Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-15-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS
CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE:---5/6/85 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Dev 1=ment C. Mgr. Final Map Approval, SDR -1530, Anita Korts Bolin/ SUBJECT: Butler Johnson Corporation, Sobey Rd. (3 lots) w•�w��.M�w�w����.��M� -w.. ^ �www��w��ww..w«w��- w.- �� - -� -- -w -.� Issue Summary 1. SDR -1530 is ready for final approval 2. All bonds, fees and.agreements have been submitted to the City 3. Requirements for City and other agencies have been met. _ Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 1530 -02 attached, approving the Final Map for SDR -1530. Authorize execution of contracts for improvements agreement. Fiscal Impacts NONE Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1530 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. ,Status Report for Building Site Approval 4'. Location Map Council Action. 5/15: Approved 4 -0.- RESOLUTION NO. 1530 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Anita Bolin /Butler Johnson Inc. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 0.99 acre, 0.918 acre and 0.923 acre parcels shown as Parcels A, B, and C on the Final Parcel Map prepared by J. M. Heiss Inc. and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as three (3) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of. 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: 0 CITY CLERK MAYOR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APi -ROVED Illy. , EXHIBIT "A" DA ": DATE: 12/16/82 Commission Meeting: 1/12/83 SUBJECT SDR -1530, Anita Korts Bolin, Sobey Road Tentative Site Approval - 3 Lots PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests building site approval for three (3) lots at the corner of Sobey Road and Quito Road. The previous site approval for three (3) lots for the,site, SDR -1482, has expired. All three (3) proposed parcels will have an area of 40,000 square feet or greater. Numerous walnut trees are located on the site. Two large oak trees are located within the Sobey Road right -of -way, which are to be saved. The entire parcel has a slope of 8.8 %, so that it is not a hillside subdivision. No single lot slope exceeds 10 %. However, Parcel A includes a 10' bank onto which a split -level house is proposed to be placed. Discussions during the previous approvals centered on the drainage and road widenings. The road conditions were modified to save the existing oak trees and a 24" storm drain is proposed on the south side of the property to take care of area drainage. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: January 13, 1978. The:Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1530 (Exhibit "B ") filed November 17, 1982. I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative aDDrnval_ cijhmiccinn of Pn- Report to Planning Comm(_�ion SDR -1530, Anita Korts Bolin I. GENERAL CONDITIONS, cont'd. C 12/16/82 Page 2 gineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with appli- cable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regula- tions and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Sepcific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Dedicate and improve Sobey Road and Quito Road to provide for a 30 ft. half street. Use A.C. Berm in lieu of P.C.C. curb and gutter on both streets. (Alignment of Quito Road to conform to the "Official Plan Line for Quito Road" as modified by the improvement on the northerly side of Sobey Road). Alignment of improvement as determined by Depart - ment of Public Works. B. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the Director of Community Development. C. Engineered improvement plans required for street, access road and storm sewer construction. D. Bond and inspection fee as determined from engineered plans to be posted and paid. E. Provide pedestrian walkway along Quito Road. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION.OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Detailed on -site improvment plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). 2.. Drainage details (conduit type, slope outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures. 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrows, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. B. Foundations to be designed or approved by a Registered Civil Engineer. C. Retaining walls over 3 feet in height to be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Report to Planning Comm lion SDR -1530, Anita Korts Bolin III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES, cont'd. 12/16/82 Page 3 D. A detailed soil investigation shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to Sanitation District No. 4 in .accordance with letter dated November,,26, 1982 prior to issuance of permits. B. Sanitary sewers to be provided in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to:assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing . the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and certification. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. An approved fire truck turnaround area shall be installed on each parcel when any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of any building is more than 150 feet from the street. Distance shall be measured along the driveway or access road. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Any modification to the Site Development Plan for Parcel A shall be subject to approval. Approved: KK /dsc P.C. Agenda: 1/12/82 Rathyl Kerd Planner MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -1530 , Anita K. Bolin /Butler (have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on Johnson Inc. Janua -ry -1,198 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication Yes R % % %xotXgtfrXRxxxxy ax Parcel Map Storm Drainage Fee $3300.00 All Required Improvement Bonds All Required Inspection Fees Building Site Approval Agreemei Park and Recreation Fee Yes Date Sub 7000.00 $7500.00 it Yes 3900.00 mi— tted _ Date _ Date _ Date Date Date Submitted Date Submitted 4 -15 -85 Receipt Submittec- 4 =15 -85 Submitted 4-15-89— Signed 4 -15 -85 Submitted 4 -15 -85 4 -12 -85 4-12-85 Receipt 7 09 Receipt #7T-O-5-- 6752 Receipt #7409 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that N xc ";ckkQ &3c) (Final) Building Site Approval for Anita K. Bolin /Butler Johnson Ir e SDR- 1530 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Conditions) 96.s Reason for Non - Compliance Robert oK Director of Community Development _ - S -D R -► 5 3 0 -- -- CITY OF SARATOGA 0 `C'� Initial: ACENDA BILL NO. T Dept. Hd. DATE: 5/6/85 (5/15/85) C. Atty. DEPAR' MDIT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Final Map Approval SDR -1539, The Owen Company - Cox Avenue/ Saratoga Avenue (1 :.lot) Issue Sumnary 1. The SDR -1539 is ready for final approval 2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City. 3. Requirements for City and other agencies have been met. Recommendation Adopt resolution No. 1539 -02 attached, approving the final map for SDR -1539. Authorize execution of contracts for improvements agreements. Fiscal Impacts NONE _Exhibits /Attachments 1. ::Resolution No. 1539 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Status for building site approval 4. Location map Council Action y 5/15; Approved 4 -0. 11 • El RESOLUTION NO. 1539 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Owen Company The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 10.253 acre parcel as shown Parcel "A" on the Final Parcel Map, prepared by Mark Thomas & Company Inc. and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site for four commercial buildings. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular i meeting held on the day of. 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERIC MAYOR ** *Revised 11/21/8 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION * *Revised:11/14/ * Revised: 9/20/84 Revised: 8/1/84 DATE: 6/22/84 Commission Meeting: 6/27/84 9/26/84 - SUBJECT UP-,535, 5,pR-4-5-39., A -989, Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Co.), Southeast Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues *ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Use Permit, Tentative Building Site, Grading Permit and Design Review for the construction of 115,600 sq. ft. of office complex in three.(3), one, -story buildings and one two-story-building. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED/REQUIRED: Amendment or rescission of Resolution No. 897`(copy attached ). Final Building Site Approval and Building Permits. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: P -A (Professional and Administrative) GENERAL- PLAN: Commercial - Planned Development Mixed Use SITE DATA - PARCEL SIZE: 10.25 Acres (446,620 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Gently sloping site covered by grasses and other low growing vegetation. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.7% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1.7% * GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: Approx. 1,500 -:Cu. Yds., Fill: Approx. 1,500 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 2 Ft.+ Fill Depth: 2 Ft.+ ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE * SETBACKS: Northwest Side (Saratoga Ave.): 50' Min. Northeast Side (Cox Avenue): 75' Min. East Side (Quito Shopping Center): 105' Min. South Side (Single Family Dwelling): 70' Min.(150' to the 2 -story building) Southwest Side (McFarland Ave.): 40' Min. R� $F ** *Revised 11/21/8 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION * *Revised:11/14/ * Revised: 9/20/84 Revised: 8/1/84 DATE: 6/22/84 Commission Meeting: 6/27/84 9/26/84 - SUBJECT UP-,535, 5,pR-4-5-39., A -989, Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Co.), Southeast Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues *ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Use Permit, Tentative Building Site, Grading Permit and Design Review for the construction of 115,600 sq. ft. of office complex in three.(3), one, -story buildings and one two-story-building. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED/REQUIRED: Amendment or rescission of Resolution No. 897`(copy attached ). Final Building Site Approval and Building Permits. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: P -A (Professional and Administrative) GENERAL- PLAN: Commercial - Planned Development Mixed Use SITE DATA - PARCEL SIZE: 10.25 Acres (446,620 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Gently sloping site covered by grasses and other low growing vegetation. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.7% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1.7% * GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: Approx. 1,500 -:Cu. Yds., Fill: Approx. 1,500 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 2 Ft.+ Fill Depth: 2 Ft.+ ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE * SETBACKS: Northwest Side (Saratoga Ave.): 50' Min. Northeast Side (Cox Avenue): 75' Min. East Side (Quito Shopping Center): 105' Min. South Side (Single Family Dwelling): 70' Min.(150' to the 2 -story building) Southwest Side (McFarland Ave.): 40' Min. w SUP -535. to Planning Comnissilp SDR -1539. A -989 - Cwen Co.. Cox. S Sarx'^ya *vs- • �. liu} ldinq ?• _ Building 3: Building 4: *. >IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: ' *,LANDSCAPING: 40 SIZE OF STRUCTURES: +•;r *Buildings 1 & 4.: ory) 18 (1- Story) 18' (1 Story) 60o (Building and paved surfaces) •..evised- x/20/84 ', S4 First Floor - 21,675 x.2 = .43,250 sq. ft. *Building 2: First Floor - 28,900 sq. ft. Second Floor - 28,900 sq.'ft. 57,800 sq. ft. *Building 3; First Floor - 14,450 sq: ft. TOTAL: '115;600 sq, ft. * PARKING: Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area for a professional administrative office building. This project would require 323 parking spaces and the project will provide 423 parking spaces. Twb,,42) loading berths are',also .required by ordinance (12' x 45') and 'are not shown.,,,; COMPLIANCE: The proposed project meets the basic standards of the zoning ordinance. *Exterior Materials: Wood siding, painted natural. *Roof Materials: Natural cedar shake, GENERAL PLAN: This site was discussed by both the Planning Commission and City Council during the hearings on revisions to the General Plan in 1983. At that time, the residents of the Quito area.expressed their preference for residential development of the site as well as opposition to commercial development of the site. These views were incorporated in the area F - Guidelines for Area Development under Item #3 which reads as follows: 3. The vacant parcel located on the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue between McFarland and Cox Avenue should be developed only under conditions of uniform design and with consideration given to combined land uses. The residents of Area F support subsidized senior citizen housing or single family residential use of this site. Development of the site may include professional and admini- strative office uses which minimize traffic and noise, either separately or in combination with residential uses upon the receipt of a Use Permit. Particular attention should be given to landscaping, access, parking and site coverage. Another shopping center should not be constructed on this parcel. This guideline indicates that professional administrative office use separately or combined with residential use would be acceptable on the site. A list of General Plan Goals and Policies that pertain to this project have been attached. In review of these goals and policies, some have been complied with and others have not. The major areas of Staff concern are those goals and policies which address the design (particularly in conjunction with Resolution No. 897) and fiscal impacts of the project. In particular, it is not clear that the project is "........compatible with the site and adjacent surroundings "'(LU.5.0) as discussed in the EIR. (� *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to Planning Commissir. ` 6/22/84 ,UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox.& Saratoga Aves. Page 3 ,It is clear, however, that the construction of the project as proposed will be a net drain on. City Resources (See Fiscal Impact Section of the EIR). The Land Use Element of the General Plan states the following: LU.7.0 - Promote the-long-term-economic soundness of the City government through careful analysis of land-use decisions and fiscal practices. LU.7.1 - The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. *To offset the loss to the'City at a.public meeting, the Owen Company has stated that they will make up the deficit to,the City annually. .STAFF ANALYSIS: In review of the E.I.R. and the plans submitted by the applicant, staff has identified the following major areas of concern with the project: *1. Traffic: The EIR has indicated that the project (129,264 sq. ft. - Scheme A) will generate 1,580.vehicle trip ends per weekday and 285 vehicle trip ends during the morning peak hour (20 in afternoon peak hour). The EIR indicates that this additional traffic will not significantly reduce the existing level of service at the intersection of Saratoga and Cox Avenues. This also is true for the addition of cumulative traffic from potential future,development ' on:.vacent parcels in the vicinity. 