
50- 100 0.00
^ ^PLAYGROUND
up to 49 50.00
'•.
ALL AREAS —
°t,', WEEKDAYS &
50+ 0.00
k: ftEVEN1NGS
ut) to 49 im m
t: A tion rsfundabk deposit is required to guarantee your reservation.
•Meal servee begins at an agreed'upon time and continua until all
pddailckcrs who are present have been served. If there are left-
seconds will be served on a first -come basis. Prior arrange -
J., .
y, vents may be made for any leftovers to be packaged and kept under
+;f,efrigeration for pick up immediately after the picnic. No leftovers
F'ftc available from Beer Bustror Saratoga Springs Experience.
!,Child portions are for children 12 years old and under.
Prices are effective January, 1984, and are subject to change. I
r..
I
i
i
,
r
i
0