HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSCITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: 2/7/85 (2/20/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: C -213, City of Saratoga, Compact Parking Stalls
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
1. After considerable study and discussion with developers and property owners, the
Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance allowing compact parking
spaces.
2. The ordinance would allow up to 25% of all parking spaces in C, P -A, M, or R -M
zoning districts to be compact spaces.
3. The standard parking space would be reduced in size from 10' X 20' to 9.5' X 18'
with double striping.
4. The amendments were unanimously recommended for adoption by the Commission
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
The amendments may allow slightly larger commercial structures to be built which might
create slightly more sales tax for the City. It is not anticipated that this impact
will be significant.
Exhibits
/Attactments
1.
Exhibit
A
- Negative.Declaration
2.
Exhibit
B
- Proposed.
Ordinance
3.
Exhibit
C
- Planning
Commission Resolution No. C -213 -1
4.
Exhibit
D
- Staff Reports dated 11/19/84 and 12/26/84
5.
Exhibit
E
- Planning
Commission minutes dated 11/28/84 and 1/9/85
Council Action
3/6: Approved Negative Declaration and introduced ordinance 5-0.
3/20: Read and adopted.Ordinance NS 3..66, 5 -0.
EIA -4
Saratoga
CFile No:C --213
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 environmen
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Saratoga by establishing standards for compact parking stalls
and allowing such spaces to make up no more than 250 of the parking
spaces required for a use.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The propos -d project will not have a significant effect on the
environment in that less impervious surface may be required for parking,
more open space may be preserved, and only limited intensififcation
of any use will be permitted.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 19th day of
November
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SAATOGA _
DIRECTOR'`S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
19 8,
RESOLUTION NO. C -213 -1
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF COMPACT
PARKING STALLS AND ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR
SUCH STALLS.
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
was initiated by the Planning Commission to allow compact parking
spaces which would increase parking provided in the Village and
create more open space and development flexibility in areas outside
the Village, 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
.9th day of January 1985, at the City Council Chambers, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of 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 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.
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 9th day of January , 1985, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther
and McGoldrick n
airman, Planning C% ssion
ATTEST:
0914�
�Iecretary
v
C -213
EXHIBIT "B"
":T TTITTTi�C .
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. Allowing compact parking stalls will decrease the need
for impervious coverage and allow increased open space
and landscaping which will enhance the appearance of
the City.
b. Compact parking stalls will allow small parcels in the
Village District to be more effectively used and help
provide additional parking.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or wel-
fare or materially injurious to properties in the City.
C C
s
a tr:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/19/84
Commission Meeting: 11/28/84
Subject: C -213, City of Saratoga, Amendment to the text
of the zoning Ordinance allowing Compact Parking
Spaces
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
The City Attorney has prepared a revision to the parking requirements
of the zoning ordinance as directed by the Planning Commission. This re-
vision establishes standard dimensions for compact parking spaces at .8' x 16'
(7.5' x 16''with double striping; 8' x 19' for parallel- spaces). Up to 250
of the parking spaces in the "Village District" may be compact stalls and
counted towards meeting the parking requirement for a use located in the
Village. This will allow some intensification of the uses in the Village
area and it will:make the smaller and oddly shaped parcels of the area
easier to use.
Outside the Village parking must be provided using the 10' x 20' stan-
dard with the exception that 250 of these spaces can be compact stalls to
provide landscaping or other site improvements,that would normally be taken
up by parking,as long as the intensity of the use and the size of the struc-
ture is not increased. This means the applicant must file two parking plans
if compact stalls are to be used:
1. One plan showing the number of spaces that can be provided on site
using the 10' x 20' standard.
and
2. Another plan showing the same number of parking spaces with up to
25% compact stalls and the additional - landscaping or other improve-
ment.
This system will increase the amount of staff time spent reviewing the parking
requirements of a project since two parking plans must be reviewed. Staff
must also determine which parking spaces are truly usable before allow-
ing any spaces to be converted to compact stalls. Staff anticipates some
disagreements over these interpretations with the applicants and thus
some delay in processing time.
Staff would ask the Commission to consider these factors when reviewing
Report to Planning Comr(_ lion
C -213, City of SaratogaN,
11/19/84
Page 2
this proposed amendment. It would be easier to review parking plans if
only one plan were required. If the Commission is concerned about inten-
sification of uses by use of compact spaces this can be controlled by re-
ducing the amount of building coverage allowed, using floor area ratios or
requiring an increased amount of landscaping for projects using compact
.\stalls. Staff feels this would be a simpler, more effective control of
intensification than using parking.
However, if the,Commission feels this ordinance amendment is appropriate,
staff has prepared the necessary resolution recommending approval to-the
City Council. The Commission must also determine the "Village District"
boundaries and recommend these boundaries for adoption by the Council. A
map showing staff suggested boundaries is attached.
APPROVED
Michael Flore
Associate Planner
MF /kah
P.C. Agenda: 11/28/84
� C
0
�i F ;3 1yx�r a
s OTTE o1 0&M&9Q)(5&
x
s RVO
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 12/26/84
Commission Meeting: 1/9/8
SUBJECT: C -213, City of Saratoga, Amendment to the Text of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow Compact Parking Spaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 1984 staff expressed some
reservations about the original draft of the proposed amendment. Staff's main
concern with the ordinance was that compact stalls could only be used in areas
outside the Village after the parking requirements for a particular use were cal-
culated using standard parking spaces.. This would have required the applicant
to prepare, and staff to review, two parking plans thus increasing the amount of
time needed to process these plans.
It was staff's understanding that the Commission did not wish compact spaces
to be used to intensify uses outside the Village. At the study session on December
18, 1984 staff suggested that intensity of use would be better regulated by using
a floor area ratio system~. After some discussion the Commission determined that
allowing compact stalls to be counted for small projects would not greatly inten-
sify these uses and the Commission will closely review any and all large projects
that would use compact stalls. The ordinance has, therefore, been amended so that
all compact spaces can be counted towards the parking requirement of a.11 commercial,
office, industrial and multi - family projects.
The Commission also directed staff to work on developing floor area ratios to
regulate the intensity of uses. Staff will be working on amending the ordinance in
this regard in the future.
Commissioner Peterson suggested that the standard parking stall be.9.5' X 18'
with double striping rather than the 10' X 20' space currently required._.__ There.
_ was a consensus from the.Commission that the standard be changed and this has been
-incorporated into the ordinance.
.RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the attached resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance.
APPROVED:
Michael Flores
Associate Planner
P.C. Agenda 1/9/84
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
SDR -1583, A -1030, V -667 and SUP -9 (cont.)
concern about the front yard setback, the side yard setback and
parking.
Commissioner Peterson mAed to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the moti n, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer sta ed that at the study session the Commission
had indicated that the f t yard setback should be 30 ft. and had
asked the applicant to dis uss with the architect the possibility of
changing that. She adde that she feels the neighbors' comments
regarding that setback are ery appropriate. She commented that she
felt she could work around he side yard setback if it were for the
applicant's residence, but 'nce it is for a second unit she feels
differently. She added that regarding the parking, the required
width must be there in order for the spaces to be actively used.
Staff noted that, under the econd Unit Ordinance, the sewer
requirement cannot be deferre .
Chairman Siegfried commente that he had not picked up on the
fact that the house is being xpanded from 1200 sq. ft. to 5400
sq. ft. He explained that he newthe expansion was significant
but did not realize how sign ficant, and that makes it very
difficult for him to make the v riance findings for the front and
side setbacks.
Commissioner Harris moved to den Variance V -667, per the Staff
Report dated November 19, 1984. onunissi.oner Schaefer seconded
the motion, which was carried una imously 5 -0. It was determined
that the other issues are rendered moot since the variance is
denied. The appeal period was oted, and the City Attorney
stated that if the matter is ap ealed and the City Council
reverses the decision, the matter can then be referred back to
the Commission for action with espect to the rest of the
application.
7. V -674 - Aaron Berman, Request f r Variance Approval for
impervious coverage whi h would exceed 35% at 19140
Via Tesoro Court, i the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district; continued from December 12, 1984
It was directed that this item be conti ued to January 23, 1985.
8a. V -670 - Bill and Barbara Sudlow, R quest for Design Review
A -1035 - Approval to construct a n two -story residence and
Variance Approval for a 25 t. front yard setback
where 75 ft. is required at 1502 Saratoga Heights
Drive (Tract 6665, Lot 11), n the NHR zoning
district; continued from Dece ber 12, 1984
-------------------------------------------------------------
It was directed that this item be continued to January 23, 1985.
C -213 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the
Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance NS -3), to allow compact
parking stalls in the Village District of the City
and establish standards for compact parking stalls;
continued from November 28, 1984
------------------------------------------------------------
Staff explained the text amendment, recommending approval to the
City Council.
The public hearing was opened at 8:37 p.m.
Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commis-
sioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
- 4 -
Page 5
� Planning Commission Pa g
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
C -213 (cont.)
After discussion of the changes, Commissioner Peterson moved to
adopt Resolution C- 213 -1, recommending the text amendment to the
City Council. Commissioner Harris seconded the.motion, which was
carried unanimously 5 -0. It was clarified that this amendment
includes the change of the regular parking spaces to 9 -1/2 x 18
but they require double striping. Commissioner Schaefer
commented that she disagrees with the size of the new regular
spacing but she voted for the amendment.
10a. E -1 -84 - Fremo
10b. SD -1567 - Draft
a 55-
NHR D
secti
Chairman Siegfried repo
on this matter, and this
He explained that commen
and then the subdivision
Union High School District, Consider a
IR and Tentative Subdivision Approval for
t subdivision on a 47.5 acre site in the
trict located just south of the inter -
of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks
------------------------------------------
ed that there had been a study session
evening just the EIR will be considered.
s will be taken on the adequacy of it
will be considered at the next meeting.
Staff described the roposal and the contents of the
Environmental Impact Re ort. He noted that there are three
alternatives discussed in he EIR, i.e., no project, clustered
planned community design w thout increasing the number of units
and a reduced grading plan, still using single - family detached.
Staff recommended that the ommission take public testimony on
the Draft EIR, and then clo e the public hearing so that the con-
sultant can respond to the'c mments and bring back a final EIR
for Commission consideration
The public hearing was opened `at 8:41 p.m.
Mr. Santoriello, Norada Court, addressed a trail shown coming from
Norada Court up into the prop. ed area. He submitted a petition
and letter objecting to this. Ve noted that there is already a
trail on Prospect Creek. He as ed about the zoning of that area,
stating that he thought it w s a 2 -acre minimum. The City
Attorney commented that there wa litigation by this property
owner, who was actually claiming higher density than set forth
in this particular map. When the litigation was settled the
density was established for this ite.
Commissioner Schaefer asked if thi trail would be an access
for children between the new and e sting neighborhoods, and no
horses were allowed, if this uld pose a problem. Mr.
Santoriello commented that it is no an existing pedestrian walk-
way. Staff stated that it is design ted on the map as a pedes-
trian walkway, and is not for horses They explained that there
is a proposal for a small neighborhoo park, and this would be a
walkway to that area.
George Geblepski, Hillmoor Drive, expl ined that this trail
is really an access to a drain. He al o addressed the traffic
and inquired about a traffic light at S elling and Prospect.
Charles Hunter, 20846 Meadow Oak, stated that he would like an
aesthetic development if this area i to be developed. He
expressed concern about the traffic, par icularly in conjunction
with the development of the proposed d velopment of the Seven
Springs Ranch.
Dave Ball, Farr Ranch Road, asked what s condary access routes
are required and why. Staff explained t t it is typical under
our subdvision requirements to have sec ndary access for more
than 15 units. Mr. Ball commented that there is secondary access
- 5 -
"-213
Planning Commission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 11/28/8
V -667, SDR -1583, and A -1V30 (cont.)
if the Commission could m ke the findings for the variance as a whole he could
cut back the garage to el minate the post and obtain the 2' £t. set)ack'for the'
a consensus to have this m tter continued to a study session at 7 :00 p.m. on
December 4, 1984, and all ommissioners were requested to visit the site. It
was directed that this be c ntinued to the regular meeting on December 12, 1984.
* *11e1J, portion. There was....
16. UP -571 - Aaron Berman, equest for Use Permit Approval to allow construc-
tion of a 15 ft high cabana in the rear yard at 19140 Via Tesoro
Court, in the R 1- 40,000 zonine district
It was directed that this matt be continued to December 12, 1984.
I.T. SUP -1 - Ken Wallace, Reques for a Second Unit Use Permit for an exist-
ing second unit in he R- 1- 20,000 district at 19978 Baroni Court
Staff explained the application, oting that the applicant will enter into an
Indemnity Agreement since it is in a flood hazard zone. The public hearing
was opened at 8:52 p.m. Commissi0 er McGoldrick moved to close the public
hearing. Commissioner Burger secon ed the motion, which was carried unanimously
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to apA ove SUP -1 per Staff Report,dated November
'16DC-213 Exhibits "B" and "C ". he motion was carried unanimously 6 -0.