2. Circulation: The applicant proposes an entry to the property on its Saratoga Avenue side which is inconsistent with City Council Res. No. 897. The applicant feels this access is beneficial for the project in terms of distributing traffic. However, this access may give the project more of a commercial appearance which the City Council wished to avoid. The City Council would have to amend or rescind this resolution '.if an:.access.. were to be allowed on the site. The applicant has provided a traffic diverter on McFarland Avenue to prevent on site traffic from using residential streets. 3. Design: The City wishes to maintain the residential appearance of Saratoga Avenue by Resolution 897. The height, materials, and windows of the structure and project landscaping are critical in this regard. The Visual and Aesthetic Resources section of the EIR states that the two -story structures proposed by the applicant would have the greatest visual impact because of their apparent height as seen from Cox and Saratoga Avenues and their contrast with existing one -story buildings in the vicinity. The project could "tie" into, or act as a transition between, the medical offices on the northwestern side of Saratoga Avenue and the commercial build- ings on Cox Avenue. The EIR suggests four (4) mitigation measures to reduce the commercial appearance of *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to Planning Commissir (C 6/22/84 �JP -535, SDR =1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Aves. Page 4 *.the proposed (129,264 sq. ft.) structures: 1. Redesign the facades of Buildings #1 and #2 to be more similar to the medical office buildings. 2. Have single story structures along the street frontage of the site and two -story structures to the rear. 3. Relocate parking areas along Saratoga Avenue to the interior of the site and reduce the building setbacks. 4. Shielding of exterior night lights, prohibiting pole or building mounted lights and spotlights, and limiting the intensity of permitted lighting. *The current proposal, Scheme "C ", has 3, one -story structures adjacent to Saratoga Ave. and the residences to the rear and proposes a two -story next to-the Shopping.Center,on Cox, 150' away from the residences..- This:wi.11:still'. impact .the.neighbors.privacy. -.The applicant pro - poses. a-.12.' _ 15' privet hedge to'-screen-this visual. impact: *The coverage proposed by these buildings is 19.4 %. The ratio of total floor area (includes second floor) to acreage is 25.9 %. A comparison of the professional offices (parking at 1:400 at the southwesterly corner of Cox and Saratoga Ave. yields a ratio of 27.1 %. The rest of the offices (medical and dental with parking at 1:200) have a coverage ratio of 20.1 %. The office (existing and.proposed with parking at 1:40) on..Cox.Ave. across..the street will have a coverage ratio of 23.8% and a ratio of total floor area to acreage of 47.6 %. *4. Parking: The applicant proposes to provide 423 parking spaces on site. According to Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, a ratio of one (1) space for every 400 sq. ft. of gross floor is.required for Professional /Administrative Offices and a ratio of 1:200 is required for customer service offices (medical, etc.). If the entire site were used for Professional /Administrative uses, 289 spaces would be required; 578 spaces would be required if the complex were devoted to customer service. The project provides parking at a ratio of 1:273 sq. ft. which lies between the parking ratios used by the City. Th�ecommon parking ratio for-offices uses.in the Santa Clara Valley is 1:250. 5. Fiscal Impacts: The General Plan states that "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions in the City." *.The DEIR finds that "the project (129,264 sq. ft. - Scheme "A ") would be more beneficial to the City than the residential alternative, but would be less beneficial than the No- Project Alternative or the other development alternatives." The direct costs in dollars per year to the City (noting that approximate service costs have been used, and that a decrease in the real value of property tax revenue compared to inflation rates will occur, and an assumption of full occupancy of .the project) would be $13,900, while revenues to! the City would be about $7,650.. This results in a net annual deficit to the City of about $6,250 (1983 dollars). DRAFT FINDINGS: Staff has prepared the following findings in accordance with Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance: *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to the Planning Commission 6/22/84 UP; 535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Page 5 , *1. The proposed location and d?sign of the conditional use is in accord with the ob- jectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the P -A zoning district (given City Council approval of the access to Saratoga Ave.) *2. The proposed location and design of this office use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health and safety or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. *3. The proposed office use will comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan and Resolution No. 897, given City Council determination on the access to Saratoga Avenue. *RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the Staff Report dated 9/20/84 and Exhibit "B -2" dated 9/14/84, per the following conditions after making one or more of the following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. CONnTTTnNS 1. Tentative and Final Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval required. 2. The project shall incorporate the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "E" as part of 'the :project. , 3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Horticulturalist and Planning Commission review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection /occupancy of any building. A minimum of 40% of the site shall be devoted to landscaping. Landscaping easements shall be dedicated to the City along the street frontages of the site. * ** 4. The hours of operation for all uses shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to(10:00 p.m.) (VOTE) ( 9:00 p.m.) *5. Rar *-14 3- - s4a-" 4),& -j�r-o v-i.4" a&t. -ox& -&pac & -{gar- -2-54 -sq , 4t - -af -grass 41-Gar- _&r_P_&. ** No off -site parking. 423 parking spaces to be provided. *6. Details for exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. The purpose of this Condition is to ensure that adjacent residential properties are not adversely affected by light and glare. All lighting not * ** essential to security shall be turned off by(11:00 p.m.) Security lighting to be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of building permits. (10:00 p.m.) (VOTE) *7. Berming and landscaping is required along Saratoga and Cox Avenues and McFarland Ave. * ** to visually block the cars parked within the site. C C Revised: 9/20/84 Report to the Planning Commission 6/22/84 UP, 535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Ave. Page 6 •8., Any revisions to the site development plan-or elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. * * *9 : A�1 -it�i= -ah,4 - �1-i ti�ta-te - pro - -acces T -( r - sara7to T& Arentm -or -Mt t- r= -t�hz -at ty ** Gottr�c- -i-1- to- Yffe nd- -ND- - - 89-7- to- - a+l -cnt -s � a aces- -pri-or -hr - F m 1-*ap, -fipprova-l% 10. Incorporate passive solar energy use and install plumbing to allow retrofit for solar panels in the design of all structures as suggested in the mitigation measures listed on Exhibit "E ". *11. Design Review required for all signs. All buildings shall follow a consistent sign program approved by the Planning Commission. No signs shall be interior illuminated. 12. All parking stalls shall be double striped and minimum dimensions.. of 9.5' x 20'. ** 13. All loading berths shall have dimensions of 12' x 45'or as required by Staff. 14. No medical or dental offices are permitted on this site or any other use which required one parking space or more for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area as defined in Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. *15. A 6' to 8' high masonry block wall or approved alternative shall be constructed along the southern and a portion of the eastern property lines of the site to act as a buffer between.adjacent residential properties and the project in conjunction with the proposed 10' wide landscaping strip. The precise location and design of the wall shall be sub- ** mitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Sereee}eg- of- the - second - story- prrvacy-i mpacts- threagh-} andseap4ng- er- bu4id4mg- ried4f4eat4on -te -be approved -by- the- P} anning- eommT ssren- prfar- to- issuanee- ef- .a- bu44dimg- perfft. 16. Per Section 16.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall retain con- tinuing jurisdiction of the use permit. * ** (See 11/13/84 Memorandum) 17. The following mitigation measures shall be made part of this project: * ** A. project could inclb4E a channelization —heme for westbound affic on Cox Ave. If i tailed, the Cox Av entrance to the si could be channelize to discourage vehicle n the westbound d1 ction from entering leaving the iste, hus reducing the incent for project traf to use Co x Ave. scheme would cause 0 vehicles to be diverte way from Cox Ave. ffic in the mornin eak hour. These v icles would access the 'te by traveling on ratoga Ave. Durin the evening peak ho six vehicles.would diverted from Cox * ** B. The ty could require the oject sponsor to ma street improvemen in con - junctio ith the project, to leviate traffic con ti in the vicini of the site; one s suggested improvem t could be a center ider on Cox Ave. t would prevent or from making -block U -turns or le turns into the si * ** C.' City could requir he project sponsor make street impro en in con - junc 'on with the projec such as making the ft lane on Cox Ave. nto a left turn on lane, leaving onl ne through lane on x Ave. at Saratoga e. * ** D. The City coul equire the projec onsor to construc median barrier on McFarland Ave. t revent U -turns in dblock. j' *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to Planning Commission 6/22/84 UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Ave. Page 7 * ** E. limit noise fro commercial acti \ea City cou require the s\ep con ruct a solid ma ry wall, at lfeet high, long the sitary with acent resid ents developmenmeasure woul reduce nois of the pro t on adjacent r idents to nificant level. *18. P er the developer's offer, an annual payment shall be made to the City to offset the deficit cost to the City of the project pursuant to a recorded written agreement to be * ** approved by the City Attorney. * * *19. Ltet -t-rre- t>t rrli rrg- �re-irt -oir �t rid- d- irg-2- -to- -�' -.- Rep.ort to the Planning Co Ic ,sion 8/17/84 SDR -1539, A- 989,'UP -535, Owen Co. Page 8 TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL If the Planning Commission approves the use permit for the project,`then: the Commission can act on the application for Tentative Building Site Approval. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: August 8, 1984. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1539 (Exhibit B -1 filed 1/30/84) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS II Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of.a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance.in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and`Building Ordinances, nor.-wi.th_ any other-Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. D. Improve Saratoga Ave., Cox Ave. and Mc Farland Ave. to City Standards, including the following: 1. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) 2. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. 3. Repair damage to existing improvement. E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: Report to the Planning Commission SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535, Co. 1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 4. On Site Retention. 8/17/84 Page 9 F. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches except Mc Farland Avenue shall be constructed so as to prohibit right turns into site and left turns out of site. G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required. at driveway and access road intersections. H. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements. 2. Storm Drain Construction I. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. J. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. K. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. L. Dedications, Improvements Plans; fees, and bond as required for mitigation measures as outlined in the final EIR. M. Easements and improvements for driveway connection to.Quito Shopping Center. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Soils 2. Foundation B. Detail.ed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross- sections, existing and proposed"elevations ,'earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, locations, etc.) 3. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan.using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided to this project through connection into the 10 -inch trunk sewer in Saratoga Avenue. B. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to-County-Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance with letter dated 9/21/83 prior to issuance of permits. Report to the Planning Commission t.SDR,1539, A -989, UP -535, Co. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT 8/17/84 (7 Page 10 A. The existing water system shall be extended to the site; contact San Jose Water Company. B. Developer to install four (4) public and two (2) on site private hydrants that- meet.Central Fire District's specifications. Hydrants to be. installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. Contact should be made with the water company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering delays. C. The buildings will require the installation of an approved automatic fire extinguishing system. Contact should be made with the water company as soon as possible to avoid engineering delays. VI. SPECIFIC•CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. 'A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank to be.pumped_ and backfilled to County Standards. =Seal well in accordance with County and Santa Clara Valley Water District Standards. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA-.CLARA`VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Dedicate a landscape easement for all landscaped areas along Mc Farland Drive Cox Avenue, and Bucknall Road. C. Any modifications.to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission Approval. D. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are to remain unimproved and the landscaping easement dedicated to the City. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be sumitted to.the Planning Department for review.-arid approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improvements or prior to final inspection /occupancy of any portion of the project. E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and landscape easement. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the owners of the site shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas. * ** F. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the buildings and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station. Location of detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to Planning CommissiC C 8/17/84 SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535 Page 11 DESIGN REVIEW - A -989 *The applicant has substantially modified the design of the project to be more residential - appearing per suggestions by the EIR and the Planning Commission. The structure will be all wood (siding and shakes) with mullioned windows and sheet metal gutters. *The two story building may have a privacy impact on the adjoining residences (150' minimum distance away) which are suggested to be mitigated by landscaping and fencing. *RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review subject to the Staff Report dated 9/20/84 and Exhibit "B -2" dated 9/14/84 per the following conditions: *1. Plans showing the location of trash containers, utility meters, mechanical equipment or other similar appurtenances and their screening shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. *2. Any minor revision to the proposed elevations and site plan shall be subject to staff review and approval. Major modifications will be referred to the Planning Commission. *3. Landscaping plans, drawn by a licensed landscape architect, shall be reviewed and approved by staff and the City's landscape consultant prior to issuance of permits. A deposit for the review is required. The landscaping shall be fully irrigated and in place prior to Final Building Approval. * * *4. Ae c ems- -0 r -tor -th 4ec. -iftg 49- f*t- -perm- L , btr -reai- -&t -o+ -B- r - H+rrg- +2-. *5. Submit detailed grading and drainage plans with building plans to be approved by the Community Development,Department. Drainage to be approved by City Engineer. Pad ele- vations to be in conformance with adjacent residences. Approved: Kathy erdu Planner KK /dsc P.C. Agenda: 9/26/84 'MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -1539 Owen Company (have) (have not) been met as approved by the City Council on 11 -7 -84 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication No arcel Map yes Storm Drainage Fee $28708.40 Date Submitted All Required Improvement Bonds $5000.00 Date All Required Inspection Fees $5340.00 Date Building Site Approval Agreement yes Date Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date Date Submitted Date Submitted 5 -3 -85 Receipt Su mitte 5 -3 -85 Submitted. 5 -3 -85 Signed 5 -3 -85 Submitted - - - - -- 5 -3 -85 5 -3 -85 8123 Receipt# 8123 Receipt# 8123 Receipt# - - -- It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (Final) Building Site Approval for Owen Company SDR- 1539 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) &#"'j .a Reason for Non - Compliance Robert Dire __5noox of Community Development L-7 h QO'(i n C4. 4 PAO[O LADO D[v.N D ( AVE. r L .vt. r ° r L 4C E. - -L-O CA T 1.0_N M. _ M A P_. SDR -1539 1 � 1 L�L J l U O lob AYLOR AGENDA BILL N0: p T pZJ DATE: May 2, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Parks and Buildings Initial: Dept. Head- 7 City Atty: City Mgr: k ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Donation Issue Summary Mr. and Mrs. Fairfield of Morgan Hill have contributed $31.00 to Hakone Gardens. Recommendation Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. Fiscal Impact $31.00 donation. Attachments Council Action 5/15: Approved 4 -0. 1 • • • AGENDA BILL NO: O`r� DATE: May 10, 1985 DEPARTMENT: FINANCE SUBJECT: Donation of printer sound enclosure Dept Head City Atty: City Mgr : Issue Summary Mr. Dave Smith of Saratoga has contributed a printer sound enclosure to the City. Recommendation Accept and acknowledge the donation with the attached letter from the Mayor. Fiscal Impact Our estimate of the value of the unit is between $400.00 and $500.00. Exhibits /Attachments Thank you letter to be signed by the Mayor. Council Action 5/15: Approved 4 -0.. 1 May 10, 1985 Dave Smith P.O... Box 9.564 Saratoga, CA 95157. i Dear Mr. Smith, Ori behalf of the City Council and the City of Saratoga, I would like to thank you for your donation of the printer .sound enclosure. The cover has been installed on the Finance Department printer, and has greatly improved the previously existing noise level and associated work conditions. Again, let me thank you for your tax deductible contribution and your concern for our City. Sincerely, Virginia Laden Fanelli Mayor sp L7 AGENDA BILL NO. 8 DATE: 5/7/85 (5/15/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: V' Dept. lid. C. Atty. C. Mgr. ------------------------------------- Modifications to Restriction on Tentative anc ]— Finar- gaps -Tor--------- - ----" SUB,7LCr: Tract #7382, Lot 4, Ten Acres Road Issue Su nary The previously excavated building pad for Lot #4 valley. Adjacent residences to the west and sou these residences are at a much lower elevation. have pads at the same or higher elevation as the generally one - story. Existing vegetation on and to reduce the visual impacts of a tall structure 'Recommendation is on top of a knoll overlooking a small thwest are two - story. However, the pads of Existing residences to the east and south pad on Lot #4. These residences are around the property will not be sufficient on Lot #4. The Planning Commission recommends that the one -story restriction on Lot #4 be removed and a height limitation of 22 feet be placed on any structure on the site. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 5. Exhibit 2. Memorandum to Planning Commission 6. Correpondence dated 4/16/85 3. Letter requesting modification 4. Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of 4/24/85 Council Action 5/15: Approved 3 -1. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONSENTING TO MODIFICATION OF THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAPS FOR TRACT 7382 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has previously approved the Tentative and Final Maps submitted by Lawrence Groteguth pertaining to Tract 7382; WHEREAS, approval of the Tentative and Final Maps were conditioned upon a restriction for a one -story residence on Lot #4 within the subdivision; WHEREAS, Joe McDowell, property owner of Lot #4, has requested the City to modify the Tentative and Final Maps to remove the one -story restriction on Lot #4; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on April 24, 1985, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga considered the request by Joe McDowell for the removal of the one -story restriction on Lot #4 and, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that such request be granted with respect to Lot #4 with the condition that the height of the structure shall not exceed 22 feet; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: • 1. Consent is hereby iven for modification fication of the Tentative and Final Maps for Tract 7382 to remove the one -story restriction on Lot #4 with the condition that the height of any proposed structure on this lot shall not exceed 22 feet. 2. The consent herein granted by the City of Saratoga to modify the Tentative and Final Maps shall not constitute a consent to any further or other modification or amendment thereof. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of May, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: • CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Planning Commission; 4/24/85 ' FROM: Diana Lewis DATE: 4/16/85 RE. SDR -1507, Joe McDowell, Lot 4, Tract 7382, Ten Acres Road --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- As part of the subdivision approval for Tract 7382, a restriction for a one -story residence was placed on Lot 4. This restriction was noted on the Tentative Map- and later became part of the Final Map Approval. The new owner of the property, Joe McDowell, would now like to build a two -story residence on this lot. This request requires a revision to the Tentative and Parcel Maps and involves obtaining Planning Commission and City Council Approvals. A site visit revealed'that the previously excavated building pad for Lot #4. is on top of a knoll overlooking a small valley. Adjacent to the subject property are two -story homes to the west and southwest. However, the pads of these homes are at much lower elevations than the building pad for the subject lot. Towards the east and south, the existing residences whose pads are at the same or higher elevation as the pad of the parcel in question, are generally single story. Staff feels that the existing vegetation on and around the property will not be sufficient to reduce the visual impacts of a tall structure on Lot 44. Any home on this parcel would be visible across the small valley. The pines will partially screen a home on this knoll from Ten Acres Rd., but the oaks, on the north slope of the hill are not of such a height that a building on the hill would not be noticable. Staff also has concerns that a two-story structure would impact the view of the existing home to the south. The Planning Commission may choose' to approve or deny the applicant's request to change the one -story restriction on Lot #4; or, rather than limiting the number of stories of the structure, the Planning Commission may wish to consider a height restriction. f Diana Lewis Planner QL /dsc C�_ P.C. Agen a: 4/24/85 OIRNIM-11A.- R , IFJOO;-O"k MN MM IL I.z WfA I COW I FA . L' Mo d� na _ ,RECEIVE - MAR 4198 DEVELOPMENT ------ - -.... .. ... __ UNITY . - -- - - - can Avenue Los Gatos, Califomia 95030 - 408 354.4551 - -March 1985 ..Saratoga._.. - _.._ .._ _.. - -- - -._ _ ....._..__.... _ ....... - - - - -- _. �- -.- -- .._1.377.7 -Frui tvale Avenue - - - - - -- - -- ._..--------- _.__....__- __._......_ -'- - - -- - - -- Saratoga, - CA- - - 95070 .. ...'..._....._ .. ... .........- - ._.. _ __.._.....-- .._.... -- - _. __ .._.... ... ....... _..__....._. - Tenative r9ap for -Tract 7382; parcel A; lot##4 - - - -- - - -. - -em .._ers of the City Coun cil :......_ have_. been. asked by. Mr. Joe McDowell, Owner-of subject -- prop - - ---- - - _. erty,.. -to -- visit -the site -and make myoobs ervations --known -to -you to the-single -story design restrictions--as, noted - - --- - -- -on e -subject tenative - map...._ My observations - "of -the site are 'o ows :' A. The site _is. on a.._flat knoll.- with natural - vegetation'.- ..... screenin 2 3 of- the site from an - -- ---------- _.--------- � - - - -- g -- � y - -view shed. .._.. - -- - - - - -- -- -- - - -B. -The vehicle entry -off of- ten acres -onto- the -5 lot' sub - - - - - - - - -- - division is screened completely to the' sub 'ect site .b - - -- - - -- c,..itwo - roves of groves _._- . -...._ _. Pine__ trees'. North.._slope_.is...heavily screene.d.- with._ mature.. trees. .--- .---- ..- .._... -... . -The -west and- south- boundries are. with-deciduous --trees..-- - - screening -50',6 of-the views on and off of the property - -- - - --- - - -- - The . East -boundry is' virtually free of'-ve'getation' and - _._._..- _.__..___._..._ - -. - - -- -opens :onto a small valley of 14 homes and beyond... the __...valley is..,a. ridge that prevents., views on....or _ off .of.. __ ....... _.,._.._ ._ . property. _ ........._ ..Adjacent 'acent to the- sub 'ect ro ert are the following: - - -- - J � P P Y __ _.... a) two- (2) s in gle s tory homes - - _ - - b "three' (3 )- two story homes . -_. -- - - -c two (2) empty lots without restrictions. With these- observations and the general character of the -..- residential area, I feel that a ' two story structure (with- ...in your ordinance height limit) is well within reason and I ask that you, the members of the Council delete the re- striction shown on the tenative map. Architecture U Restoration Design N Environmental Design Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I Planning Commission Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 Page 8 12. SDR -1507 - Joe McDowell, Request for Modification to the tenta- tive and final map for Tract 7382 to change the restric- tion on Lot 4 which would permit construction of a two - story home where a single -story structure is required in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district at Lot 4, Tract 7382, Ten Acres Road Staff explained the request, recommending denial to the City Council. They commented that if the Commission wishes to make a recommendation to the Council to give relief to this condition, they suggested that the Commission make a recommendation relative to limiting the height, rather than the number of stories. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that they feel this is a prominent ridge and are not in favor of waiving the requirement. She noted that 'she would be willing to recommend a height restriction of 22 feet. The public hearing was opened at 10:22 p.m. Gary Schloh, the architect, addressed the request, indicating that he felt there would be little grading on this lot, whether it be a one - story or two -story design. He commented that he has not worked with a height of 22 feet, and it will be more difficult to get a pleasing roof. Staff noted the letters received in opposition to the removal of the condition. Yung Chu, 18858 Ten Acres Road, spoke in opposition to a two -story home on this lot, stating that it will have an impact on his privacy. Mr. Schloh indicated that he would try to screen the upper f loor and keep the privacy issue in mind when designing the home. Spencer Profit, representing the applicant, described the site, indicating that it is 1-1/2 acres, is level, and has relatively no impact on the valley. Don Jones, 18850 Ten Acres Road, referenced the letter from him and immediate neighbors. He voiced his concern over the impact of a two - story home on top of a hill on a flat pad in that area. He commentd that, since there are no plans, he is going on the principle, as the planner did, that there is a concern relative to the destruction of the contour of the overall area by the mass of a two - story. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner, J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she would like to see a height limit put on-,the lot; she does not care whether it is one or two - story. There was a consensus tht a height limit of 22 ft. is realistic. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend to the City Council to remove the restriction that there must be a one -story home, but have it subject to a overall height limitation of 22 feet. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. It was clarified to Mr. Schloh that the height would be from natural or cut grade. The City Attorney explained that the final action will be taken by the City Council on May 15, 1985. 13. V -667 - Peter Buck, Request for Variance Approval to expand a residence and connect the structure to an existing accessory structure and thereby maintain a 12 ft. 8 in. side yard setback at 15214 Belle Court in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (to be continued to May 8, 1985) --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Staff explained that this variance is being continued to the next meeting because there is a question of interpretation. They stated that Mr. Buck at this time is requesting that the Commission review the matter - 8 - April 15, 1985 Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: Re: SDR -1507 / Tract 7382, Lot #4, Notice of Hearing - April 24, RECEIVED APR 161985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ten Acres Rd. 1985 I am the property owner of the address referenced below and will be unable to attend the April 24th hearing concerning the request for variance to allow a two -story residence to be constructed on said lot. 1 reviewed the site information with your Diana D. Lewis this morning and she informed me that the property owner plans to construct the home on the top of the hill. Since I will be out of the country on business, D. Lewis sugguested that I voice my objection in writing directly to your attention. I would appeciate your entering for the record my objection as stated below.. 