18 City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning Ordi-
nance (Ordinance NS -3) to allow compact parking stalls in the
Village District of the City and establish standards for compact
parking stalls _per Ordinance NS -3, Articles 11 and 18
Staff explained the proposed amendment. They noted concern that applicants
will have to prepare two parking plans in order for them to be adequately
reviewed by Staff. The City Attorney stated that there is also the question
as to what the standard size of the spaces should be. There was a consensus
to continue this matter to a study session 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.
MISCELLANEOUS
19a. UP -53S - Professi nal Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Southeast
19b. SDR -1539 - Corner o Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue, Clarification of
19c. A -989 - Condition (City Council Referral)
Staff explained the modifi \ations made to the Staff Report. Discussion
followed on the traffic lit, channelization of Cox, and left -hand turn off
Of Cox into the project. was determined that Condition 9 should state
"Better delineation of Cox venue for left turns ". *addition below
Steve Douglas, representing ven Companies, addressed the hours of operation.
The Commission agreed that, w atcver the hours are, the concept of normal or
regular shall be inserted, re ecting the fact that these are office buildings
and obviously someone may have to work beyond that time.
It was noted that the bcrming w 11 be part of the landscaping plan which will
be reviewed by the Commission. 'urther discussion followed on the hours of
operation. Commissioner McGoldr k suggested that the normal hours be 7:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. The City Attorney p inted out the enforcement problem the City
would have, since people come and o in an office building. There was a con-
sensus to have the hours of operat on 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Discussion
followed on the security lighting, nd it was determined that it would be one
hour after the regular hours of op ation.
Commissioner Schaefer moved that the ours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to
9 :00 p.m., with the word "normal" add to the condition, and that the security
lighting cease at 10:00 p.m. Conunissi ner McGoldrick seconded the motion,
Which was carried unanimously 6-0.
Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend the conditions for UP -535, SDR -1S39
and A-989 listed in the Staff Report, as codified, to the City Council. Com
missioner Burger seconded the motion, whi h was carried unanimously 6 -0.
*:Idd.ition - It was also determined to add condition stating that there will he
a public. hearing at the City Council level on the necessity for the traffic
light at Quito and Cox Avenue.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Q 2 Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 0 J Dept. Hd.
DATE: 1/31/85 (2/20/85) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT:Community Development C. Mgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: V -675 - Christopher & Ulla Beach - Appeal of Variance Denial for a Sideyard Setback (B;
and not to Provide the One Required Covered Parking Space (C)
Issue Stunnary
1. The structure has been in existence for a number of years.
2. The building inspection report indicates that the structure maintains a 2 ft., 8 in. side
yard setback; the applicant indicates that the structure maintains a 3 ft. setback from
the property line.
3. The lot is substandard in width; the required setback is 10% of the site width or 8 ft.
4. Three covered parking spaces are required, two for the main dwelling and one for the
existing second unit.
5. The Planning Commission granted variance approval to provide one covered space rather
than two covered spaces for the main dwelling (V -663)
Recommendation
1.. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny V -675 B and C.
2. Staff recommended denial of V -675 (B).and (C).
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal application from Ulla Beach 5. Exhibits
2. Staff Report dated 1/3/85
3. Resolution No. V -675 (B) and (C)
4. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing 1/9/85
Council Action
2/'20 :. Continued public hearing to 3/6.
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
RECEIVED
JAN 16 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date Received: /-A -
Hearing Date:
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
C-H?LS TaPW-7k> AN7 'LEA PREACH
_IR6ti P��c ;����� sA f\ cH cl5C,70
NOR 3 �n ti �
_ C H n ISTO P Fk = 2 A N7 c �� L A EE-- A C i I
I 1, LI t « / s<:, 7o
APP(-.evA) CAP A 0& M k1 r =c2 A a;
v�
yAft1A = APP0e.1A)-- F 2 A x Fc 1\ � A Sice' � --r t�r�c'✓ A N� NAT c�, c�f��; �zjL
!ANY GrV`rzG—:3> PA2Kk NG .SPAC Writ -2e UN`. 1-S ti�E4v L
Decision Being Appealed: 2EMAL (7)F
X7 PAP\,--:nl
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
� .7 U C c�rtA -ter �C`vV
l CY✓ l X�t� �:'� -L+.+` .tc` , O cy l."-22 `t2
CL;J It6LA� Pc .-o T,.,K`s 1
A
a
c,*C. •w� p�.. �s- +.u�.� -... �1.-�� -CU, O.;iJ o-c.a.3C \QO - <o.�
Uu
S��t -v��. � �..��a.:�.�,o,,,\ �1,..�,7 i� -�.�_ k�..n -�a... o� -tkti.2.. 1�tia.�5..�4:� -•0� o.` _�,.,i�
nC\2 d vc
*
Appellant's Signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBA- FITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF '1'IIE DECISION.
aek- Ck -0- /
t
✓� � Ki� '�`'��C- l.►ti.3t��..J� .%.:'t :.:.irk .'Ytc-� -Z- �.�p",rt,, v.:L.i. -��� 1 Ccr
i
5
GI
71
5e Ll
c�1
ck
�, U'� -.x-- �.-�, v... rZ c+ca.�v-cll� ICo --�}-�✓J rr, c.7�..
sue.. -•��
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Saratoga j
APPROVED BY:
DATE: 1/3/85
DATE:
y t Commission Meeting: 1/9/85
APN: 386 -13 -17 INITIALS:__
APPLICATION N0. AND LOCATION: SUP -3, V -675; 18645 Paseo Tierra
APPLICANT: Christopher and Ulla Beach
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a Use Permit for an existing second unit, Variance
Approval for a 4 foot 4 inch rear yard setback and 2 foot S inch side set-
back where 25 feet and 8 feet are required respectively and not to provide any
covered parking space where one covered space is-required.
OTHER APPROVAL REQUIRED: Building Permit
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Under state law the project is exempt from CEQA
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family
Residential - Medium Density
PARCEL SIZE: 10,000 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: The open areas of the property are lawn cov-
ered with additional landscaping scattered throughout. A tree is located dir-
ectly in front of the second unit.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat
EXISTING SETBACKS: 'Front: 110 Feet Rear: 4 feet 5 inches (25 ft.
(25 ft. required)
Left Side: * 2 Feet 8 inches Right side: 46 Feet
(8 Feet required)
HEIGHT: 13 Feet
*NOTE: The plans indicate a 3 foot side yard seback; the building inspection
report indicates a 2 foot 8 inch side yard setback.
Report to Planning Comn,.ssion 1/3/85
SUP -3, V -675, Beach, Paseo Tierra Page 2
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 37% (60% allowed)
SIZE OF STRUCTURES: Main Dwelling =
Second Unit =
Accessory Structure
(3,5000 sq. ft. Des
1 814 S . ... ..-
615 _S.q
60 Sq. Ft.
2,489 Sq. Ft.
ign Review standard)
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and
standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing rear and left side yard set-
backs do not comply with the required setbacks. In addition, one parking space
is required on site. These three items are issues of application V -675 which
is being processed concurrently.
BACKGROUND: The property is located in an approved area of the Saratoga Hous-
ing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP),
The lot is substandard in width, thus making the required side yard 10% of the
width or 8 feet,
MATERIALS & COLORS: The existing second unit is finished in wood siding painted
a creamy yellow color; the roof is composition shingle. The main residence
is stucco with a tar and gravel roof.
BUILDING .INSPECTION: A` private inspection service conducted an inspection of
the second unit and submitted a detailed report regarding the condition of the
unit. Several modifications will be required to bring the unit in compliance
with the Building Code. A condition has been included that the applicant comply
with the inspection report. Of particular concern is the actual location of
the unit. If the unit is less than 3 feet from the property line, a one -hour
fire wall will be required.
FIRE INSPECTION: Central Fire District has inspected the second unit and in-
dicates that the structure can be served in a normal manner from the public
street.
OCCUPANCY:. The applicant has indicated that the property owner of record and
a person sixty years or older will reside in the main dwelling and the second
unit. No more than two people will occupy the second unit,
SEWER: Both the main dwelling and the second unit are currently hooked up to
the sewer.
PARKING: Currently no covered parking spaces are provided. The previous home -
owner recent -ly received Variance Approval to provide one covered space rather
than two spaces for the main dwelling (V -663). Plans have not yet been sub-
mitted for a building permit for the carport. The applicant indicated to staff
that they may, try to provide the one covered parking space required for the
second unit. Plans showing compliance with the requirement (Section 16Ao4(e))
have not been submitted. Staff concern is that adequate parking is not pro-
vided onsite and occupants of the residence or second unit may park in the
street,
Report to Planning Com. sion 1/3/85
SUP -3, V0675, Beach, Paseo Tierra Page 3
COMPATIBILITY: The scale, mass, height and general design of the existing
second unit are compatible with the main dwelling and other structures in the
vicinity. The applicant has indicated that the second unit has existed since
about 1970. Staff was unable to find any records concerning the structure.
PRIVACY: Landscaping along the western (left) property line provides screen-
ing for the adjacent residence. There is no landscaping to the rear of the
second unit because of the proximity of the unit to the property line. Land-
scaping on the adjacent property provides minimal screening. There is one
window in the rear of the second unit and a 6 foot fence along the property
line. No privacy impacts were noted to the residence to the rear. There is
no landscaping along the eastern (right) property line and the windows on the
side of the unit seem to look into the adjacent.rear of the residence and
yard. However, the distance seems to minimize any potential impacts. The
unit has also been located on the property since about 1970 and staff is not
aware of any concerns raised by the neighbors. Staff would recommend that
some landscaping be installed along the rear of the eastern property line.
OTHER: A standard required for detached second units is that the lot be 1.6
times the minimum standard lot size of the zoning district. The subject parcel
is 10,000 sq. ft. and does not meet the requirement. This can be'varied under
the Use Permit application.
V -675
The varianceapplicat!6n, c6nsists'of the following three requests:
A. To maintain a 4 foot 4 inch rear yard setback where 25 feet is required
B. To maintain a 2 foot 8 inch sideyard setback where 8 feet is required
C. To not provide a covered parking space where one space is required
I. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship:
A. & B. The unit has existed since about 1970. A relocation of the unit
on the site to comply with all applicable zoning ordinance requirements
would create a practical difficulty.
C. The width of the lot and the location of the residence do create a
practical difficulty in providing the required covered parking space
for the second unit.
2. _Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances:
The unit has been in exisre.nce since about 1970. The lot is substandard
in width. Because of the size of the lot and the location of the main
dwelling on the site it is not possible to locate the second unit on
the site in compliance with all applicable zoning ordiance requirements.
A tree is located directly in front of the second unit.
A. The required sideyard setback is 10% of the lot width and not 10 feet
as normally required in the zoning district. Staff cannot make the
finding for a 2 foot 8 inch sideyard setback.
Report to Planning Coma „zision
SUP -3, V -675, Beach, Paseo Tierra
1/3/85
Page 4
B. Exceptional circumstances exist regarding the rear yard setback
since an increase in the rear yard setback would require the removal
of the tree.
C. The lot is located in an area that predominantly provides only one
covered parking space for the main residence. However, there are
no exceptional cirucumstances relating to the site in regards to the
provision of parking for second units. Staff cannot make this finding.
3. Common Privilege:
A. & B. It is not a common privilege to have a second unit in the R -1-
10,000 zoning district. However, approval has been granted previously
for accessory structures to be located 3 feet from a property line in
the R -1- 10,000 zoning district.
C. In the area in which the site is located, the majority of the residences
do not provide adequate covered parking.
4. Special Privilege:
There would be a denial of common privilege if the variance were denied;
therefore, granting the variance would not constitute a granting of
special privilege.
5.. Health, Safety and Welfare:
A. & B. Provided that the unit is brought up to code compliance, including
the one -hour fire wall on the western side, granting the variance for
the side and rear yard setbacks will not be detrimental to the public
health safety and welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
C. Granting the variance for the covered parking may be detrimental to
the public,safety and welfare since adequate parking would not then
be provided on site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends 1) approval of the variance for the rear
year setback 2) denial of the variance for sideyard setback and parking
having been unable to make the necessary findings. If the Commission wishes
to grant the 2 variances the necessary findings must be made.
SUP -3
FINDINGS:
1. The second unit does not comply with the side and rear yeard setbacks.
However, because of the location of the adjacent residences and the mater-
ial vegetation, and with the condition that landscaping be provided on the
eastern property line, the location is in accord with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site•is
located.
Report to the Planning nmission
SUP -3, V -675, Beach, Paseo Tierra
1/3/85
Page 5
2. The proposed location of the second unit and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed second unit will comply with each of the applicable pro -
visions,of this ordinance and the General Plano
4. The existing second unit does not comply with the standards described in
Section 16.A.4. A variance application is being processed concurrently for
the side and rear yeard setbacks and the parking requirment. Approval of
the variance or compliance with the standards is required. The detached
second unit is located on a site that is the mimimum lot size of the
zoning district and is not 1.6 times in size. This requirement can be
varied for existing units under the Use Permit.
5. With the addition of landscaping along the eastern property line the
second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise
available to residents of adjoining properties.
6o The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the exterior
appearance and character of the existing main dwelling.
7. The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the existing
neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaping.
8. Provided that a-covered parking space is provided on site, the second
unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking con-
gestion or overload existing public facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the second unit Use Permit, per
Exhibit "B" and "C" subject to the following conditions:
to The unit shall maintain an 8 foot side yard setback or Variance Approval
granted for the reduced setback,
2. A 10 foot by 20 foot covered parking space shall be provided on site.
3. The applicant shall comply with the inspection requirements outlined in
the report . dated.11 /28/84. The appl_i.cant s. hall __a_lso_._comp_ly._with any
_ ._._...
additional requirements of th.e Inspection Services Division.
4. Any violation of these conditions or any violation of the zoning ordi-
nance by this second unit shall constitute grounds for the revocation
of this Use Permit per Section 16A.10.
5. This Use Permit shall be recorded as required per Section 16A.9 of the
Zoning Ordinance within 30 days,of the final approval of this Use Permit.
Approved:
Lucille Hise
Planner
LH/ j of
P.C. AGneda: 1/9/85
-------'
_�l L/ y - s
R. L. MORRISUN & ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECT AND BUILDING CONSULTANT
1449 PRIMROSE WAY, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 (408)446 -1700
Mrs'. Ulla Beach has had a plot plan drawn, therefore this investigation is con-
fined to the cottage only, as follows:
(Code references will be to latest applicable versions e. q. UBC Uniform Build-
ing Code 1979 Ed, etc.) Q%(JFESS /ONq
Abbreviations: �Q�Q�1 E•MOq �q
UBC: Uniform Building Code � � o y'
162 F.D.C.: One 6 Two Family Dwelling Code u, n,
UPC: Uniform Plumbing Code °C 0. C-4761
UMC: Uniform Mechanical Code, 6'
NEC: National Electrical Code
CEC -T -24: California Energy Code Title 24 10% �( �� /� a�'�P
I.C.W.: "in camp) iance:,with'1. meets requirement of regulation .etc.0 'CCAL %F
NO ITEM REMARKS
EKTERIOR (Unless noted..otherwise)
1. Yard and court Not in accord with UBC 1206(b) yards, west side less
than 3' min. width and (b) projection into yard, not
3 feet to center line fence., more than 2 inches for
each foot of width.
2.
Foundation
Measures about 9" below grade (required 12" min /UBC-
TBC 29 -A)
3.
Foundation sill
Measured about 4" above finish grade. (required 6" above
finish grade UBC 2517(7) and Zgo7(a)
4.
Treated Fnd. Sill
Appears in I.C.W. UBC92517(c) 3
5.
Wood Siding
1 X 8 T 6G, no apparent decay, is fully-- painted.
6.
Exterior walls
2 X 4's I.C.W. UBC- 2518(g)
7:
Exterior wall
Fully insulated with R -11 fiberglass, I.C.W. Title 24.
Insulation
8.
Roof framing:
(rafters see note 28)
2 X 4's @ 24" o/c not I.C.W. UBC 2506; 2518(h) slope3 :12
or less 2518(h)- 2,3,4, and Tbl's 25-T -R -7 allows min
e.j. sec note 28
2 X 6 rafters.
(a) measured roof
slopo
2.85 :12 (less than 3:12)
9
Roof sheathing
8 X 1's @ 8" o /c.
UBC tbl 25 allows 5 /8the when perpendicular to joists
(a) Roof sheathing
Existing roof sheathing has been very wet, however
moisture
no sign of serious decay was noted.
(b) Termites
Attic verticals post near access way has termite damage
it was n't checked for existing termits: recommended
termite inspection.
R. L. MORRISUN & ASSOCIATLS
ARCHITECT AND BUILDING CONSULTANT
1449 PRIMROSE WAY, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 (408) 446 -1700
N0. ITEM
REMARKS
10. Roof covering,
(a) 3 TAB Sq. Butt, Asphalt
shingles, wt. 235 ib /sq.
Roof apparently meets exception to
UBC
-Tbl. 32 -B (3202g) Asphalt shingles
may be installed on slopes as low as
2:12, providing the shingles are
approved self sealing - - -- -with an under-
layment consisting of 2- layers of type
15 felt applied shingle fashion.
(b) Distance from property line
of face of building is 2.7'
UBC -1704 requires 10' from extremity
of r6of to P.L. - - - - -.
(East P.L.) and 4.4' (South P.L.)
*Note over hang is 2' therefore
dist. to P.L. is 0.7' (East P.
L.) and 2.4' (South P.L. )
11.
Exterior openings exposed to
weather i.e. Door and windowst
These are not flashed In accordance
note
overhang of 24" gives fair to good
with UBC- 1707(b) "Must be weather proof"
These have silicon sealant
protection.
around, this
Is not a permenant sea), requires
annual maintenance
12.
Attic ventilation
Appear I.C.W. code.
13.
.Water heater
Is not I.0 -W. UPC -505 Access
Appliances shall be occessible for In-
spection, service, repair and replace-
ment without removing permanent construc-
tion.
14.
Sanitary Sewer
(a) 31inch, ABS SCH 40 installed
Not I.C.W., UBC 315 (especially 315(b) --
above ground @ out side wall of
(E) bath
no piping shall be directly embedded in
concrete - -- 315(b) shall not "be instal -
room
led under or within 2 ft. of any build -
ing -or less than 1 ft. below the surface
of the ground.
(b) Grade of horizontal piping
(E) Grade
I.C.W., UPC 407 not less than 1 /4 " /ft.
approx.2.5degrees a1/2 " /ft.
(c) (Interior) clothes wa6her drain,
above floor in bathroom.
Not I.C.W. UPC 308 improper location,
UPC 315 - protection.
15. Not used
R'. L. MORRISCiN & AJSOCIATES
ARCHITECT AND BUILDING CONSULTANT
1449 PRIMROSE WAY, CUPERTINO. CA 95014 (408) 446 -1700
INTERIOR (unless noted otherwise)
NO ITEM REMARKS
16, Interior walls b ceilings: Gypsum wall B'd (GWB) I.C.W.
UBC 4711
17. Interior ceiling,,heigbt
18. interior floor concrete
19. Clearances for electric range
20 Domestic clother dryer
21. Emergency Egress - sleeping room
7'10" and 8'2" heights I.C.W. UBC 1207
Appears I.C.W. UBC 2623 floor is level
no sign of settlement.
I.C.W. UBC - 1714 and UMC 190(c)
not I.C.W. UMC 1903 "- -shall be exhausted
to the outside if in an area that is
habitable or containing other fuel -
burning appliances.
In I.C.W. UBC 1204
22.
•Light and ventilation
I.C.W. UBC 1205
23.
Sanitation
1- W.C.,. Tub /Shower, 1 -Lay.
t kitchen
I.C.W. 1205
24.
Floor Area: 20 X 30 s 600 SF
I.C.W. 1208(b)(c)
25.
Fire detector installed
1..C.W.. .121.0(a)
26.
Heating:
Not I.C.W. UBC 1211
(a) Living room 2 -36" Electric
Every dwelling unit and quest room
b.b. heaters 950 W. @ 208V 60 hz.
shall be provided with heating facilities
est BTUH 3,243/ unit
capable of maintaining a roof temp. of
(b) no heating unit in: bed room
70 degrees F at a point 3 feet above
near kitchen, near laundry.
floor of all habitable rooms.
(c) Estimated heating load fir cottage
.Fully insulated cottage requires an
is approximately
;estjmaLed;24- OOO.,8T.UH heati.ng;.,less
is 24,000 less 2 -36" 950W (Est - 3,240)
existing. b.. b "heati.ng;::requtr.es�.art....:
BTUH @ L R less 1 -24" 375W .(Est. 1,280)
additional 16,240 BTUH- - - -(1)
BTUH @ bath
(1) May require heating calculation via mechnical engineer, heating contrac-
tor or similar professional
27. Insulation
(a)Attic
2- layers fiberglass, R -19
1 -layer blown perlite, approx.
est. R -11, equals approx. R -40
(b)Walls:
3 1/2 -inch fiberglass, R -11
I.C.W., T -24 requires R -19
I.C.W., T -24 req. R -11
109 R. L. & ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECT AND BUILDING CONSULTANT
1449 PRIMROSE WAY, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 (408) 446 -1700
NO ITEM
28. Attic framing:
2 X 4's @ 24" o/c rafters
2 X 4's @ 16" o/c ceiling Joists
1 X 6 Warren truss @ ridge line
span.of 2 X 4's is 10' -3"
2 X 4 9`-9" c. 1. truss
29. Electrical:
(a) Outlets @ wall up 20"
within 12 ft. of each other
(b) lighting
(c) Ground -fault circuit protection
Bathroom and outdoor - receptacle
30. Bathroom:
(a) Shower /tub enclosure
has imitation marble wainscot
(b) Shower enclosure tempered glass
REMARK
Not I.C.W. Tbl. 25 -T -R -7 (20LL)
2 X 6 min (* 1,2)
I.C.W., Tbl. 25 -T -J -6 allows ceiling
span of 11' (E 1.5)
*1 Several rafters have added center
reinforced w/ 2 X4 X24" scab, and some
vert. posts to2 X 4 c.J.'s
*2 rafters require struts, or equal.
I.C.W.
NEC 210 -25(b) receptacle outlets
I.C.W. NEC 210 -26 (a)
I.C.W. NEC 210 -8
circuit break GFCI
I.C.W. 1707(e)
I -C.W. 1711(f) (g) s 5406(a)
END OF INSPECTION REMARKS
CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
3071 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95128 -4499
SINCE 1947 (408) 378 -4015
INSPECTION NOTICE
MEMO FORM
Address: /
`D J
Date:
Occupancy:
Phone:
70 -
Memo To:
ITEM li ✓���� it% .
.� ��
CFO G3984 Revised - Patersons
VARIANCE FILE NO.: V -675(L
LTSEXRERNIIX
RESOLUTION NO. V- 675(b) -].
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COM- MISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of CHRISTOPHER AND ULLA BEACH for a Variance
for a 2 ft., 7 in. sideyard setback where 8 ft. is required at 18645 ;
Paseo 1 i.erra
and
WHEREAS, the applicant CM139 (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for-the Variance be and the same is hereby
( (denied) subject to the following conditions:.
Per the Staff Report dated January 3, 1985.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
?� (the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the - parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND.-ADOPTED by--the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 9th day of January 1985
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer. and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and
McGoldrick •
ATTEST:
rman, annIng mmission
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION N0. V- 675(C) -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.: V- 67S(C)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of CHRISTOPHER AND ULLA BEACH for a Variance
to provide no covered parking space where one space is required at
1864S Paseo Tierra '
and
WHEREAS, the applicant Wa6x) (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other. evidence submitted in this. matter.,
the application for.the Variance
be, and the same is hereby
( areck) (denied) subject to the following conditions :
Per the Staff Report dated January 3, 1985.
BE-IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (ViMx]XapcocxtxafXylKidi tSXMtx)oxkkXiX
iat�ci[Xax�i]�xr�X�X (the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
T
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga.P_lanning Commiss.io,n,
State. of, California, this 9t_ h day of January 19 8S
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and
McGoldrick
ATTEST:
airman, lanning ission
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
Page 7
lla. Negative Declarati0 - SDR -1586 - Los Gatos Jt.Un.H.S.
-------------------- --------------------------------
llb. SDR -1586 - Los Ga os Jt. Union High School District,
Request for Tentative Building Site Approval
for a 3 lot subdivision in the R -1- 12,500
District on a surplus portion of the 35 acre
Saratoga High School site located at the
southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
and Herri n Avenue
----------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
I.t was noted that this item ill be continued to January 23,
1985.
The public hearing was opened at,9:20 p.m.
C. W. Neale, owner of the adjace t property, expressed concern
about the road that will feed int this cul -de -sac. He discussed
the traffic circulation. Chair an Siegfried indicated to Mr.
Neale that this concern will e addressed when the map is
considered.
It was directed that this matter\be continued to January 23,
1985.
Break - p.m. - 9:40 p.m.