1. There are no recently constructed homes of a two -story nature on any of the surrounding hilltops on either the eastern or west- ern side of Sobey Rd. 2. A two -story residence positioned on the top of Lot #4 would be disruptive to the contiguous flow of the surrounding land area. 3. The "view aspect" of a single -story residence would not . t).: ially impacted. 4. Alternatively, I would have no objection if the two -story locat- ion was moved down the grade and positioned such that the maximum height was consistent with that of the single -story zoning in eff- ect at present. 5. The incongruous nature of a two -story residence on this hilltop is not consistent with maintaining "harmony" with the natural and rural look that residents of Saratoga cherish and desire. Thank you for your assistance and effort in making my position known and properly presented at the hearing. Sincerely, ,j cc R. Leap G. Kendall John A Ch.el, 14469 Omega Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 April 23, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ATTN: City Council RE: Tentative Map for Track 7382, Parcel A, Lot #4 Members of the City Council: My wife and I can appreciate the dilemma Mr. McDowell is confronted with. We applied for a similar variance three years ago. The end result was re- designing our home (12) feet further down the hill and turning the entire home 8° to minimize the impact on "natural" surroundings. The principle concern of the Planning Commission was, that our home would have a visual impact on a future home built on Lot 4. Saturday, April 20, 1985 I placed a ladder on the pro- posed building site, stood at approximately the second story level and looked over the hill into most of the surrounding neighbors yards. Building on the side of the hill, while within the single story height restr.iction,is a viable alternate to building a two story dwelling on top of the hill and would achieve Mr. McDowell's needs. It also would serve the needs of adjacent residences, privacy and natural Saratoga appear- ance that we now have and worked so hard to achieve. I appreciate the opportunity to state my objections to the two story building and if I can be of any service, please d not hesitate to call upon me. Sincer , v Sc t McGraw 408) 741 -1144 April 2% 1985 Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Community 'Development City of Saratoga Members of the Planning Commission: Vie, the undersigned, support the staff report by planner Diana Lewis as outlined in her letter of April 24, 1985 recounending that approves l not be granted for construction of a two story 'douse on lot 4, Trac£7382, Teti Acres Rd.. We are not opposed to tike tvro story construction per se, inasiauch as many sites oa the slopes of Saratoga's hills do not urovide sufficient building pad space, however the planner's report indicates that sufficient pad space is available on the hill top of Lot, 4 for a one story structure, and that a two story structure would disrupt Zile contour continuity of the area and block views from adjacent homes and roadways. Vie urge the members of the Planning Comtajssion to' decline the request for a revision of the one story stipulation whicu was a condition of Final Yap Approval. s &CIA -ro ro A� OA S- o" T C:) ���. ©C6 John Feomsti-r 10300 Ten Acres r:(] . Saxatnga, Ca. 95070 AprJ..1- 23, 1905 Ci.ty of Sa.ra,tr)ga 13777 Fruitval.e Saratr)ga, Ca. 95070 Cni-miunity Development \ttn: R. i S. Shook ro:SDR 1507 r1cDowel.1, Ten Acres I-Zozad Gent Iemt-n: - - -- I& "- ,APR 2 ,:1985 PERMIT REVIrl' Regarding the request for modifica,ti-r)n to tract If 73032, to j.:)ermi.t COnStruction of a two story 'hnrnc- where a s.ingl.p story structure is required, we r.)bjr-,c-t to any change i..n the restriction fr)r a new home to be cn.nstructed on lot •, tract 7392, 'Fen Acres Road, Saxcatoga., Ca, Ordinance 60. Revi-ewing the Int in question indicates there is ample room to use currently permitted constructinn without undue diffi.cul.t-y and at no unusual. cost or ce.)mj,,.)1.pxity. A two str-.)ry lhoj-,ie would provide undesirable accents to The skyl..i.ne as wel.], as unwarranted change from the general- 1--)I.an to blend into the natural. fnrm of rhi- land which cur. ren-cl.y i.s the a,ccpl.-)t(-,d norm. We urge a 1.10 Cnmpromls(c, to the gerieral. I.-,)lari nn this matter. Very truly Jnlrf) feemsti-r i. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 0 `i Dept. lid. DATE: 5/7/85 (5/15/85) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. Request for Refund of Fees for Use Permit Application No. UP -572 SUBJECT: Nelson Gardens Issue Summary The Nelson Foundation is a non - profit organization. A Use Permit has been granted by the Planning Commission for the use of the grounds by senior citizens. The appslicant is re- questing that the Use Permit fees be waived. The application was reviewed at.a Committee of the Whole meeting, staff had a meeting with the Senior Center, discussion with the City Attorney's office, phone converstations with various agencies, a site visit, Land Use Committee visit, preparation of the environmental assessment and Staff Report. Consi- derable time and $72.60 for public noticing have been spent on the application. 'Recommendation Deny request to refund fees Fiscal Impacts Lost revenue of up to $697.60 to the City Exhibits /Attachmnts Request letter from Vice President of Nelson Foundation Council Action 5/15: Denied 4 -0. 0 1 4.! I, - J / G- January 21, 1985 City of Saratoga Lucille Hise, Planner 13777 Fruitvale;Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Ref 572 Dear Ms Hise: 0 In response to your recent request for informa- tion about the purpose of the Florence Nelson Foundation, be advised that we are a charitable non - profit trust dedicated to"th'e donation of funds to needy organizations such as hospitals, Salavation Army, churches, SPCA, Boy and Girl Scouts, et cetera. For this reason it is respectfully requested that a reduction or elimination of the Use Permit fee be considered. Your favorable consideration of this request would be appreciated. R EC E1V ED J A�, 1`4i .. Yours truly, Roger Ross, Vice Pres. The Florence Nelson Foundation 20850 Saratoga Hills Rd. Saratoga, California 9.5070 WMMUIVI'IY UtVELOPMENI RECEIVED JA N 2 (11985, et COMMUNIT D I L�PMENT � A CITY OF SARATpGA 84 b Initial: AGENDA BILL N0. Dept. Hd. DATE: 5/6/85 (5/15/85) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. Sir: Approving Amended Tract Map for TRACT 7283 3rd- :Street and Oak Street. -- Fanelli Construction Inc. ( 1 lot, 8 apartments ) Issue Summary On June 20, 1984, the City Council approved final map for TRACT 7283, since than the developer has changed the Public Service Easement (P.S.E..). This does not effect city right of way and all utility companies and City staff are satisfied with this change. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 1495 --03 attached, approving amended tract map for TRACT 7283. Fiscal Imoacts NONE r, Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1495 -03 2. Location Map .Council Action 5/15: Approved 4 -0 -1. a RESOLUTION NO. I tq �— 3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY.00UNCIL OF.THE CITY OF SARATOGA VACATING DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON TRACT 7283 WHEREAS, Dominic A. Fanelli and Virginia Laden Fanelli ( "Owners ") have executed an Owners' Certificate dedicating to public use a Public Service Easement (PSE) and Sanitary Sewer Easement (PSS), as identified, described and delineated on that certain Map -of _Tract 7283; as.recorded on July 5, 1984, in'the'Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County, California, in Book '531 of Maps,.at.Pages 19 and 20;. and WHEREAS, Owners.desire to relocate.said easements in the manner as shown on the Amended Map for.Tract 72-83.and such relocated easements will be dedicated to public .use upon recordation of the Amended Map; and WHEREAS, California Streets and .Highways Code Section 8333 authorizes the City to summarily vacate a public service- :easement where such easement has been superseded by relocation and there are no .other public facilities located within the.easement; and WHEREAS, the new.easements being dedicated to the public, as shown on the Amended:Map for.Tract 7283; are acceptable-to the City as relocation of the existing easements and such existing easements can therefore be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, the -City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the Public Service Easement (PSE): and Sanitary Sewer Easement (SSE) dedicated to public use; as shown on the Map of Tract 7283; as recorded on July 5, 1984, ih'Book 531 of Maps, Pages 19.and 20, Official Records of Santa Clara County, California, are hereby vacated pursuant to the authority of Chapter 4 (ca mencing with Section 8330) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California'.Streets and Highways Code; and that from and after the date on which this resolution is recorded, said Public Service Easement and:Sanitary Sewer Easement shall no longer constitute easements against said property. The above and foregoing resolution .was : passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the:Saratoga.City Council held on the 15th day of May, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor LOCATION MAP TRACT 7283 s. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 84 DATE: 5/7/85 (5/15/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Award of Contract - Reconstruction of Chester Avenue and Ten Acres Road Issue Summary The City received three bids on May 7, 1985 for the Reconstruction of Chester Avenue and Teri Acres Road. This project was approved-in the 1984 -85 Capital Improvement Budget. The lowest bid was Piazza.Construc- tion Company of San Jose with a total bid of $198,526.40. The Engineer's estimate for this work was $194,467.40. Recommendation Award the contract for Reconstruction of Chester Avenue and Ten Acres Road to the low bidder, Piazza Construction Company. Fiscal Impacts $198,526.40 Gas Tax. This project was approved in the.1984 -85 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Bid Summary Council Action 5/15: Approved 5 =0. City of Saratoga Community Development Department DATE May 7 1985 r� TIME 2 :00 ,M She et—of *- PROJECT RECONSTRUCTION OF CHESTER AVENUE AND TEN ACRES - En_g_Estimate nit Price 4.00 Piazza iit Amount Raisch Const Unit Amount Galeb Paving. Unit PijCP Amount to Description Quantity Y it Amount wit Amount -- 1 Excavation 3600 C.-Y. 14,400.00 6:', 65 59,940.00 18,0 64,800.00 12.0 43,200.00 2-j Rra-j fu a" ripr S_F_ n_�S 21 936- 3 = Aggregate Class 11 o 1 78 480.00 10.0 52 320.00 10.0 52-320.00 13. 00 68 016.00 4— 5 6. 7 Asphalt Concrete Paint Double Yellow Line _F- amement Marker "n" Monument Tied 2 07 3,815 X20 tons L.F 35.00 0.40 70 245.00 1,526.00 32.0 .3 64 225.00 1,373.40 35-03 0.4 70 245.00 D 1,526.00 46.0 42 322.00 0.4 1220 -1,526.00 22 Each 300 6,600.00 80.0 1,760.00 300 6.600.00 4,840.00 Total 194,467.00 198,526.40 209,932.40 223,468.30 0 CITY OF S,U Afca% At�'DA BILL NO. DATE: May 15, 1985 DIPAR'IMENr :— Citu Manaaer Initial: Dept. Hd C. Atty. C. Mgr. --- - -- - - - - -- SLTaMCr: Appraisal Proposals - Property at Cox and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Issue Summary Three proposals have been submitted by real estate appraisal fixms to provide a narrative appraisal report estimating the fair market sale value and pro- jected land lease value of the undeveloped.2.75 acre parcel of City -owned property at Cox Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Recorm',endation Council to determine whether to accept one of the three proposals as presented, or to seek further information through interviewing the principals. Fiscal Imoacts An appropriation resolution will be required at the time of award of contract. The low proposal amount is $3,000, and the highest $5,000. D'Zhibits /Attactrpents 1) Staff Report 2) Request for Proposals 3) Proposals Council Action 5/15: Awarded to Clevenger 5 -0. O� ex?�� 19�9y� 02 D IVQX�� REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 5/15/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 5/15/85 SUBJECT: Appraisal Proposals - Property at Cox and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road ----------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to considering whether to offer for sale or lease the undeveloped City -owned parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Council directed that an appraisal of the property be conducted. Requests for proposals were sent to six real estate appraisal firms, all of which have been used extensively by neighboring cities and were highly recommended. Of the three firms responding, all have proposed to provide a narrative appraisal report estimating both the fair market value and projected land lease value of the 2.75 acre property. 1he proposed fees and estimated time schedule for performing the appraisals are as follows: Firm Brodd, Hollwedel, Reese & Assoc. Clevenger Realty Appraisal Co. Mi11 s- Carneghi- Bautovich , Inc. Fee Time Schedule $3,000 approx. 4 weeks $3,000 within 5 weeks $5,000 approx. 