12 . SUP -3 - Christopher and Ulla Beach, Request for Second
V -675 - Permit for an existing second unit and Variance
Approval for a 4 ft., 4 in. rear yard setback
and 2 ft. ", 7 in. side yard setback where 25 ft.
and 8 ft. are required respectively, and to
provide no covered parking space where one
space is required at 18645 Paseo Tierra, in the
R -1- 10,000 zoning district
-----------------------------------------------------------
Staff explained the proposal, stating that they were able to make
the findings relative to the rear yard variance and recommend
approval, but were unable to make the findings for the side yard
variance or lack of parking, and recommend denial of the
application. They indicated that they were recommending approval
of the Second Unit Use Permit.
The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m.
Mrs. Beach addressed the conditions regarding the side yard
setback. She commented that this is an existing unit and is
built on concrete and would be difficult to move. Regarding
the covered parking space, she indicated that there is very
limited space in the front for an extra parking space. She
pointed out that there has been a previous variance to allow for
only one covered parking space for the main dwelling on the
property. She stated that they have been looking into possibly
moving a little bit over so they would have two covered parking
spaces, but she does not know if it will comply with the codes.
She stated that they would like to investigate that further.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
It was noted that there are a number of garages in the area which
have been converted to living space, and in some instances
garages have been constructed in the rear of the homes.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he has a problem making
findings for the side yard setback and additionally, if they
can't find a covered parking space, he wonders what kind of
precedent will be set if the variance is granted.
a,76� rk �_ - 7 -
Planning CG .;ion �y Page 8
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
SUP -3 and V -675
Commissioner Harris commented that she looked back to all the
deliberations on the Second Unit Ordinance, and that was
definitely a concern throughout the City; therefore, she would
not be able to make the findings. She moved for approval of V-
675 for the variance for the rear yard setback, per the Staff
Report dated January 3, 1985, but denial of the variance for the
side yard •setback and parking, based on the fact that the
findings cannot be made. Commissioner Burger seconded the
motion. After discussion of the findings for the rear yard
setback made in the Staff Report, the vote was taken on the
motion. The motion was carried unanimously 5 -0. The 10 -day
appeal period was noted. Commissioner Harris then moved to
approve SUP -3, per the Staff Report dated January 3, 1985 and
Exhibits B and C. It was noted that the approval of the Second
Unit Use Permit is conditioned upon relocating the structure and
providing a covered parking space. Commissioner Burger seconded
the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer
dissenting.
13a. SDR -1585
- Albert an Ann Lorincz, Request for Lot Line
13b. A -1040 -
Adjustmen ,
Building Site and Design Review
13c. V -680 -
Approvals
construct a one -story single family
13d. LL -6 -
residence o
lot behind 19605 Glen Una Drive and
Variance Ap
oval for 241, 15' and 35' rear yard
setbacks fo
an existing garage, cabana and.
respedtively
here 60' is required and a 17' and
10' side yard setback for the existing cabana
and garage wh'e e 20' is required °at 19605 Glen
Una Drive, in
tie R- 1- 40,000 zoning district
-------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------
Chairman Siegfried ekp7°ai'ned't'h 't'th'ese -are two existing lots.
Staff described the lots and exis •ng structures. They explained
the applications, stating that hey are unable to make the
findings for the setbacks for the abana and arbor and recommend
denial. They added that they were ble to make the findings for
the garage and recommend approval ith conditions. They stated
that they also recommend approval of the SDR and Design Review.
Discussion followed on the flower akbor. Commissioner llarris
gave a Land Use Conunittee report, desc ibing the existing cabana.
The public hearing was opened at 10:02 A.m.
Terry Shovchek, representing Nowack & A sociates, addressed the
findings regarding the cabana. lie d scussed the setbacks,
indicating that the variance for the rea and side yard setbacks
only affects parcels 1 and 2, and does of affect any of the
adjacent neighbors.
Dave Morrison, 19590 Juna Lane, referen \aea his letter which
indicated that he and six of the adjoinneighbors are in
opposition to the project. He described trea, stating that
it is a very low density area. fie desc the parcels in
question and stated that the varianwould maker two
nonconforming lots even more nonconforming would have other
adverse effects to the neighborhood. Mr. son discussed the
variances and stated that he feels that n11 nonconforming
lots are buildable. He commented that gra major variances
of this type would set an undesirable precin the City. tie
added that Parcels N1 and #2 are located a special zone
designated Ds, and the applicant has not idi d this factor.
Mr. Morrison stated that he disagreed wit indings in the
Staff Report. He also noted that there wa p ovision for a
new leach field. Staff clarified that ths condition in
the Staff Report requiring a septic tank permit.
- 8 -
N
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. U
DATE: 2111/85 (2/20/85)
DEPARTMENr:_Communi ty Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJEC: A -1041 - Jim & Ann Hill, Parcel A on Ashley Way
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approve Design Review
Issue Sutnnary
The applicant requested Design Review Approval for a 29 ft., two -story residence with cabana
and pool. By Staff's calculations, the proposed gross floor area of all structures on site
totalled 6,705 sq. ft. The Commission approved the Design Review with conditions including
the reduction of the height and total floor area.to 27 ft. and 6,440 sq. ft. respectively.
The appeal of this action addresses concern over the size of the residence, and possible solar
accessibility and privacy impacts.
Recommendation
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny Design Review A -1041.
2. Staff had recommended approval of Design Review A -1041 but differed with the Commission's
conditions on height and structure size reduction. Staff recommended that the height be
reduced to 26 ft. and that the combined square footage of residence and cabana be decreased
to 6,000 sq. ft.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal letter dated 1/18/85
2. Staff Report for A -1041
3. Resolution No. A -1041
4. Minutes dated 1/9/85
5. Exhibits "B, C,.F, G"
Council Action
2/20: Continued public hearing to 3/6.
RECO ED Date Received:
JAN 18 1985 Hearing Date:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fee BYO
CITY USE ONLY
U
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: l�ov\ald e,,,N iV�,A2kl �1
Address:
Telephone: 'T+I -590
Name of Applicant: S1 ovA_ Ama W U
Project File No.:
Project Address: yarce P� ors V4�(nlpu, .)ac,l
Project Description: ,- --) Slnru Slrti,le FAT QQSgJene.e1
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for the Appeal (Lefler may be attached):
61v1 }s -L-o br�v\o)v.+� wk.��, rna.�v\o hr��Q bee►1 �c�okecj tht%o or-�inorovS�.`yE.rdfwv►&
A - if�61 qr A ece.ssa lz tt t, -y -x-yv, c�-
g• 4r'oj�oz e-J home w 1 LL be a mov\c,.<< i-Rn �N i4le rn t ddb c� a c-e.1 EiX�D eo\�r1��y
� 1 II ``
C• ProeosZA �Ovwk wGt,L0 \09 .i� '�Cvh� 51ZP. pt �J4ccOl�r�lV\C, nD1N�QS
a VNocw1, %nJ w\n �ooc�cuacd would d" %NISI- d-4�valuQa APP°A1 0�
ill wosier WV ' LVA Maier- � Sf-. Ar 0-� Val � V vC� {k 1lLs
me-1I R
uir¢,►4pproxi�n�l�o, OAe Y��le ���eur:o�vvwa�w- is
coal
*
A h�1a ignat e
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION NIUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
o j
1St,Ti3 ii, zju
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Sarcte as J * Revi.sed: 1/9/85
APPROVED DATE: 12/28/84
Commission Meeting: 1/9/85
DA -
APN: 503 -18 -70
APPLICATION NO. AND LOCATION: A -1041 Parcel A, Ashley Way
APPLICANT: L. D. Coffey
-----------------------------------
ACTION REQUESTED: Design Review Ap
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
EXISTING-LAND USE: Vacant
PROPERTY OWNER: Jim and Ann Hill
--------------------------------------------------
)roval for a new two story Single Family Residence.
Building Permits are required.
Declaration completed 3/17/81.
GENERAL PLAN,DESIGNATION: Residential -
very low Density Single Family.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 40,122 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: The lot is flat and higher than surrounding properties.':.
The remains of an old prune orchard is currently located on site.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 300 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 9 Feet kor pool only
Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 0 Feet
No,grading is required for residence or cabana.
PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 45 Feet Rear: 64 Feet
Left Side: 20 Feet Right Side: 25 Feet.,
HEIGHT: 29 Ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 35%
lott-
Report to Planning Commission
A -1041, Coffey, Ashley Way
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
Per Applicant
12/28/
Page 2
Per Staff
Cabana: 240 sq. ft. 240 sq. ft.
First Floor (including Garage): 3790 sq. ft. 3892 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 1970 sq. ft. 2573 sq. ft.
Total: 6000 sq. ft. 6705 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of
the zoning ordi.nance,in that,by Staff's calculations, the total gross floor area exceeds
the 6200 sq. ft. Design Review Standard.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior.Materials- Earthtone stone veneer,.stucco_and:wood
Roof Materials -Wood Shake
ANALYSIS AND CONCERNS: The home proposed by the applicant will be exceeding the 6200
sq. ft. Design Review standard. Staff computed the gross floor area by measuring the
area from exterior wall to exterior wall on both levels and included the floor area
of the cabana. In.comparing the proposed home with those in the same zoning district
and within 500 ft., the.height and size of the structure would appear to be much lar-
ger than those which exist. There are two -story residences on either side of the
subject property, but these homes have from two to four feet lower pad elevations.
An effort has been made by the applicant to reduce the appearance of bulk by step-
ping back the second story from the first and varying the depth of the front facade.
The staff feels that despite this effort the new residence still would appear com-
paratively bulky and tall. The issue is complicated by the fact that the lot is
higher in elevation�_than- that__of adjoining .properties.".
To make the project more compatible with surrounding structures, Staff is recommend-
ing that the height and floor area of the main dwelling be reduced. The height
of the residence.-should be reduced to a maximum-of 26 ft. as measured vertically
from the highest point to the pad. The gross floor area of the main dwelling,
measured from exterior wall to exterior wall, should be reduced so that the combined
total gross floor area of all structures on site will not exceed 6000 sq. ft.
Examining the potential for privacy impacts, no unreasonable impacts were noted to
the front, right and rear of the property. To the left, a 6 ft. high solid wood
fence diminishes impacts to the neighboring property, as viewed from the first
story windows of the new home. However, the neighbor's rear yard, in which a
pool is °:1�'ocat;ed; would be visible from the second story windows on the easterly
side of the master-bath. Use of opaque windows in this area would mitigate poten-
tial privacy impacts.
The last issue is removal of many of the existing orchard trees to permit construc-
tion of the home, pool and cabana. The applicant has stated that the trees are in
marginal condition, but an effort will be made to maintain some trees al'ong the
perimeter of the property.
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy and Compatible Infill Project
- The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not un-
reasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the lot
is an infill lot'and no views will be affected.
Report Planning fanning Commission 12/28/84
A -1041, Ashley, Coffey Page 3
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree and soil removal
and grade changes in that no grading is proposed for the residence, and the
applicant will be saving existing trees along the perimeter of the property
where feasible.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the
immediate neighbrohood in that the modified project would mitigate the-per-
ception of Excessive bulk by reducing the gross floor area to below the.Design
Review Standard.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within
500 ft. and in the same zoning district in that the residence, as modified by
staff recommendations, will be of comparable height and size to those of
surrounding homes.
5. Grading and Erosion- Control Standards
The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards
in that only excavation for the pool is required and shall conform to the City's
permit requirements. No other grading is proposed.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 12/18/84 and
Exhibits "B, C, F, G ", subject to the following conditions:
* 1. Height of structure (measured vertically to the pad) shall not exceed 27 feet.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits detailed grading and drainage plans shall
be implemented during construction.
3. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations shall
require Planning Division review and approval.
4. Tree removal permits shall be obtained prior to removal of any ordinance -size
trees.
* 5. The gross floor area of the main dwelling shall be reduced so that the total_ square
footage of all structures on site shall not exceed 644 q0 .__ ft,- (620_.O_sq._ ft.
residence, 240 sq: ft:_cabana);'from exterior wall to exterior wall-.---
all.
6. The percentage of impervious coverage on site shall not exceed 35% without prior
approval of the Planning Commission.
7.. No second kitchen shall be permitted.
* 8. The second story windows shown on the right elevation shall be opaque or land-
scaping provided fo privacy subject to staff approval.
APPROVED:
Diana Lewis
Planner
DL /kah
P.C. Agenda: 1/9/85
A
..,: �' e; .� sue® -
NEI
ML!
110L
:..• a•1� ��� ■ 01111
DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO:
RESOLUTION NO. A- 1041 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
nklf cation for Des n Review AA proval of a new 29 ft. two -stor s.in le
i y residence.wlt a total flpdor area w
allowable floor area standard a Parcel A Ashley Way and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) Oxazxxat) met the burden of proof required
to support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of
the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of JIM AND
ANN HILL for Design Review Approval be and the
same is hereby (granted) (dam subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report dated December 18;. 1984 and
Exhibits B, C, F and G
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 9th day of January 19 85 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: Commissioner Harris
&'k 0 -+'3 . .
Lk
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 1985 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 1.3777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and `
Siegfried
Absent: Commissioners McGoldrick and Crowther
Minutes
On page 10 of the minutes of December 12, 1985, the word "if" should
be added to the second sentence in the second paragraph under A -1042.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of
December 12, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Peterson
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
ORAL COMAUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR
Item #2, A -1041, Jim and Ann Hill, and Item #4, V -676 and A -1039,
Sidney Smith, were removed for discussion. The public hearing on the
balance was opened at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Burger moved to, close
the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the balance of the items listed
below. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
1. A -981 - Robert Dewey and William Otterlei, Request for Design
Mod. Review Modification Approval to reorient and add 200
sq. ft. to a recently approved 3,608,sq. ft. single-
story residence 500 ft. south of Aspesi Drive and 250
ft. west of Quito Road
----------------------------------------------------------------
3a. SUP -2 - - Joseph and Ann Cefalu, Request for Use Permit and
3b. A -1043 - Design Review Approvals for a new, two- story, second
unit constructed over the garage to be attached to a
single -story residence at 13533 Saratoga Avenue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion followed on Item #2, A -1041, Jim and Ann Hill.
Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the
site. She commented that she feels that the developer can answer the
concerns of the Staff Report. She added that there are two: -story
homes on both sides.
The public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m.
Don Coffey, representing the applicant, addressed the conditions of
the Staff Report, specifically the height of the structure, the opaque
windows on the right elevation and the gross floor area of the
dwelling. Mr. Coffey asked the Commission to consider a reduction of
2 ft. instead of 3 ft., making the structure 27 ft. tie explained that
he can change the roof line without difficulty. Regarding the opaque
windows, he proposed that it be left open so they can decide later if
4K the windows will be clear or obscure. He explained that they will
provide landscaping for screening. Discussion followed on the gross
floor area and the calculation of such.
Cam, °' �
It Planning Commission Page 2
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
A -1041 (cont.)
CCommissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The zoning and the size of the homes in the area were discussed. Com-
missioner Harris commented that the houses on Pierce tend to be
smaller and she would like to see the Commission stay within the stan-
dard on this application.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she had seen this developer do an
infill on another project where the house that was built was larger
than the two on either side, and she thought the design was very
attractive "and she thinks that the final proposal looked very good.
She added that she would recommend going along with the compromises
that have been suggested. She moved to approve A -1041, per the Staff
Report dated December 18, 1985 and Exhibits B, C, F and G, with
condition #1 stating that the home will be 27 ft. in height, condition
#5 stating that the house will be 6200 sq. ft. with the cabana being
240 sq. ft., for a total of 6440 sq. ft., and adding to condition #8
"or landscaping provided for privacy, subject to Staff approval." Com-
missioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with Com-
missioner Harris dissenting, stating that she was unable to make the
finding regarding bulk.
Discussion followed on Item #4, V -676 and A -1039, Sidney Smith. The
public hearing was opened at 7:51 p.m.
Judy Bruning, 19315 Titus Court, stated that they have no problem with
the variance; however, she expressed concern with the design review.
She commented that the south exposure looks directly into their back
yard. She explained that the existing vegetation is not permanent,
since there is disease of trees and PG &E has an easement at the fence
line and they cut down severely any branches that are reaching the
C prime lines. She asked the Commission to recommend to Mr. Smith that
either a permanent screen be placed there at the fence line or that
the French doors and the balcony be changed to the front of the house.
Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the
balcony is clearly visible from Mrs. Bruning's back yard.
Commissioner Burger stated that she felt that permanent landscaping
might be the better alternative, rather than removing the French
doors. She added that she feels that moving the balcony and French
doors to the east elevation would do nothing to enhance the
architecture of the home at all. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that
she thinks that the landscaping is as high as it could be, facing the
Brunings' home, and that the balcony and French doors need to be
removed to protect privacy. She added that possibly a window could go
in that would be higher to allow ventilation, and perhaps a skylight
could go in. Commissioner Harris added that there are large Monterey
pines there and you can see through the lower branches.
Mr. Smith, the applicant, discussed the design and indicated that he
would discuss this further with Mrs. Bruning. He commented that he
had not heard Mrs. Bruning's concerns before.
It was clarified to Mr. Kato, 12589 Titus, that the second -story
window will be opaque. He suggested that the window be opaque
with the top of the ceiling open for ventilation. Mr. Smith
stated that he was agreeable.
Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commis-
sioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It was directed that this matter be continued, to allow the applicant,
his architect, and Mrs. Bruning to discuss mitigating the privacy
impact. Mr. Smith indicated that he could not attend the next meet-
- 2 -
yi
Planning Commiss on
J Page 3
Sand- Meeting 1/9/85
a d A -1039 (cont.)
he was asked to coordinate his schedule with Staff. It
was noted that the neighbors will be notified when the item is
reagendized.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5a. Negative Declaration - R -12581 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher
_ __ -------------- ---------------
5b. SDR -1581 - Wilbur & Gayl Fisher, Request for Design Review and
A -1014 - Building Site Approval to allow an existing single-
story dwelli g to be converted to a two -story
dwelling in ex ess of 4800 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 20,000
district at 150 9 Park Drive; continued from December
12, 1984
Staff reported that this matter h been continued from a previous
meeting and discussed the modifica ions made.
The public hearing was opened at 8: 6 p.m.
Mr. Fisher, the applicant, agreed wi h the Staff Report.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve e Negative Declaration on
SDR -1581. Commissioner Harris seconde the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5 -0. Commissioner Burger oved to approve SDR -1581 and
A -1014, per the Staff Report dated Dece ber 21, 1984, the Staff Report
dated October 18, 1984, with Conditions la, lb, lc and 2 deleted, and
Exhibits B and C -1. commissioner Schae r seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously 5 -0.
6a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1583 - -Pe er Buck
6b. SDR -1583 - Peter Buck, Request for B ilding Site Approval for
6c. A -1030 - a greater than 50% expans on, Design Review Approval
6d. V -667 - for a second -story additio , Variance Approval to
6e. SUP -9 maintain a 26 ft. front ya setback where 30 ft. is
required, 12 ft. 8 in. side and setback where 20 ft.
is required, for an existin accessory structure that
maintains a 5 ft. 5 in. s tback where 50 ft. is
required and to provide subs ndard parking, and a
Second Unit Use Permit for a existing second unit,
at 15214 Belle Court in the R 1- 40,000 zoning dis-
trict; continued from December 12, 1984
_ ------------ - - - - -- -----------------------
Staff described the project, stating that they a e unable to make the
findings for the variances and recommend denia . They stated that
they recommend approval of the Building Site, Design Review and Second
Unit Use Permit.
The public hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m.
Mr. Buck discussed the project and the various \ir ications. He
addressed the condition regarding the sewer, indicthat he was
willing to engage in an agreement to hook up to thr at such time
as it is extended and pay a proportionate share.
Joe Pruss, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, expressed concth the front
yard setback and the Second Unit Use Permit becausdditional
parking. fie stated that he would like to see a reent for addi-
tional parking space or restrictions on the use pe
Dan Heindel, 15235 Belle Court, discussed the fencing anb expressed
- 3 -
t
CITY OF SARATOGA
1
AGENDA BILL NO 8 S
DATE: 2/5/85 (2/20/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT V -681 - David Morse, 15165 El Camino Grande
Appeal of Variance Denial for a 15 ft. Side Yard Setback
Issue Sunnazy
1. The proposed addition is 50 ft. long by 24 ft. deep. The standard depth for a parking space
is 20 ft. If the depth of the addition were reduced, the required setback could be main-
tained.
2. A large, old oak tree is located adjacent to the existing- driveway near. the street. Im-
pervious surfaces should not be located under the dripline of the tree.
3. The addition will require the removal of an ordinance size cherry tree located at the
corner of the residence at the edge of the existing pavement.
Recommendation
1. Determine the mertis of the appeal and approve or deny V -681.
2. Staff recommended denial of V -681.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal application 5. Exhibits
2. Staff Report dated 1/16/85
3. Resolution No. V -681 -1
._4. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing.dated 1/23/85
Council Action
2/20: Denied appeal 4 -0.
RECEIVED Date Received:
JAN 2 8 1985 Hearing Date
Fee
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: David S. Morse
Address: 15165 El Camino Grande ,
Telephone: 395 -0375
Name of Applicant: David S. Morse
Project File No.:
Project Address: 15165 El Camino Grande
Project Description: Garage Addition -
Decision Being Appealed: Planning commission decision to reject variance
_request for 15' side setback where 0' r Quired
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
P1 -�i�sc s'�r f1 /i�CitC1'
r
Appellant'-9 Signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBN[ITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF "THE DECISION.
a,t �a,
I.
II.
III.
Grounds for Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
DAVID S. MORSE
15165 El Camino Grande
Saratoga
Description of Project
RECEIVED
JAN P. n ffi.�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The action requested is approval of a variance to allow a 15 foot sideyard
setback where 20 feet is required for a garage addition. The proposed garage
is 50 feet by 24 feet and contains space for three cars plus shop and storage
to support my hobby of collecting cars. The existing garage will be converted
to a weight and workout room. Details are shown on the attached diagram.
Reasons for Proposed Design
Although there is sufficient space elsewhere on the lot for a garage of
this size, any location other than the one proposed would encroach upon the
large (3 -4 ft in diameter) oak trees at the front of the property.
The garage cannot be moved to a 20 foot sideyard setback without (a)
becoming so close to the house that two roof overhangs meet and (b) causing
the driveway to move well under the dripline of one of the large oak trees.
The major issue with the planning commission seemed to be that the 24 ft
depth is unnecessary. The garage was designed with 24 ft depth so that the
normal garage items such as bikes, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, etc., could be
stored in front of the family cars, leaving the rest of the garage dedicated
to my car collecting hobby. If the 20 ft setback is required, the "L" shaped
area labeled "A" would only be 4' 10" wide, which is not enough for a planned
workbench area. The planning commission suggested that I cut the depth to
20 ft and extend the garage further toward the front of the property (this
would not require a variance). Such extension would have to be 16 ft to
capture the lost square footage and because of increasing slope of the property,
would raise the height by 2 -3 ft and require extensive filling. In addition,
this entension would force the driveway to be completely under the dripline of
the large oak tree. I believe the proposed design is in the best location given
the physical constraints of the property.
Findings Required to Approve Variance
A. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship
The location of the large oak trees at the front of the property
create practical difficulties in locating the garage. These trees are
probably 100 years old and it does not make sense to locate any structure
or driveway in an area which would threaten them.
B. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
In addition to the location of the large oak trees there are other
exceptional circumstances which set this property apart from the "typical"
property covered by the zoning ordinance. The Spiering property to the
north has the house set well forward on the lot. The rear of the Spiering
house is forward of the location of the proposed garage and the pool is
directly north of the proposed garage. In addition the grade of 'the
I` L
Spiering property is 3 -4 feet higher. There is a 32 ft concrete retaining
wall and a 5 ft fence between the proposed garage and the lot line. The
proposed garage is located to be a good buffer between the two properties.
The ordinances tend to be written for the typical case where all the
houses on a street have the same setback. As explained above, this
situation is very different, and therefore is an extraordinary circumstance.
Also, since there is a 38 ft setback on the other side of the property,
the total setback is within the requirements.
C. Common Privilege
The planning commission staff report stated that it is a common
privilege to have a two car garage. However in the neighborhood including
El Camino Grande and El Camino Senda there are at least twelve houses with
three car garages. In addition, most new construction has garages 24 feet
in depth.
D. Special Privilege
Variances have been granted or permitted to others in this neighborhood.
A variance was granted to Mr. Spiering for a second story addition and for
impervious coverage well in excess of the ordinance requirement. In
addition, Mr. Millerat 15050 E1 Camino Senda was permitted to remove over
1000 cubic yards of earth in.a major project despite vehement neighborhood
objections. In light of these major variance approvals, it would not be
a special privilege to grant my setback variance.
In addition, due to the exceptional circumstances which exist and the
common existence of three car garages, it would not be a special privilege
to grant this variance.
E. Public Health Safety and Welfare
No potential impacts.
IV. Conclusinn
The original drawings for the project showed the new part of the driveway
as being under the dripline of the large oak tree. I will change this so
that the new part of the driveway does not come under the tree.
This proposal provides me with a garage to house family cars rather than
storing them in the driveway and to have a place to pursue my hobby. It is
placed in the optimum position on the lot given the constraints of the property
and the placement of the existing house.
��. _t.. - '••y.. -!•''. is � ..
Via_ .ti. � -t� �.. '{.• (��;'t' �- .-- -- -� ^" y' .{, • {'_
`t1
M
:n
O
Y'
i`
1 •�
1 � - Fz
!:.
• , , ...
- ..
�
Y. � .. .. ..... AGES '.�°�ti�L = ;- t��7- Oq -o�••a '
OAMIO
Sr6� o
_ / /.nDpai J)ry
JO
'ice. ��
•�:
-
_
�
�
��. _t.. - '••y.. -!•''. is � ..
Via_ .ti. � -t� �.. '{.• (��;'t' �- .-- -- -� ^" y' .{, • {'_
`t1
M
:n
O
Y'
i`
1 •�
1 � - Fz
!:.
• , , ...
- ..
�
Y. � .. .. ..... AGES '.�°�ti�L = ;- t��7- Oq -o�••a '
_ / /.nDpai J)ry
3
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 01/16/85
APN: 397 -9 -30
Commission Meeting: 01/23/85
APPLICATION NO. AND LOCATION: V -681; 15165 El Camino Grande
APPLICANT: David Morse
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - --
ACTION REQUESTED: Variance Approval to allow ,an addition to maintain a 15 ft.
sideyard setback where 20 ft. is required.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
Categorically Exempt.
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 40,000 sq. ft.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single
Family Residential - Very Low
Density
NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: The site has large oaks and pines located
• along the front and right sides. The right side and a portion of the front
are covered with ivy; the front is professionally landscaped. An ordinance
size cherry tree (48 in. circumference) is located at the corner-of the
existing driveway near the proposed addition. The tree itself is small,
however, the trunk splits into three parts about 2 ft. from the base of the
tree where the measurement is taken.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level
GRADING: Minimal grading is required.
PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 92 Feet
Left Side: 38 Feet
HEIGHT: 13 Ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9%
Rear: 28 Feet
Right Side: 15 Feet (20 ft. required)
vypwS,,,�,1'its 3i
•
.
� 2•'dY,'`
qtr �,
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 01/16/85
APN: 397 -9 -30
Commission Meeting: 01/23/85
APPLICATION NO. AND LOCATION: V -681; 15165 El Camino Grande
APPLICANT: David Morse
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - --
ACTION REQUESTED: Variance Approval to allow ,an addition to maintain a 15 ft.
sideyard setback where 20 ft. is required.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
Categorically Exempt.
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 40,000 sq. ft.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single
Family Residential - Very Low
Density
NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: The site has large oaks and pines located
• along the front and right sides. The right side and a portion of the front
are covered with ivy; the front is professionally landscaped. An ordinance
size cherry tree (48 in. circumference) is located at the corner-of the
existing driveway near the proposed addition. The tree itself is small,
however, the trunk splits into three parts about 2 ft. from the base of the
tree where the measurement is taken.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level
GRADING: Minimal grading is required.
PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 92 Feet
Left Side: 38 Feet
HEIGHT: 13 Ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9%
Rear: 28 Feet
Right Side: 15 Feet (20 ft. required)
Report to Planning Commi )n
V -681
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 26% (35% allowed)
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing Residence (including garage):
Proposed Addition:
TOTAL:
(6,200 sq. ft. Design Review Standard)
4,361 sq. ft.
1,318 sq. ft.
5,679 sq. ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The addition will be finished in yellow stucco
with a cedar shake roof to match the existing residence.
STAFF ANALYSIS: There is an existing carport located in the setback area at the
northern (right) end of the residence. There is about a 3 -1/2 ft. change in
elevation just north of the existing carport. The adjacent property to the
north is at a higher elevation than the subject residence. The subject site
also slopes to the east, towards E1 Camino Grande.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new three car garage. The garage
entrance will face south. The driveway will be extended along the front of
the residence to allow access into the garage. A landscaped area is currently
located where the proposed driveway will be. An ordinance size cherry tree
(48 in. circumference) is located at the edge of the existing pavement. The
increase in the driveway area as shown on the plans will damage the tree.
(The plans do not indicate any protection being provided for the tree.)
Furthermore, the location of the tree may impede access to the garage. Staff
feels that the addition will require the removal of the cherry tree.
A very large oak tree is'located adjacent to the existing driveway near the
street. The new driveway will locate impervious surface within the dripline
of the oak and may damage the tree. Staff would recommend that the project
be reviewed by the City Horticulturist.
The garage addition as proposed is approximately 50 ft. long by 24 ft. deep.
The standard depth for a parking space is 20 ft. If the depth of the garage
were reduced to the minimum, the required 20 ft. setback would be maintained
and the Variance would not be needed.
FINDINGS
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship
The.garage addition and the increase in the driveway area will require
the removal of the cherry tree. Location of the garage in the setback
area will not preserve the tree. Maintaining the required side yard
setback will require a reduction in size of the proposed garage but
will not create a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
The exceptional circumstances are the location of ordinance sized cherry
tree and oak trees. However, maintaining the required setback does not
change the effect on the trees. No exceptional physical circumstances
exist on the site to warrant the granting of a Variance.
01/16/85
Page 2
Report to Planning Commi )n
V -681
3. Common Privilege
01/16/85
Page 3
It is a common privilege and a requirement to have a two -car garage.
Denial of the Variance does not deny the applicant that common privilege.
4. Special Privilege
There are no exceptional circumstances on the site and no denial of common
privilege if the Variance is denied. Therefore, granting the Variance would
be a grant of special privilege.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Staff noted no potential impacts to health, safety and welfare to the.
surrounding properties from the proposed addition.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Variance having been unable
to make Findings #1, #2, #3, and #4. If the Commission wishes to grant the
Variance, the necessary findings must be made and Staff recommends the
following conditions:
1. The oak tree shall be reviewed by the City Horticulturist�prior'to
issuance of a Building Permit.-- Recommendations by the City Horticul-
turist shall be followed.
2. The existing carport, if not lawfully erected, shall be removed or
reduced.. in size to maintain a 20 ft. side yard setback.
NOTE: The residence does not maintain the required rear yard setback. In
accordance with the recently adopted amendment to Section.F5.2 of the zohtng
ordinance, a Variance is not required for the existing setback of the main
dwelling.
APPROVED: 44e
ucille Hise
Planner
LH /mmg
P.C. Agenda 01/23/85
`a.
'.=.^
VARIANCE I�
XASN:Xi�'1� ,
C, FILE NO.: V -681 -1
RESOLUTION NO..V -681'1
CITY OF SARATOGA'PLANNING COrMIISSION
..STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of DAVID MORSE for a Variance
t allow an addition to maintain a i5 ft.:'side yard setback 'where
0 ft. is .required at uranue
and
1VHEREAS,. the applicant (}roc) (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for .the Variance be, and the same is hereby
(grauz�ezi� (denied) subject to the .following conditions
Per the Staff Report dated January 16, 1985,and
Exhibits B and C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (tx)R&pCx�gX3i�f�f�p{�dX
�g '(the Planning Commission could not
make.all of.the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
.hereby directed to notify the•parties' affected by this..decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED* by the City of Saratoga. Planning Commission,
State of California, this 23rd day of .January 19 85
by-.the following roll call .vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and'' Siegfried
NOES: Commissioner Schafer
ABSENT: Commissioner B. Harris
ATTEST:
G� E
V/ airman, Planitinz ^ p fission
L
•
•
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 1/23/8S
SD -1S67 (cont.)
Page 4
Mr. Crowther expressed concer that the flow that will be directed into
Prospect Creek will increase e chances of flooding. He questioned the
percentages discussed by Mr. \ha s and asked that they be checked.
Chairman Siegfried stated t'ha will be further discussed at the
study session, and asked Staff vite the Water District to attend
the session, if they wish.
Carl Franklin, 12312 Farr Rancaddressed the design of the streets
and access. He also asked thatriction be put on the planting of
trees and a restriction of 24 fthe height on the homes, so that the
views of the existing homes wilbe impacted. He also suggested that
the one -acre lots not be allowese solid.wall fencing: It was directed that this mate continued to a study session on
February 5, 1985 and the rmeeting of February 13, 1985.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested if a restriction on trees is to be
considered, ordinances from othi s should be obtained to review.
9a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1- - - - - Lo- -Gatos Jt. Un. H.S. Dist.
----- ----------------------- ------------------------
--
9b. SDR -1586 - Los Gatos Jt. Union Higk School District, Request for
Tentative Building Site pproval for. a 3 -lot. subdivision
in the R -1- 12,500 Distri t on a surplus portion of the
35 acre Saratoga High Sch of site located at the south-
east corner of Saratoga -S nnyvale Road and Herriman Ave.;
continued from January A1985 (to be continued
to February 13, 1985)
It was directed that this matter be continued to February 13, 1985.
10. SUP -6 - Newell and Gladys Wood, Request for Second Unit Use
Permit to allow an attached). one -story second
unit at 14161 Douglass Lane,\in the R -1- 20,000
zoning district (application invalid)
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
It was determined that this application is invalid and is withdrawn.
11. V -681 - David Morse, Request for Variance Approval to allow an
addition to maintain a 15 ft. side yard setback where 20
ft'. is required at 15165 E1 Camino Grande, in the R -1-
40,000 zoning district
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff explained the application, recommending denial, having been unable
to make the findings. They added that they have found that it is
possible to build a standard size garage without encroaching into the
setback.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the
site. She stated that Mr. Morse had indicated that he had discussed
moving the.driveway so that it would not come under the dripline to
disturb the oak tree'on site.
The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m.
David Morse, the applicant, described the proposal. Mr. Morse commented
that his hobby is car collecting and would like the size of garage
proposed. He addressed the oak tree, stating that he did not intend to
do anything to disturb it. Mr. Morse discussed the findings, stating
that 1) Practical difficulty - If he maintains the 20 ft. setback he
feels it would require him to make a smaller garage; he does not feel the
garage can be moved to the south because the two overhangs of the garage
and the house would meet and it would force the driveway 5 ft. toward the
oak tree. He added that it would also force him to store cars outside.
2) Exceptional circumstances - The site is unusual, in that there is a
real difference in the setbacks of his house and the adjacent neighbors'
house. He added that the garage will be a good buffer for the swimming
pool. He stated that lie could easily keep the driveway outside of the
- 4 -
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 1/23/85
• V -681
Page 5
dripline of the oak tree. He noted that there is a 38 ft. setback on the
other side, so that the total setbacks.are well within the requirement.
3) Common privilege - He would challenge whether or not a 3 -car garage is
a common privilege, since he counted 12 of them in the neighborhood. He
commented that 24 ft. for a garage is the most common dimension used in
newer construction, and the architect felt that if it were cut back to 20
ft. it would not be as aesthetically pleasing. 4) Special privilege -
There have been variances granted in the neighborhood for similar kinds
of things, i.e. impervious coverage, grading. He commented that .he
cannot have the desired depth without the variance. He added that he is
willing to remove the existing carport and keep the driveway outside of
the dripline of the oak tree, and if necessary, have the City
Horticulturist review it. He stated that there is space in the front of
the property that would not require a variance, but it would be
aesthetically a lot less desirable. He added that he feels it enhances
his property and also that of the neighbor: He explained that he would
like to build some shelves in the front of the garage and store bikes,
etc. in the space ahead of the cars.
Staff clarified that the standard depth of a garage is 20 feet.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that if the neighbors have been notified
and do not object, she feels that a 3 -car garage on a one -acre is not too
much to ask. She added that she feels space is needed for the cars and
storage of bicycles. It was noted that there have been no comments from
the adjacent neighbor.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
• Commissioner Harris commented that the applicant is going to use the old
garage as a shop, which would give him storage space. She stated that
she feels there is a reason for the setback requirements.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that a 20 ft. garage is standard, and he
does not think there is anything that precludes the applicant moving the
garage a little bit farther forward. Staff noted that this is actually a
5 -car garage with the storage and an additional 12 feet beyond that.
Commissioner Peterson commented that he does not feel a variance should
be granted for 4 more feet to put some storage for bikes and cabinets,
when in fact the garage is 50 ft. wide.
Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that she agrees with Mr. Morris'
reason's for Finding #1; that the overhang would be a problem if he moves
it and that 5 feet closer to the oak tree would not be a good idea. She
also agreed that this is the only place on the site where any further
building would be possible without really destroying some very beautiful
natural aesthetics. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the applicant
is saying that he needs a 24 ft. deep garage, and he wonders if the
applicant went to 20 feet, given the length,_of .it, whether a .5 ft.
variance is needed. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed with that point.
Discussion- followed on possibly moving the garage forward 1 ft.
Commissioner Burger commented that she felt if it were moved forward at
all it would impact the ability to maneuver into the garage. Staff
indicated that the driveway could actually be reduced and the applicant
would still be able to get into'the garage.'
Commissioner Harris moved to deny V -681, per the Staff Report dated
January 16, 1985, based on the fact that the findings cannot be made.
Commissioner Burger seconded the.motion, which was carried 5 -1, with
• Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
The appeal period was noted. Chairman Siegfried commented that the
Commission is essentially saying that they feel there are alternatives
available without essentially moving the garage.
- 5 -
4
I
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. -73(o
DATE: 2/7/85 (2/20/85)
DEPARTMENT:- Community Development
SUBJECT: C -217, City of Saratoga, Bulletin Boards on School Sites
Initial:
Dept. lid.
C. Atty---j1tM7-'
C. Mgr.
Issue Sunnary
1. City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance allowing 20 sq. ft. bulletin
boards on school sites after discussing this,issue with representatives from Saratoga
• High School.,
2. Bulletin Boards of this type were already allowed on church sites.
3. The Planning Commission added a 10 ft. height limit to the bulletin board and
unanimously recommended adoption of this ordinance by the Council.
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 /AttachTmnts
1.
Exhibit
A
- Negative
Declaration
2.
Exhibit
B
- Proposed
Ordinance
3.
Exhibit
C -
Planning
Commission Resolution No. C -217 -1
4.
Exhibit .D
-
Staff Report dated 12/20/84
5.
Exhibit
E -
Planning
Commission minutes dated 1/9/85
Council Action
2/20: Approved Negative Declaration 4 -0..
Introduced ordinance' 4 -0.
3/6: Read and adopted.Ordinance NS 3.65, 5 -0.
` EIA -4
Saratoga
�t
i File No: C -217
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 - environmen
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the text of the City of Saratoga Zoning
Ordinance to allow 20 sq. ft. bulletin boards on school sites.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
The proposed project will not have a significant effect.on the environment
due to the limited number and size.-Of the bulletin boards that would be
permitted under the ordinance.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 2'4c�" day of ����� r 19
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVI/RPNMENTAL nCONTRO /OF THE CITY OF
SA
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REVISING
SECTION 10.3(b) TO ALLOW BULLETIN BOARDS ON SCHOOL
SITES.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1: Section 10.3(b) of Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning
Ordinance, is amended to read as follows:
(b) In addition to an identification sign, a
bulletin board, not more than twenty square feet in area,
on the site of a chuch or school provided that the content
of the bulletin board relates to an activity conducted
at, or sponsored by, the church or school. These bulletin
boards shall be exempt from the design review and sign
permit requirements of Section 10.2 of this ordinance but
shall be no higher than 10 feet.
SECTION 2: 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 3: 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 , 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
0
MAYOR
r.
RESOLUTION NO. C -217 -1
A RESOLTUION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 10.3(b) -
BULLETIN BOARDS ON CHURCH AND SCHOOL SITES
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
was initiated by the City Council to allow bulletin boards on school
sites similar to those already allowed on church sites, 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
9th day of January , 19 85 , at the City Council Chambers,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of 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 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 9th day of January 19 85, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther
and McGoldrick
ATTES
�.ec te6ary
EXHIBIT "B"
V T Mn T M C C.
C-217
1. 'The proposed amendment to the text of the Zoning. Ordinance
is 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. It complies with the purposes of the sign ordinance
(Article 10) in terms of preserving the natural beauty
of the City and its orderly appearance.
2. The proposed amendment 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.
M
0� -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 12/20/84
Commission Meeting: 1/9/85 .
SUBJECT: C -217, City of Saratoga, Amendment to the Text of the Zoning Ordinance
to Allow Bulletin Boards on School Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Several months ago, the City's Community Services Officer informed Saratoga High School
that their sign advertising "Bingo" ''Was not permitted on the school site per the City's
Sign Ordinance (Article 10). Planning staff discussed this problem with the high school
staff and indicated that the ordinance would have to be amended to allow such a sign.
Staff suggested to the high school that since churches were already permitted to have 20 sq.
ft. bulletin boards under the ordinance, it would be reasonable to extend this privilege to
schools. A bulletin board would also allow a variety of school sponsored events to be ad-
vertised.
The City Council directed staff to prepare such an ordinance for review by the Planning
Commission. This ordinance is attached to this report. It should be noted that these
bulletin boards would be exempted,by this ordinance, from the City's Design Review and
Sign Permit requirements that are usually applied to signs. It is staff's understanding
that this exemption was intended by the City Council to be in this ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached reso-
lution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed text amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance.
Approved •
Michael Flores
Associate Planner
MF /dsc
P.C. Agenda: .1/9/85
1
Plannin g Conunission Page 10
Minutes - Meeting 1 /9/85
SDR -1585, A -1 -40, V -680 and LL -6 A
that the intent was the flower arld not be treated as a building
as they are open lattice work; uld be treated as a landscape
situation. Commissioner Burger shat her impression of the flower
arbor was that it actually ad sense of privacy between the
parcels.
Commissioner Siegfried stated does not have any particular
problem with the garage or farbor. He commented that he
understands the cabana has been towever, it does have more impact
than the other structures. He that he would like to see the
applicants get the impervious coveduced. He added that they could
maintain parking with turf block.
Commissioner Burger made the findings foV the flower arbor: The removal
of the flower arbor would be an unnecessa y hardship because of the large
silk tree and the Commission is conside in changing the ordinance.
Commissioner Siegfried added that, regar ing the Hall variance, he had
indicated that the line could be drawn i such a way that he could get
the setback but you ended up with a prope ty line that did not make any
sense. fie stated that that is what happens with this situation; the rear
yard setback could be maintained but it wou d result in a jagged property
line. He added that that could not be done with the cabana. Commissioner
,Burger added that another point was that t e flower arbor does provide
privacy between the two lots. She move to approve V -680 for the
variance for the garage and arbor, per t e conditions in the Staff
Report, and deny the variance for the cabana based on the fact that the
findings cannot be made:- Commissioner Pet rson seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve LLA -J, per the Staff Report
dated January 4, 1985. Commissioner Harris s conded the motion, which
was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR -1585, lAer the Staff Report dated
January 4, 1985 and Exhibit B -1. Commissione}1 Peterson seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve A -1040, per the Staff Report dated
January 4, 1985 and Exhibits B, B -1 and C. ommissioner Peterson
seconded the motion, which was carried unanim usly 5 -0. Chairman
Siegfried noted that there is a condition req iring that either a
variance be obtained for the impervious coverage, r that it be reduced
to mee t allowed. The appeal period was noted. \
14. C -217 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning
ordinance to allow a bulletin board not more than 20 sq.
ft. in size on the site of a school to advertise school
activities only
---------------------------------------------------- - -- - --
Staff described the proposed text amendment. The height limitation was
discussed, and it was noted that this issue is not mentioned in the
amendment. Commissioner Peterson suggested a maximum of 10 ft.
The public hearing was opened at 10:42 p.m.
Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution C- 217 -1, recommending
approval to the City Council, with the amendment of the height
limitation. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
- 10 -
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL Initial:
NO • Dept. Hd.
DATE: 2/14/85 (2/20/85)
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT': MANOR DRIVE ZONE OF LLA -1
Issue Surrmary .
Residents wish to replant a portion of the median and .plant landscape
behind the curb on the north side of Manor Drive along the Lyngso site.
Request City to advance $5800 with proposal to repay over a three -year
period.
The difference between a 3 and 2 -year payback is $15.11 per month per
home vs. $18.33.
RecorrIIrendation
Approve proposal with a 2 -year payback.
Fiscal Impacts
Initial cost of $5800 with payback through LLA -1 assessment proceedings.
Exhibits /Attachmnts
1. Staff Report dated February 11, 1985
2. Proposal
Council Action
2/20: Approved staff, recommendation 4 -0.
O
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2-11 -85
COUNCIL MEETING: 2-20-85
SUBJECT: Manor Drive Zone of Lighting and Landscaping
Assessment District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The residents of the Manor Drive zone of the Lighting and
Landscape Assessment District have submitted a plan to replant
the center strip and plant the side strips along Manor Drive.
Normally this would not be an item that would require prior City
Council review and approval. However, to implement the program
they are requesting that the City advance funds to be recuperated
from future assessments.
I am attaching a report from the residents of this district,
which includes a financial plan which requests that the City of
Saratoga advance $5800 for the initial cleanup and planting.
This would be recovered over a three-year period through the
annual assessments to this particular zone.
This request was submitted to this office last fall but was not
acted upon because of the possibility of the passage of
Proposition 36, which would have made it impossible for the City
to assess and recover these funds. Inasmuch as that proposition
was not approved, it would seem that the request should be
accommodated so as to complete the beautification of this area.
The request is for the City to recover the $5800 over a 3 -year
period, which would result in a cost per month of $15.11 per
home. If that recovery period were two years the cost per month
would be $18.33 per home, and if the total amount were recovered
in a single year the amount per month would be $28.00 per home.
Inasmuch as it is possible that a new proposition similar to
Proposition 36 may be forthcoming, and because the difference
between a recovery period of three years and two years is only
$3.22, I would recommend that the Council approve this proposal
with a two -year recovery period, rather than a three -year period.
Rober . Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Attachment
�
..-�
l �
�
'
'
'
�
�
�
m
'
�
^
`
,
'
i
�
�
'
.`
�
..
�
�
^
PLAN FOR
CENTERSTRIP MAINTENANCE
MANOR DRIVE AND GREENMEADOW LANE
�
PREPARED BY
FREDERICK TATAR
20577 MANOR DRIVE
SARATOGA, CA.
725-O6U5
AU8UST 30,1984
'T c'epternber• 19 84
STATUS UPDATE
(' CE NTE RSTRIP M AI NTE NANCE PROJECT
The plan discussed among the home owners in the last few weeks was submitted to
the City of Saratoga. The objective was to get the City to issue a purchase
order to the Shamrock Landscaping Company, so that the cleanup work could begin.
Another objective was to get permission to have the water connection at the end
of the street reactivated.
A specially prepared booklet of information was provided to Mr. Dan Trinidad,
who has cognizance about maintenance of the City's properties, parks, and
landscaped districts such as ours. He was to have reviewed this information with
Mr. Robert Shook of the Planning Department. Thereafter, they were then to brief
the City Manager, after- which, it was my belief, they would turn on the project.
All the meetings did come about, however not with the results I had expected.
The City Manager apparantly balked at committing the City's funding for the
cleanup costs of $5800. In my previous conversations with Mr. Trinidad, he
indicated that ordinarily there would be no problem in getting our plan
approved, but this year a new factor is coming up, and he was not sure how the
City Manager would react. He recommended, however, that we submit the plan, and
perhaps something could be worked out. This is what we did.
The new factor is Proposition 36 Property Tax Initiative which is on the ballot
in November. If this initiative passes it will severely limit the City's abi -ity
to recover revenues from real estate taxes. It is a matter of considerable
C concern, because Saratoga has practically no Industrial base from which to draw
operating revenues. For example, if the bill passes, it will render useless some
of the City plans to repair streets which are currently in bad shape. In our
situation, the City feels that they would not be able to recover, the $5800
outlay, because of the Prop 36 restrictions.
As a result, we are being told to wait until November to see how the election
turns out. This puts us in a bind, since getting a qualified gardening service
which is reponsive to our needs has been quite difficult. In the last year, we
have spoken to no less than 8 different gardening services, ranging from
teen -agers starting out in business to professional, licensed companies. Only
Shamrock Landscaping has shown any willingness to offer tangible plans, and
responsible quotes. If we delay much longer, I am afraid that they will choose
to forget it, and we will be back to where we were a year ago. Also, if we wait
much longer, the centerstrip may be beyond salvaging.
For those of us who have spent considerable time in working this issue, this
comes as a frustrating setback. At this time, I have no work- aroueds or other
ideas but to appeal directly to the City Manager about our plight. I will be
traveling on business until September 15. Upon my return, I will consolidate our
position and go see the City Manager. If any of you have ideas or contributing
thoughts on this matter, please let me know upon my return. I will keep you
posted as things develop.
Frederick Tatar
20577 Manor Drive
Saratoga, Ca.
?25- 0605
MAY 1 Y , 1954
CENTERSTRIP CLEANUP & LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROVIDE QUOTE FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING -
1. CLEAN UP CENTER STRIP, SIDE STRIP, AND CIRCLE.
WEED STRIPS, CIRCLE, & CURBS; GET RID OF CRAB GRASS.
REMOVE STUMPS AND REMAINING ROOTS FROM DEAD TREES.
THIN AGAPANTHAS.
WORK SIDE STRIP.
- ROTOTILL AMD REMOVE WEEDS.
- REMOVE DEAD TREES.
- INSTALL SPRINKLER S`r'STEM .
PRUNE BUSHES IN THE STRIP.
PRUNE OLIVE TREE IN CIRCLE.
REMOVE MAGNOLIA TREE IN STRIP.
CLEAN -UP AND REMOVE TRASH.
2. DEVELOP LANDSCAPE PLAN.
SELECT HARDY, RESISTANT TREES WHICH HAVE CHARACTER AND COLOR.
SELECT COLORFUL ADDITIONAL PLANTS.
SHOW EXTENT I ON OF WATERING SYSTEM TO HANDLE SIDE STRIP.
COORDINATE PLAN WITH NEIGHBORS.
3. REPLANT CENTER STRIP.
INSTALL TREES.
FILL IN HOLES WHERE RAPHAELEPI S PLANTS' HAVE DIED.
REARRANGE AGAPANTHAS.
SELECT AND PLANT ADDITIONAL COLORFUL PLANTS.
7/PES OF ►NPORHA7►0N FLOW ►N MC
A. OP CODE 2 biT5
13. ADDRES5 1(, 61T5
C. OPERAND (Dk-rA ELEMENT) bas
C.
OP c4)vtE
ADDRESS
1
OP CODG:
OPERAND
OP Cr.)DC
ADDRESS
20
00
02
A9
oq
8D
00
17
C.
T' FERTILIZE PLANTS.
4. REPLANT SIDE STRIP.
SELECT AND PLANT ADDITIONAL COLORFUL PLANTS.
MOVE EXCESS CENTER STRIP PLANTS (RAPHHLEPI S, r^,GAPANTHHS) TO SIDE STRIP.
TRIM MONTEREY PINES.
S. PROVIDE NECESSARY PERIODIC: MAINTENANCE (PROVIDE t° ONTHLY QUOTE) .
i
to
s
INTERNAL ORGANIZATION - M(:5 #6502
TA
15
ADDR
LOW
ADDR
Hie."
STATE LIC x353001
Mr. Tatar
Manor Place
Saratoga, California
Dear Mr. Tatar,
LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE
908 NORTH 81H 51-REET
SAN JOSE. CA 95112
June 29, 1984
TELEPHONE (408) 995 -6166
Per your request I am submitting this proposal for landscape
renovation on the median islands on your street. The accompanying
plan is as integral part of this proposal and should be referred to
for clarification.
SCOPE OF WORK
C1. Spray all weed infested areas with "Roundup ".
2. Remove and replace all plants as noted on plan.
3. Install a battery operated irrigation system in planter
along fence, as shown on plan.
4. Automate by "Sprinkler Thinker" the existing valves controlling
the irrigation system.
5. Remove all unwanted trees, volunteers and large shrubs from
the planting beds. The side planter will be rototilled and
ammended with compost prior to planting.
6. All trees installed will be staked with a 2" x 101 Lodgepole
Pine and tied with corded rubber.
7. All ground to be newly planted will have Nitrogenized Redwood
Compost incorporated at a rite of 6 cu. yds. per 1000 sq. ft.
8. All existing plants which remain will be trimmed and shaped.
9 All plants will be fertilized in the following manner:
1 gallon 1 tablet "Agriform 21"
5 gallon 3 tablets "Agriform 21"
15 gallon 5 tablets "Agriform 21"
L" pots 16 -6 -8 at a rate of 12lbs. per 1000 sq. ft.
PAGE 2
10. The Olive tree in the circular planter will be trimmed and
shaped.
11. All work related debris will be disposed of upon completion
of job.
12. All tasks described herein will be performed in a workmanlike
manner and in accordance with industry standards.
TOTAL COST: 72250.00
If there are any questions regarding this proposal, please feel
free to call me.
Sincerely,
0
Richard S. LeBlanc
Lic. #353001
ACCEPTED: DATE:
RSL /ch
STATE LIC. #353001
Mr. Tatar
Manor Place
Saratoga, California
Mr. Tatar:
LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE
908 NORTH 8TH STREET
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
June 29, 1981
Shamrock Landscaping and Maintenance will, under this proposal
include the following as part of our ,monthly maintenance program.
C 1 A. Ground covers and shrubs to be fertilized three (3)
times per year with a fertilizer rating at 18 -8 -4.
Fertilizer to be applied at a rate of twenty (20)
pounds per two - thousand (2000) square feet. Plants
and trees requiring different fertilizers (acid base,
deep rooting) will be fed as needed to insure good
health and appearance. Lawns will be fertilized as
needed with a 16 -6 -8 fertilizer rating to be applied
at a rate of eight (8) pounds per one - thousand (1000)
square feet. Trees will be fertilized yearly with
"Agriform" deep root fertilizer and applied according
to the need and requirement of the trees. A general
rule is, four (4) tablets of "Agriform" for every
inch of tree trunk in diameter. Fertilizer will be
applied along the drip line of the trees and the root
line of shrubs.
B. Complete weeding of grounds, including lawns.
C. Snails and harmful insect control to be done as needed.
D. Tree strapping and ties to be maintained if poles are
in place.
E. Shrubs, trees, and ground covers to be sprayed as needed
{ to discourage disease and insect infestation.
TELEPHONE (408) 995 -6166
PAGE 2
F. Sprinkler systems will be maintained by us except for
cost of necessary repair parts. Shamrock will be re-
sponsible for irrigation replacement-only from the
valves to the sprinkler heads and not any on the main
line that lead up to the valve. Repairs made on these
main lines will entail an extra labor charge, which
would be decided upon at the time the work is to be
done. Any electrical work done on automatic timer
boxes is an additional charge also.
G. Ground covers will be edged as needed to preserve a
neat appearance.
H. Planting such as color spots, replacement of plants,
lawns or relandscaping will be an extra charge. The
price will be agreed upon before commencing any work.
Plants that die as a direct result of our negligence
will be replaced at our own cost.
I. Shrubs.to be trimmed periodically to insure good
appearance and to stimulate optimum growth.
J. Trees will be trimmed, pruned, etc. to a height of
fifteen (15) feet by us. Any work over that Height
r will be the responsiblity of the controlling inter -
est of the property. Reputable tree. trimming compan-
ies will be recommended by us, if so desired.
Shamrock Landscaping and Maintenance is bonded, insured and
State licensed to guarantee faithful execution of our contract
terms. State license , #353001.
We will perform the services outlined above, in a diligent and
reliable manner for the sum of $100.00 per month.
This agreement may be cancelled by either party, for any reason,
by giving a thirty (30) day written notice.
Thank you for the opportunity of submitting this proposal. We
are looking forward to working with you in the very near future.
SHAMROCK LANDSCAPING
LIC. #353001
ACCEPTED:
RSL /ch
DATE:
P9
r+ c IF
NncD c.1.._ �y�'r✓.l..�.
-
o 0
0 o—
`
m •ou .,..ae
•r r T ,w ....wr.•
y
Q AN Ec/t—1 SQR —o 'u.✓ -IYSM - 7a De
C—vr 'ro 'Uoua 9' e...ay o�r.Cw w
�� /1 Nu✓ S.c,a7w...., ✓ni.iln { L..ia Ai
ivs�wa.,2 0., "Ly.,.,r "' �O.r�c � .
`s/
�LL �arwcr•a� rCl7�
�
AOO•...,A� �pc.es -.
CEHTERSTRI P 111% 1 NI'D L
-----------------------
F I PJANC I AL PLAN
--------------
AIJFJUAL
COST
----------
1. ONE—TIME CLEANUP &- PLANTIt-•lG 5800.00 183:3,33
2. MONTHLY MAINTEt-•IANCE 100.00 1'201;.00
3. PLANTING OF ANNUi-iLS (3 PER ".R.) 4o0 cl l'i 1200 00
4. WATER BILL 150.00
5. CITY ADMINISTRATION FEE 50.00
----------
TO I TAL YEARLY COST 4533.33
----------
EACH HOMEOWNER'S ANNUAL SHARE 181 .33
----------
COST PER MONTH (PER HOME) 15.11
----------
FOR FIRST THREE '(EARS ONLY
.
THE roLLowzws SAnAToGA mAwon Hnmsowwsna HAVE msvzswsn T*s
-MAINTENANCE APPROACH, AND SUPPORT THE ASSOCIATED FINANCIAL PLAN:
pnzmTEm mAns szsmATuas AuonsSs DATE
--------'---'------
2,S-77 11-l"if Ot,
--------------------------------------------------------------'
u �
Z�'
-----------------------6-/ ----------------------------------'----
" //
-
_ 4
------- 9-47)�-Jlyus-j6 fiml'-� --------
--
�
'
--- Gnc-��'
^~
'
`
` �
BMW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16"2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
kjll�,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- ------
--- --- ----
4vU -------------------- - -------- --------
21
-- - -- ----- - ----- -------
22
------------------------------------------------ 77 -----------------------------------------------------------------
23
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24
---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OC SIVZNIYX';A
A=TDA BILL N0. ? 0 8
DATE: February 20, 1985.
Dg'ARTMEZ: Community Services
SUBJECT: HCDA Funding
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Council directed staff to develop a CDBG program which emphasizes benefits
to senior citizens and improvements to the Saratoga Village area. While
this is being accomplished, Saratoga's grant will be programmed into ari-
"undesignated local option" category to comply with County - imposed dead-
lines. New CDBG recommendations will then be presented to the Council in
March, at which time the final allocation of the funding will occur.
r
Reccnrendation
Close public hearing.
Fiscal Impacts
Ultimately, the City will receive $150,000 in grant revenue after is has
developed its CDBG program.
Z:hihits /Attachments
1. Report to Council
2. Summary of Issues
Council Action
2/20: Closed public hearing.
4
A
_ CITY of = ' ATOGA
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Feb. 20, 1985
COUNCIL MEETING: Feb 20, 19 8 5
SUBJECT: HCDA Funding Allocation
PURPOSE
Council action is necessary to close a public hearing continued
from the February 6, 1985, Council meeting. The purpose of the
hearing was to entertain public comment on the allocation of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding the City
anticipates receiving from the Federal Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) in July. No further action by the
Council is requested at this time.
ANALYSIS
On February 6, 1985, staff presented a list of eligible projects
to the Council to be considered for CDBG funding. At that time,
Council openned a public hearing on the subject as required by
Federal regulations. Since there was not a consensus concerning
how the $150,000 grant should be allocated, Council continued the
public hearing until February 20, 1985, and requested more
information from staff concerning the guidelines for determining
eligible activities.
At the Council study session on February 12, 1985, staff
presented the information on HCDA funding requested by Council.
After discussing various project alternatives, there was a
consensus that the focus of the City's CDBG program should be on
one or two major activities rather than on a broad variety of
smaller activities. Projects which benefit senior citizens and
projects which improve the Saratoga Village area were favored.
Since CDBG funds must benefit lower income population which do
not exist in the majority in the Village area, staff agreed to
seek creative alternative ways of satisfying the Federal benefit
requirement while, at the same time, accomplishing local Village
area improvement objectives.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
Subject: HCDA Funding Allocation February 20, 1985
To do this, staff will program the funding into an"undesignated
local option" category. Staff then plans on returning to Council
in March to present project alternatives developed in response to
Council's requests. At that time, it is anticipated that final
Council action will be taken to allocate CDBG funding for the
next fiscal year.
CONCLUSION
Council directed staff to develop a CDBG program which emphasizes
benefits to senior citizens and improvements to the Saratoga
Village area. While this is being accomplished, Saratoga's grant
will be programmed into an "undesignated local option" category
to comply with County- imposed deadlines. New CDBG
recommendations will then be presented to the Counil in March, at
:which time the final allocation of the funding will occur.
Prepared by:
,d
Todd W. Argow
Community Servies Direcctor
SUMMARY
CDBG 11TH YEAR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
New revenue available for allocation:
Existing funds available for re- allocation *:
TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE:
say
Program Goals:
1. Benefit to Senior Citizens
2. Improvement to Village Area
Potential Project Alternatives toward Program Goals:
$150,000
318,924
$468,924
$470,000
1. Senior Programs
2. Existing Senior Center Expansion
3. New Senior Center Construction
4. Village Library Improvements
5. Village Area Commercial Rehab /Economic Development Program
Application Development Schedule:
Date Action
February 20 o Close Public Hearing
o Program 11th year grant into
"Unspecified Local Option"
by March 20 o Hold Public Hearing
• Consider Projects
• Program New Funds
• Consider Reprogramming Existing Funds
by April 11 o Forward City's Program to County
by June 1 o County Application for CDBG submitted
to HUD
by July 1 o HUD Approval of CDBG
by July 30 o Release of Funds for Expenditure
* "Available funds" means the revenue is not bound by contract
and can be reprogrammed. It does not mean the revenue must be
reprogrammed, as most of the projects are still viable.
TwA