30 days Council is requested to determine whether you wish to accept one of these three proposals as presented, or if you wish to interview the principals prior to making an award, and to direct staff accordingly. olyn ing Administrative Assistant A C� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 o o�� (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon April 22, 1985 Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles The Saratoga City Council is considering to offer for sale or lease an undeveloped 2.75 acre parcel of land at the S.E. corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. We are requesting Proposals for the appraisal of this property. The appraisal should include: 1) The fair market sale value of the property for the highest and best use under current zoning (C -N); and 2) the projected land lease value at the highest and best use. If you are interested in providing these appraisal services, please respond within two weeks. Include your estimated time schedule for performing the appraisal, estimated cost:for each of the alternative appraisals and your current fee schedule. Sincerely, S yne Dernetz Manager jm ASSOCIATED APPRAISAL OFFICES OF MAY 2 19M BRODD, HOLLWEDEL, REESE & ASSOCIATES ^ W u �/ REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS Y AA.4NAOER E.P. BRODD, INC. 920 SARATOGA AVENUE, SUITE 113 JOHN J. HOLLWEDEL SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95129 ROBERT C. REESE, INC. May 1, 1985 (408) 248 -7821 Mr. J. Wayne Dernetz City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Re: Appraisal of 2.75 Acres SEC Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road @ Cox Avenue Saratoga, Ca. Dear Mr. Dernetz: We appreciate this opportunity to respond to your request for real estate appraisal and consulting services regarding the above - referenced property. Our firm has provided such services to the City over the years and we again look forward to working with you on this matter. In response to your request, we have considered the necessary steps, time frame and appraisal fees for preparing a narrative appraisal report estimating the current market value of the above - referenced site. An additional purpose of the appraisal report will be to consider the appropriate rental rate for a land lease. It is our understanding that the narrative appraisal report will be used in conjunction with the City's decision making process concerning the disposition of the property. We are prepared to complete a narrative appraisal report on the subject property, which would include an estimation of the market value of the property and the appropriate rental rate for the land lease, for a fee of $3,000.00. The appraisal fee for a narrative appraisal report estimating the market value only of the subject site is $2,500.00. The additional fee for considering the appropriate rental rate for the land lease is $500.00. We anticipate being able to complete the appraisal assignment in an approximate four week time frame from your authorization to proceed. The subject property has some site development constraints due to the Rodeo Creek crossing the easterly portion of the site. In undertaking this appraisal assign- ment, it will be necessary for us to have the assistance of your Planning and Public Works Department to make a proper determination of the buildable land area. Again, we appreciate this opportunity to respond to your request for real' estate Re: Appraisal of 2.75 acres City of Saratoga Page 2 appraisal and consulting services. If you should have any further questions, or if we may be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, BRODD, HOLLWEDEL, REESE & ASSOCIATES ROBERT C. REESE RCR /pc FLOYD D. CLEVENGER, M.A.I., S.R.P.A., A.S.A. RICHARD B. WITTMAN LAWRENCE E. WILLS, A.S.A., S.R.P.A. DAVID L. SNIVELY MARSHA L. DENIS Mr. J. Wayne Dernitz City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 t t�v U APR 2 6 1985 REALTY APPRAISAL COMPANY CITY al "116GIF-P. 2363 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050 TELEPHONE (408) 241 -2787 April 25, 1985 Ref: 2.75± acres on the corner of Cox and Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, within the City of Saratoga. Dear Mr. Dernitz: The purpose of this letter is to provide a fee proposal for a narrative appraisal report containing the fair market value and projected land lease value of the property listed above. The report will be narrative in form and will comply with the standards of a narrative report as established by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Four copies of the report will be provided. The fee for this assignment is $3,000.00, including expenses of $200.00. Meetings, conferences or additional work for you or anyone else related to this assignment will be billed at $80.00 per hour. A retainer of half the total cost of $1,500.00, is payable prior to commencement of this assignment and the balance is due upon delivery of the report. The report will be provided within 5 weeks of receiving your retainer. For this assignment we will need County tax bills, and a current legal description. (if any) . If all of this is acceptable, you may authorize this office to proceed by signing and returning the enclosed copy of this agreement. This contract is withdrawn, if not accepted and returned in 30 days. Sincerely, CLEVENGER REALTY APPRAISAL COMPANY ,,/ FII d D. Cleven er Y g Marsha Clevenger MCD /mh Authorized by Date Denis 11� -�li Arlen C. Mills, MAI CRE Chris L. Carneghi, MAI James Bautovich, MAI John C. Hanna Kathi M. Ridley Lawrence L. Mansbach Kathleen C. Christensen Ellen G. Byrne Mary-Jon Somers Jonathon R. Strong Wendell H. Martin, Jr., MAI RECEIVED APR 2 9 1985 MILLS- CARNEGHI- BAUTOVICH, INCFY "A, NAG,FR CONSULTANTS IN REAL ESTATE & URBAN ECONOMICS Mr. J. Wayne Dernetz City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Dernetz: April 26, 1985 This letter is a proposal for Mills - Carneghi - Bautovich, Inc. to provide you with an appraisal of a vacant 2.75 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga. Our appraisal would address the market sale value and market lease (rental) value of the property at its highest and best use. It is my understanding that our appraisal would be used for decision making on the part of the City of Saratoga as to a possible sale or lease of the property. In order to expedite our appraisal assignment, we will need a preliminary title report for the property. We will also require any other material you have that will assist us in analyzing the property. Your cooperation in providing us this information is required in order for us to complete our work in a timely manner. It will take us approximately 30 days from receipt of notice to proceed in order to complete this assignment. Our fee for this work will be $5,000 plus any incidental expenses incurred at your request such as additional copies of our report, project photos or renderings, or special deliveries. You will receive two copies of our narrative appraisal report. We require a 50 percent retainer and a signed letter of authorization in order to begin work on an assignment. I have included with this letter a brochure on Mills - Carneghi - Bautovich, Inc. in order to further acquaint you with our firm and our qualifications to do this work. If this proposal is acceptable to you, please sign one copy of this letter and return it to me with a check in the amount of $2,500. Your 120 MONTGOMERY ST -SUITE 1776 -SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104. 415.398 -2666 1150 NORTH FIRST ST - SUITE 209 - SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 - 408 - 971 -0877 Mr. J. Wayne Dernetz - 2 - April 26, 1985 signature serves as our authorization to proceed and guarantees payment of the balance of our fee at completion. If you have any questions concerning this proposal, please contact me. We look forward to working with you on this assignment. Sincerely, MILLS - CARNEGHI- BAUTOVICH, INC. Chris Carneghi, M.A.I. CC /plt Enclosures Accepted By: Print or Type Name: Title: Date: CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 64�67 DATE: May 9, 1985 DEPARTMENT: City Attorney SUBJECT: Adoption of current building codes INITIAL DEPT. HD. C. ATTORNEY C. MGR. .Issue Summary The 1982 Edition of the Uniform Building Code was adopted by the City as part of the ordinance requiring the early warning fire alarm system, but no further changes to the UBC were made at that time. All of the language now contained in Chapter 3 of the City Code concerning the adoption and revision of the Building, Electrical, Heating and Cooling and Plumbing Codes dates back to 1970 and is obsolete. The proposed ordinance adopts the current Edition of the Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Codes, plus the Uniform Administrative Code, Housing Code and Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. The proposed ordinance also includes certain general provisions (Art. I), the grading ordinance (Art. X) regulations concerning movement of buildings, structures and heavy equipment (Art. IX) and preliminary soil reports in subdivisions (Art. XI), as they now appear in the existing Code. These provisions have not yet been reviewed as part of the Code revision process and it is expected that changes therein will be made at a later date. Recommendation Adoption of ordinance. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attachments (a) Memorandum from Steven G. Baird explaining modifications to Uniform Codes; (b) Proposed ordinance. Council Action 5115 Introduced ordinance. 6/5: Adopted.0rdinance 38.134, 3-0. PAUL S. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD ALEXANDER J. TRAFICANTI ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 `NEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Steven G. Baird Deputy Saratoga City Attorney DATE: May 9, 1985 . M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) RE: Ordinance Repealing Chapter 3 and Adding a New Chapter 3 to the Saratoga City Code The California Health and Safety Code provides that a State Building Code shall be established based upon the adoption, with certain modifications, of the Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and National Electrical Code. The Health and Safety Code further provides that municipalities may make amendments to the State Building Code if said amendments are made (1) within one year of the State's adoption of the Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code or National Electrical Code, and (2) are justified by findings that such amendments are necessary due to local geological, topographic or climactic conditions. If a municipality fails to make a timely amendment, the municipality must enforce the provisions of the State Building Code. The deadline for enacting local amendments to the Uniform Building Code, 1982 Edition (UBC), is July 1, 1985. The City has previously adopted the UBC with an amendment to Section 1210 regarding the Early Warning Fire Reporting System. As part of a total revision to Chapter 3 of the City Code, additional technical amendments to the UBC and the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1982 Edition, are proposed. Such modifications must be enacted by the City prior to July 1, 1985, and October 1, 1985, respectively. The proposed revisions to the technical sections of the UBC are as follows: 1. Section 1210: The Early Warning Fire Reporting System provisions have previously been enacted. However, the previous modifications to Section 1210(b) regarding sprinkler systems have been transferred to UBC Section 3802(h). 2. Section 2516(b); this subsection is amended to provide for drainage of water from under a structure through the foundation. 3. Section 2516(c)(2); this subsection is amended to increase the underfloor clearance from 12 inches to 18 inches. 4. . Section 2905(g); this subsection is added to increase metal rod ,,reinforcement for concrete construction. 5. Section 3201(b); this subsection is amended to include a recodification of the City's Ordinance No. 3 -E.12 regarding fire retardant roofing materials to be used in the hazardous fire areas of the City. 6. Section 3802(h); this subsection is added as a recodification of the Early Warning Fire Reporting System requirement for automatic sprinkler systems in garages and /or carports located in the hazardous fire areas of the City. The proposed revisions to the technical sections of the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1982 Edition, are as follows: 1. Sections 403(a) and 1105; both of these sections are amended to increase the diameter of plumbing and sewer drainage piping from three inches to four inches. The findings for each of the aforementioned modifications are contained in the ordinance. All other modifications to the Uniform Codes adopted in the ordinance pertain to administrative provisions which do not require findings for modification. aw l B" STEVEN G. BAIRD Deputy Saratoga City Attorney CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 0 S70 DATE: 5/6/85 (5/15/85) DEPT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty.� C. Mgr., -- - - ----- - -- --------- - - - --- - ---------------- - --- SLMJECT: V -692, A -1053; Robert Bohn, 14124 Pike Road; Variance and Design Review Approval for a New Two -story Dwelling Issue Summary 1. At its meeting of'April 10, 1985 the Planning Commission denied the a.ppli cant's request to build a 35 ft. high dwelling where the height limit is 30 ft. but approved the.-lot as._a building site. 2. The applicant also proposed that the structure be 1,117 sq. ft. (1,883.sq. ft, including the attic space) larger than the 6200 sq. ft.' maximum in the R -1- 40,000. Certain privacy impacts were also associated with the structures, 3. The applicant can comply with ordinance standards and reasonably develop the property since there are no physical circumstances associated with the site which require a variance. Recommendation 1. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variance and Design Review applications since the necessary findings could not be made.. 2. The Council must open the public hearing, take testimony, andthen close the public hearing before acting on the appeal. 3. If the Council wishes to approve the applicant's request.it must make the necessary variance and Design Review findings that Staff was unable to make per Exhibits "B" and "C ". Approval should be subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. 4.'.: Staff is of the. opinion that the granting of the height variance would estab- lish an undesirable precedent. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachmer Exhibit A- Exhibit B- Exhibit C- Exhibit D- ;,; Exhibit E- c. Exhibit:. F- Council Action; its Appeal Letter Staff Report dated 4/2/85 Resolution No. A- 1053 -1 and V -692 -1 Planning Commission Minutes dated 4/10/85 Exhibits (plans) Correspondence received on the project. 5/15: Denied 4 -0 -1. 1 APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant:���� -� Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.. Project Address: Project Description: Decision Bing Appealed: Grounds for the Appeal ane-e �401 FrV p L (Letter may be a ached): } ,, ,-- lit- r S yp A-/z—s Date Received: 02—� Hearing Date: = —° Fee . 4 /2±1-0y) CITY USE ONLY _ a �1-� �r1rrJ�3�N * Appe ant'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 SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. c16L. R C C' Qe REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Date: 4/2/85 Commission Meeting: 4/10/85 APN: 503 -30 -30 APPLICATION NO. &:LOCATION: SDR -1593, A- 1053, V -692; 14124 Pike Road APPLICANT: M. C. Johnson, Inc. Property Owner: Robert & Gay Bohn ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site, Design Review and Variance Approval for a two story single family residence 35 ft. in height. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED/REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval and Building Permits required. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential PARCEL SIZE: 1.072 acres (46,696 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION• Walnut trees less than 10 inches in diamenter, _are_ the_ dominant vegetation_on _s_ite.._- SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Gentle AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 14.67% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 50 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 1.3 Ft. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 0 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 43 Ft. from existing property line 18 feet from new Pike Road right -of -way Rear: 157 Ft. Left Side: 21 Ft. Right Side: 25 Ft. HEIGHT: 35 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 15% 4J.J. /3 Report to Planning Commission SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692; Bohn, Pike Road SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (including garage): Second Floor: Total: Cl 4/2/85 Page 2 Per Applicant 5011 sq. ft. 2306 sq. ft. 7317 sq. ft. Applicant also proposes 766 sq. ft. of attic space which could be converted to living area. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: Stone veneer and stucco - Sandy beige Roof: Fire retardant cedar shakes or shingles ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: This project does not meet all the requirements and stan- dards of the Zoning Ordinance in that the structure is 5 ft. over the 30 ft. height limit and would maintain a.18 ft. front yard where 30 ft. is required. The applicant will relocate the proposed structure to maintain a 30 ft front yard but has.requested a Variance .to allow the proposed 35 ft. structure height. BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: 3/28/85. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1593 (Exhibit B filed 2/14/85) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's- 'Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addi- tion thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. C� Report to Planning Commission 4/2/85 SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692; Bohn, Pike Road Page 3 B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to- scaleprints). C. Submit. "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. Half -Steet on Pike Road. D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. E. Improve Pike Road to City Standards, including the following: (D.I.A.) 1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline. (D.I.A.) 2. P. C. Concrete curb and gutter (R -36). (D.I.A.) F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse. G. Construct access road 18 ft.. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base across frontage of property. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 =31$ without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 1231% and 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -W' asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" asphalt concrete on 4" base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Access roads having slope in excess of 17�% are not permitted. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. H. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. I. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under drive- way as approved by the City Engineer. Report to Planning Commission 4/2/85 SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692; Boh, Pike Road Page 4 J. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. K. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. L. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. M. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Access Road Construction N. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. 0. Enter.'.into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. P. Enter into '.'Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improve- ments marked "D.I.A." Q. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for: 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued. C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) 2. Erosion control measures 3. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's.name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided to this project. B. Applicant to submit fees to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issu- ance of permits. c � Report to Planning Commission 4/2/85 SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692; Bohn, Pike Road Page 5 V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area.' Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as speci- fied. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate .base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope of driveway shall not exceed 12�* without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between.12�t to 15% shall be surfaced using 2' inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. The project shall conform to the adopted 19.79 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout'the residence and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station. Loca- tion of detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief: Automatic sprinklers required in garage. D. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. E. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed persuant to Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any residential structure shall be further than five hundred feet from at least one hydrant and the fire protection system shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the 1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two hours (.Ordinance No. 60.4). VI. I SPECIFIC CONDITONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection is required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA,VALLEY-WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the C C Report to Planning Commission 4/2/85 SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692; Bohn, Pike Road Page 6 location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration. Wells to be sealed in accordance with district standards. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design-Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures.shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni- ties on /in the subdivision /building site. 'C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. D. Proposed structure shall maintain a minimum 30 ft. setback from the required Pike Road Street Dedication. E. Developer shall comply with the conditions of the City Geologist as outlined in his letter dated February 26, 1985. F. Developer shall comply with Section 3B.7(b) of the Zoning Ordinance .regarding geologic and soils reports prior to issuance of Building Permits. The conditions recommended in the above referenced reports shall become conditions of approval for this application. VARIANCE ANALYSIS The proposed structure is 5 ft. higher than the 30 ft. maximum height allowed in residential districts. It appears that this height is the result of the 12/12 pitch of the roof used in this style of architecture. There are no physical con- straints associated with the property in terms of size, shape or topography which would warrant a variance from the City's height limits. The proposed height of the structure.would:':impd1r the views of adjacent properties and adds to the massive appearance of the proposed structure.. There are other architectual styles and home designs available to the applicant which would not require a variance. FINDINGS: 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship There are no physical circumstances associated with the subject property in terms of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which would warrant a 5 ft. height variance. There are options available to the applicant which would allow reasonable development of the property without a variance. 2; Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances There are no exceptional or extradordinary circumstances associated with the site which would warrant a variance and which do not apply generally to other properties in the NHR district. c c Report to the Planning Commission 4/2/85 SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692: Bohn, Pike Road Page 7 3, Common Privilege A strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance would not be a denial of the common privilege to reasonably develop the property since there are options available to the applicant to allow such develop- ment without a variance, 4, Special Privilege The granting of this variance would be a grant -of special privilege since there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances associated with the property which would warrant a variance and there are options available to the applicant that would comply with ordinance requirements. 5. Public Health, Safety and - Welfare The granting of this variance would not have a- detrimental effect on public health, safety.and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties. However, a taller. structure does increase the area and length of time the adjacent property to the west will be shaded in the morning, COMMENT: The Planning Commission has not typically granted variances for height unless there has been a topographic or existing foundation problem; None of these problems pertain to this site, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this variance application be denied since all the necessary findings cannot be made. " DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS AND CONCERNS: The applicant proposes to.build a two -story structure 1,117 ''sq, ft. above the ordinance guidelines for the NHR zoning distrct'on the. "flattest':portion of the subject property. A variance is also being requested to allow a 35 ft. height where 30 ft. is allowed: This variance would have to be approved prior to Design Review Approval. The structure must also be moved an additional 12 ft, to the north to maintain a 30 ft, front yard. The proposed height of the structure could have a significant visual impact on adjacent properties, particularly on the site just south of the project. Portions of the existing views from the second story.of the site to the south would be blocked by the proposed structure due to its height. The substantial height of the structure also increases its apparent mass. The structure would be considerable larger than the existing structures in the vicinity. As an example,'the recently constructed dwelling to the south (File A -702) is 4,380 sq. ft. in size and 30 ft, at its highest point. It should be noted that another 766 sq. ft, of attic space, which could be later converted c c Report to the Planning Commission 4/2,/85 SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692. Bohn, Pike Road Page 8 to living space, is shown in the plans. The windows of the attic space (dormers) over the garage, bedroom #4, the nursery, and the utility room could impact the privacy of the adjacent property to the west. The side.patio area of this adjacent property to the west is lower in elevation than the proposed building site which increases the potential privacy impact. This problem could be mitigated if the attic dormers are removed, the window of bedroom #4 is moved to the opposite wall, the bay window in the nursery is replaced by a recessed window, and obscuring glass is used in the utility room window. Findings: 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy (and Compatible Infill Project): - The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences since it is 5 ft. higher than normally allowed and would block the views of the second story windows of the adjacent property to the south. - The project does unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the sur- rounding residences in that the second story windows of the western elevation of the proposed structure overlook the patio area o_ the adjacent western property. This problem is especially significant because of the adjacent property's lower elevation. 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape The natural landscape is being.preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that the structure would be placed on the levelest portion of the site so minimal grading would be required. No major trees will be removed to accommodate the structure., 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk - The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that it would be 5 ft. higher than allowed by the ordinance which adds to the appearance of the struc- ture 4. Compatible Bulk and Height - The project is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 feet of the site and in the same zoning district in that it is larger than most of the structures in the vicinity, it exceeds the ordinance guideline by 1,117 sq. ft. and is 5 ft. higher than the ordi- nance allows. - The project will unreasonably interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the shadow cast by a 35 ft. high structure will be considerably greater than normal considering the elevation of the property relative to the site to the west. Report to the Planning Commission 4/2/85 SDR -1593, A -1053, V -692: Bohn, Pike Road Page 9 5. Granding and Erosion Control Standards - The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that a minimal amount of grading would be required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this project per the Staff Report dated However, if the Planning Commission wishes to approve this project, Findings 1, 3 and 4 must be made per Exhibits B & C subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issurance of building permits, submit the following items for staff review and approval: ..A. Revised elevation and floor plans showing how the privacy of the adjacent property to the west shall be preserved using the privacy impact mitigation measures discussed in the Analysis and Concern sec- tion of this report. B. Landscaping plans showing how the massive appearance of the structure will be mititated. APPROVED Michael Flores, Planner MF /jef P. C. Agenda 4/10/85 if ' WE 0 see � C DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION NO.A- 1053 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE NO: A -1053 WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval of a new two - story, single family residence '35 ft. in height.where 30 ft. is the maximum hei ht ; and aliOWed WHEREAS, the app icant (hasi (has not) met the burden of proof require 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 ROBERT AND GrAY BOHN for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (x aivoudO (denied;) subject to the following conditions: Per the Staff Report dated April 2, 1985. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of April , 19 85 by _the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried NOES: Commissioner Schaefer ABSENT: None Chairman, lannin ommission ATTEST:4 retar , lanning Commission *. Q VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. V -692 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE NO: V -692 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the application of ROBERT AND GAY BOHN for a Variance for a new two -- story, single family residence 35 ft. in height at 14124 Pike oa and WHEREAS, the applicant U (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NOW, THERE —FORE., 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 here- by (Wxxxxxi4i (denied) subject to the following conditions: Per the Staff Report dated April 2, 1985. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted) Xi1iXtXc�CX��X�CdC:) , 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 10th day of April 19 85f by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried NOES: Commissioner Schaefer ABSENT :None ATTEST: Secr�Laiy Chairman, Planni ission Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A -1070 is not sure that the difference between 25 and 28 ft. is going to be that great. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she thinks this is a very obvious parcel, and the Commission did make a commitment towards not having large homes on highly visible ridges. Commissioner Burger commented that it is a visible lot, and she would support the 25 ft. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A -1070, per the Staff Report dated March 19, 1985, deleting Condition lA relative to the window in the master bedroom. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. (Commissioner Schaefer rejoined the meeting during the discussion of this item, and stated that she voted on the item since she had been at the previous meeting when this item was isussed.) The appeal period was noted. l5a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1593 - Bohn 15b. A -1053 - Robert and Gay Bohn, Request for Design Review, Variance 15c. V -692 - and Building Site Approval for a new two - story, single 15d. SDR -1593 - family residence 35 ft. in height where 30 ft. is the maximum height allowed at 14124 Pike Road, in the NHR zoning district ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Staff described the project, stating that they were recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and the Tentative Building Site Approval and denial of the Variance and Design Review, having been unable to make the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the site would not appear to be seen from any place except Parker Ranch or the roads off Pierce. She commented that they had suggested that the applicant have the architect draw up a line of sight from the two neighboring homes, since it is possible that it might impact those neighbors. The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Bohn, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project and discussed the visibility of the lot. He described the area and the design of the home. He added that the neighbors have no objection. Mr. Bohn indicated that there seems to be no way to lower the roof without changing the architecture of the house. Chairman Siegfried stated he has a concern about going beyond the height limitations and pointed out the need to make findings. Mr. Bohn commented that he feels the Commission should consider the neighborhood, discussing the other homes in the area. Commissioner Schaefer asked about moving the house further back on the lot, and Staff indicated that that would cause trouble with the build, ing site, Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that she had pointed out to Mrs. Bohn that the Commission needs to make legal findings, and even though the extra square footage is not a problem to her because of the location of the home, she cannot make the findings for the height. She commented that if, the applicant would like to bring further information to a study session, she would be willing to hear that. She added that she believes the people across the mountain will see this house; however, it is tucked into the setting and it is not highly visible from the valley. Discussion followed on the findings. Chairman Siegfried asked Mr. Bohn if he would like to come back to the Commission with revisions, or if he would like to have a vote taken tonight which can be appealed to the City Council if it is negative. Mr. Bohn indicated that he would like the vote taken. 4/46, & -7- Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 SDR -1593, A -1053 and V -692 Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Negtive Declaration and SDR -1593, per the conditions of the Staff Report. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny A -1053 and V -692, per the Staff Report. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. It was the general consensus that the problem was with the height and not the size; however, Commissioner J. Harris indicated that she had a problem with the size, stating that it is only an acre lot. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she dissented because she felt that something could have been worked out with the 35 ft. height if the house could have been moved around on the lot. 16a. A -1074 - Tibor Szalay, Reques for Design Review Approval to con - 16b. V -687 - struct a second -story ddition to an existing one -story residence and Variance Approval for the addition to maintain a 22 ft. 4 in front yard setback where 25 ft. is required, and to pro ide one (1) substandard covered parking space where two (2) covered parking spaces are required at 14328 Paul A enue in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district The project was described by the Staff, i icating that they could make the findings relative to the variance for he one covered parking space but cannot make the findings relative to the substandard size of the space or the variance for the encroac ent into the front yard. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Co ttee report, describing the design. She described the area and indica d that the proposal would upgrade Paul Avenue. She noted the letter r ceived from the Hofstrands in opposition. The public hearing was opened at 10:08 p.m. ` Tibor Szalay, the applicant, dicussed the front yard setback, commenting that a 25 ft. setback would be bad for the design. He submitted pictures and discussed the design. He added th t extending the garage an additional 2 ft. would also ruin the desig , and they only drive substandard size cars. Bob Koche, 14314 Paul Avenue, spoke in support of the proposal. He addressed the following points: (1) the Hofstra ds have a very high fence and hedge in the front of the property which will block the view, (2) Paul Avenue is a neighborhood of small co pact cars, (3) the variance for the setback should be granted to al ow tho break in the design of the house for aesthetic reasons, and (4) f this proposal is rejected the neighborhood will suffer. (There wer a number of other neighbors sitting in the audience who echoed Mr. Koc 's comments.) Gary Platnuf, 14301 Paul Avenue, indicated that he wns this block of land and he intends to build a two -story home. He stat d that he was very interested in the outcome of the vote'on this propo al because he is about ready to submit his plans. He noted that the to s in the area are very narrow. Mr. Szalay clarified that he would have to destroy two \hve ms in order to expand towards the rear, and the garage would still to encroach into the setback. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public heariCommissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous Commissioner McGoldrick discussed the findings, stating that she feels - 8 - i PIKE ROAD HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION Recep ea APR 0 51985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 1, 1985 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Building Permit A -1053, V- 369 - Robert and Gay Bohn, 14124 Pike Road Dear Mr. Shook, Pike Road is a private road maintained by all of the people who live on it. As you know, it is not a public road. Mr. Bohn has never paid his road assessment or participated in our homeowners association. When we had a major landslide two years ago all of the members had to pay $1300.00 apiece to make major repairs to the road. Mr. Bohn would not answer our letters or participate in any way. We request that before he be granted a building permit he be instructed to join our association and pay all back dues for maintenance of the road. Also, we re- quest that as a condition of his building permit, he be instructed to participate in the established home owners association for the maintenance of this road. Very truly yours, Peter B: onan Treasurer Pike Road Homeowners Association 14123 Pike Road Saratoga, Ca. PN /jc 4Z.F G c 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SAR,ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon - Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava April 11, 1985 David Moyles Mr. Peter B. Noonan Treasurer, Pike Road Homeowners Association 14123 Pike Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: A -1053, Robert and Gay Bohn, 14124 Pike Road Dear Mr. Noonan: I am in receipt of your April 1, 1985 letter concerning the subject property. While I understand and appreciate your association's concern, it is not possible for the City to condition the building permit in the manner that you request. Very truly yours, obert S. p Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)867 -3438 PRENDERGAST JAMES C AND EVA L 50330035 14093 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council State of California, has set the hour of 7 :30 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, the 15TH day of MAY , 1985, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA., as the time and.place for a public hearing on: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPROVALS FOR A NEW TWO -STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 35' IN HEIGHT WHERE 30' IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED AT 14124 PIKE RD. (APPLICANT /APPELLANT, MR. AND MRS. R. BOHN) (V -692, A -1053) A copy of which material is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. All interested persons. -, may appear and be heard at said time and place. Written communications should be filed on or before MAY 9 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk �SsdC � 1 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL N0. AFY DATE: 5/6/85 (5/15/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Iid. C. Atty. C. Mgr. - A -1070; Sinsley Construction, Inc. - 12245 Vista Arroyo Ct., Desi,gn Review SUB Approval for a new two -story dwelling Issue Summary 1. At its meeting of April 10, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a nQw two -story dwelling on the subject property with the condition that it be no taller than 25 ft. 2. The height limit reduces the visual impact of the structure and was required because of the structure's location on a minor ridge. 3. It should be noted that the 30 ft. height limit in residential zoning districts is a maximum and may not be appropriate in certain circumstances. _ 'Recommndation 1. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Design Review Application subject to th 25 ft. height limit. 2. The Council must open the public hearing, take testimony, and then close the public hearing before acting on the appeal. 3. If the Council wishes to approve the appl.icant's request, it must delete Condition l.E. of the Staff Report. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachimnts 1. Appeal letter 2. Staff Report dated 3/19/85 3. Resolution No. A- 1070 -1 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/27/85 & 4/10/85 Council Action 5/15: Denied 5 -0. 5. Exhibits (plans) 6. Correspondence received on the project RECEIVED APR 18 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL APPLICATION Date Received: Hearing Date: S Z -f Fee YOT CITY USE ONLY Name of Appellant: -S /,yS L E Co„s TiQc/c Tio .v Sties . Address: 1,;2,7 eo Telephone: (yab') 7,, ,s'- / 73 0 Name of Applicant: ��+ //✓C'�-Ek1 Q6n.s7-Kuc,7-1QAJ Project File No.: o Project Address.: / VJ- bf /S T/-j 141xR0 ya GT Project Description: -rwo - S 7'0R v .0 /iU2 J Decision Being Appealed: G ounds for the Appeal (Le ter may be att .hed): c_._, i k e L Appell nt'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 SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. �,l RECEIVED APR 181985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 11, 19815 To 'rwhom It 1.1 ay Concern: vur house has been turned down by the Review Board because it is "Too tall ". However, our house is 29 feet tall and if you will refer to Ordinance No. IiS -3.54 Section 13A.6 it states "The maximum height of any one - family de- tached main structure or accessory structure shall be thirty feet (301) to the highest point of the roof, as measured in. accordance with Section 13A.3 of this Ordinance ". Therefore we are under the maximum height limit in this case. tide have always gone by the City of Saratoga's rules & regula- tions on all of the houses we have built.in the past at Parker Ranch and will continue to comply with the Policies of Saratoga. We along with our architect Triangle Associates feel that we produce a quality product that meets all the high standards of Saratoga- In this case ho,,.ever we feel that we have been unjustly turned down by the Review Board and are appealing our case with you. Thank You, SINSLEY CONSTRUCTION INC. RAYMOND SINSLEY xt�s. S �GD FJ0 ;. ^2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Sora o APPROVED BY: DATE: INITIALS: "Revised: 4/10/85 -� Amended 3/27/85 DATE: 3/19/85 COMMISSION MEETING: 3/27/85 APN: 366 -48 -5 APPLICANT: Sinsley Construction OWNER: Sinsley Construction APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: A -1070, 12245 Vista Arroyo Ct. ACTION REQUESTED: Design Review Approval for a two - story- single family dwelling over 26' in height. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits required. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project's impacts were assessed as part of the EIR for the Parker Ranch subdivision. ZONING: NHR (using HC -RD standards) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant or Single Family Residential PARCEL SIZE: 1.051 Acres (45,781 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Hillside Lot; building area covered by grasses with heavier vegetation on steep west facing slope. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 37% +/- SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 13% &9J. A Report to the Planning Commission 3 /19/85 A -1070, Sinsley Const., Vista Arroyo Ct. Page 2 GRADING REQUIRED: Cut - 490 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth - 10 Ft. Fill - 400 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth - 5 Ft. EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 30 Ft. Rear: 250 Ft. + Left Side: 30 Ft. Right Side: 2S Ft HEIGHT: 30 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 13.7% Per Applicant: Per Staff: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (Including Garage): 3092 sq. ft. 3501 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1850 sq. ft. 2099 sq. ft. TOTAL: 4942 sq. ft. 5600 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project meets all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordiance. MATERIALS & COLORS: Exterior: Stucco -buff tan; doors + trim - medium brown Roof: Cedar shakes ANALYSIS & CONCERNS: The proposed structure will occupy a previously graded pad on a portion of a minor ridge and will be visible from the valley floor and have some minor impact on the views of adjacent sites. The northernmost, portion of the structure will overlook the building pad of the adjacent northern lot and could eventually impact the privacy of this lot. These impacts are related to the second -story master bedroom window and deck: and the first story livingroom window. The potential privacy impacts can be mitigated by eliminating the north facing second -story master bedroom window, using a lattice screen or similar barrier on the northern edge of the proposed master bedroom deck, and by landscaping. It should be noted that because of the existing pad location there will be some visual impact from any structure on this site. Further, because of the smallness of the building pad it will be necessary to build a two story structure on the site to accommodate a structure over 3,500 sq. ft. in size. This impact can be slightly minimized by lowering the height of the structure. The applicant has submitted grading plans indicating that further excavation into the ridge and fill to the west and to the north of the proposed structure would be necessary to accommodate it. A 5' high retaining wall would be required. In terms of preserving the site's natural landscape it should be noted that the building area of this site Report to the Planning Commission 3/19/85 A -1070, Sinsley, Vista Arroyo Ct. Page 3 has already been significantly modified. Most of the additional grading proposed would be behind or screened by the house. The grading on the north side of the site will be contoured to blend into the site's existing topography. However, grading could be reduced by building a more compact structure on the site. The structure will generally have a bulk and height comparable with other structures previously approved in Parker Ranch. The structure is about 600 sq. ft. smaller than the Design Review guideline for the NHR District. However, because of the location of the building on a minor ridge it could be perceived as excessively bulky. If the structure is lowered in height this could minimize this perception. Additional landscaping could also reduce this impact. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, staff would recommend that the following findings be made: FINDINGS 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy: The height, elevation and placement of -the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the structure will be lowered to the extent it is feasible. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that windows and decks will be oriented away from private areas and landscaping will be installed to provide screening. 2. Preservation of Natural Landscape: The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree and soil removal and•(grade changes) in that no trees will be removed and the site modification created by the existing building site will be slightly modified in terms of visibility. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk.: The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the structure will be no higher than 25 ft. and will use varied structure and roof offsets to reduce the appearance of bulk. 4. Compatible Bulk and Height: The project is compatible in terms of bull: and height with those homes within 500 feet and in the same zoning district in that it is about the same size of homes previously approved in the area and is smaller than the 6200 sq. ft. quideline for the NHR District. f, Report to the Planning Commission 3/19/85 A -1070, Sinsley, Vista Arroyo Ct. Page 4 The proposed structure will probably have some impact on the amount of afternoon sunlight reaching the adjacent property to the north. However, this can not be mitigated due to the great elevation. differential (about 40 ft.) between both sites. S. Grading and Erosion Control Standards: The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no retaining wall over 5' will be used, visible grading shall be contoured to. match existing topography, and some graded areas shall be screened by the proposed structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated March 19, 1985, Exhibits "B and C ", subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: ** A. he northern window of the Master bedroom on the second ffoor sheff be removed to protect the privacy of the adjacent fot to the north. - Revised ptana showing this shaft be reviewed and approved by Staff- * B. Landscaping plans, showing how the northern (right) elevation and the eastern elevation of the structure will be screened to protect privacy and reduce -the perception of bulk, shall be sub- mitted for staff review and approval. Approved landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection /occupancy. C. Grading /drainage plans and landscaping plans for erosion control shall be submitted for Staff review and approval. D. The northern side of the proposed master bedroom deck shall utilize a lattice screen or similar barrier to protect the privacy of the adjacent property to the north. Revised plans showing this shall be submitted for staff review and approval. E. The height of the structure shall be no greater than 25 ft. and .shall be shown on the plans submitted with IA. above. 2. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the residence and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station. Location of detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. APPROVED Michael Flores Associate Planner MF /bjc 4 rI F -&- gkv AN W, W, Iii Iii E • _GN REVIEW v RESOLUTION NO.—A-1070-1 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE -NO: A -1070 WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval of a new, two -story single family residence''over 26 ft. in height on Lot 21, Tract 65.28, ; and vista WHE9AS,o tie applicant (has) (bzsxxvat4 met the burden of proof 'requi: to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, DE 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 SINSLEY ..CONSTRUCTION for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (d®¢xaJ subject to the following conditions: Per the amended Staff Report dated March 19, 1985 and Exhibits B and 'C. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning'Commission, State of California, this 10th day of April , 19 85 by _the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT:None ATTEST: Secretary, Planning �,Pi.3 ssion • f _ y • t C C Planning Commission Page 3 Minuts - Meeting 3/27/85 A -1068 proposed to ke three windows that face off of the entry stair opaque, reduce the nu tuber of windows off of the bedroom wing and grade niches so that the ndow is set back into the room. He commented that this solution was s tisfactory to Ms. Burke. She expressed approval, Commissioner urger moved to approve A -1068 Darwish, per the Staff Report dated M rch 18, 1985 and Exhibits S; L�and,with Condition #1 amended to rea that the height will be 24 feet, Condition #3 to read that the gross loor area will be reduced to 3700 sq. ft., and with the changes to Cond ion #4 relative to the windows. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the mot on, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion folio ed on A -1069, Eric and Linda Protiva. Staff explained the application nd noted that during the Site Approval for this lot there was a condi ion placed stating that there would be no more than 2380 sq. ft. of st%ructure. They commented that they would recommend approval for a str cture of that size. Commissioner J. Har is gave a Land Use Committee report, noting the two - story homes in the ea and their setbacks. The public hearing wjs opened at 7:58 p.m. Althea Coughlan, 14414 Oak Place, spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing (1) bulk of ho a on a small lot, (2) setbacks, and (3) height of the home. Greg Grodhaus, 20379 ratoga -Los Gatos Road, spoke in opposition. He stated that he had be told by the title company that these lots had been subdivided 50 yea ago but would conform to current standards. He asked that they all be viewed relative to building. The City Attorney commented that they are ots of records and developable as such. Staff clarified that this lot 's a lot of record; there may be one of the five lots that may not be. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak lace, expressed concern over the size of the home for the small lot. Dolores Smith, 14560 Wes tt, spoke in opposition to the size of the home. Linda Protiva, the applic nt, gave a presentation on the proposal, addressing (1) height, (2) s uare footage, and (3) oak tree on the site. She described the other home and lots in the area. Commissioner Peterson moved close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, w 'ch was carried unanimously. After discussion relative to he square footage there was a consensus that the home should not exce d 2380 sq. ft. and be no more than 26 ft. in height. It was also determilked that the applicant should comply with the City horticulturist's rec mmendations regarding the oak tree on site. Commissioner Harris a pressed concern with the side yard setbacks. She asked if the ho were reduced, would there be larger setbacks. Staff stated that it uld depend on the new design. Commissioner Burger moved to ap ove A -1069 Eric and Linda Protiva,, per the Staff Report dated March , 1985 anck;xnislts B and amenU ng Condition #4 to allow Staff to r view and approve the report from the City horiticulturist. Commissione Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with Commissione J. Harris dissenting, stating that she feels the setbacks should be larger. Staff was asked to submit input at the next meeting regardi g the status of the four remaining lots of this subdivision. /Discussion followed on Item #7, -107 Sinsley Construction. Commissioner J. Harris cave a Land Us tee report, indicating that this is not the major ridgeline about which the Commission was concerned during the review of the Dewey property. She stated that there is a back drop of the County hillside off of Prospect. The public hearing was opened at 8:38 p.m. Brian Trusler, 21450 Prospect Road, stated that he and his neighbors agree with the recommendations in the Staff Report. He stated that the - 3 - r Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 3/27/85 A -1070 height of the proposed structure is much too high for the building site, and he feels that it should be reduced to 25 ft. or lower to mitigate the visual impact. Ray Sinsley, the applicant, addressed the deletion of the window in the master bedroom, which he feels cannot be done because of the house being designed for the view. Discussion followed on the design relative to reducing the height to 25 ft., as required in the Staff Report. It was determined that this item will be continued to April 10, 1985, to. allow the applicant to review his plans as to how the height reduction can be accomplished. Chairman Siegfried stated that the Commissioners will revisit the site and make a determination relative to the bay window in the master bedroom at that meeting. Commissioner J. Harris also suggested that landscaping be required for the screening on the eastern side. Relative to Item #8, A -1071, Jon Witkin, Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the.early fire warning system condition be added to the Staff Report. After discussion of the cost of the system Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A -1071 Jon Witkin, per the Staff Report without the condition rela �M to Fh a earl fire warning system. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. 10a. A -1064 - Joseph Waller an David Zicovich, 14035 Saratoga Avenue, 10b. UP -576 - Request for Desi, Review Approval to construct a new two - story single fame residence and Use Permit Approval to allow a garage to a located in the rear yard setback area 25 ft. from the pr erty line, in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district (to be con In 'd to April 10, 1985) - - - - - - -------- ---- ---- ---- -- -------- - ------ --- ----- It was directed that this item be ontinued - to - April - 10, - 1985. ---------- Break - 9:10 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. (Co 'ssioner Schaefer left the meeting at this time.) lla. A -1067 - Wendell Whitfield, 150 1 Fruitvale Avenue, Request for llb. SDR- 1594- Design Review and Tent ive Building Site Approvals for a new two- story, single amily residence over 26 ft. in height in the R -1 -40,00 zoning district Staff described the project, recommending approval. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, oting that the impact will be minimal. She stated that they recomm d that the Staff conditions be upheld, especially those applying to re rientation of the garage and the increase of setback to 10 ft. from the arge oak near the center of the site. The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.mTj Mr. Whitfield discussed the reorientation f the garage, stating that he did not know if it would be possible. St ff commented that if the City horticulturist approved the western ent nce and felt that the trees would not be damaged by it, Staff would ag e. Commissioner Peterson commented that he ha a fundamental problem with approving a house of almost 8,000 sq. ft, ich is virtually 308 above the guideline, and he cannot support that. r. Whitfield indicated that he could remove the wine cellar. It was directed that this item be continued to allow time for the report from the received. April 10, 1985, in order y horticulturist to be 12. V -686 - Humberto Gerola, 20390 Knollwood rive, Request for Vari- ance Approval to allow an exist in addition constructed without a building permit to main ain a 15 ft. rear yard where 25 ft. is required in the R - 10,000 zoning district Staff explained the application, recommending denial, having been unable to make the findings. They commented that they wcwld have great concern over the approval of a variance to legitimi a unpermitted work. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, commenting that - 4 - • s 1a, l o 70 Planning Commission Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A -1067 and SDR -1594 Page Mr. Whitfield, the appl ant, discussed the conditions suggested by the City horticulturist, spe ifically the installation of drain tubes. He questioned this, stating Ihat excessive moisture conditions seem to be a problem in this area. A ter discussion of this condition there was a consensus to follow the uggestions of the tree specialist, -and the applicant should come back o the Commission if there is a problem. Bob McGuire, 15350 Bestvie Court, discussed the drainage, commenting that there is a 24" flood co trol drainage line under the back 10 ft. of his property. He suggested hat some consideration be made to control the runoff on the surface int the control line. He indicated that they do have the plans and feel th y could locate the line. Staff commented that the suggestion was an ex ellent one and noted that Condition II -B would cover that situation an they will work out the details with Mr. McGuire. Commissioner McGoldrick moved A close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, w ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -1067 and SDR -1594, per the Staff Report, with Conditions A a d B deleted.and Adding Condition E to state that the applicant shall c ply with the conditions of the report from the City horticulturist. Co issioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -1 with Com issioner Peterson dissenting. He commented that he feels the Commis ion needs to start staying closer to the guidelines and he feels this house is too large. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he app eciates Commissioner Peter so s concerns; however, his thought has lways been that as long as it not impact the neighbors and does n create a monstrosity which peo e can view from everywhere, he is no particularly opposed to letting le build it. 14. A -1070 - Sinsley Construction, Lot 21, Tract 6528, Vista Arroyo 0 Court, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two -story single family residence over 26 ft. in height in the NHR zoning district; cont. from March 27, 1985 ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Staff noted that this had been continued from a previous meeting, to allow the applicant to consider the concerns of the Commission, i.e., the height of the structure and the second -story window that overlooks the adjacent lot to the north. It was noted that Staff was suggesting a reduction to no more than 25 ft. and the removal of the window. . The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. William Bean, designer, commented that his firm, Triangle Assocites, also designed Mr. Edwards' home, which is the neighbor to the north. He submitted a plan of that home, explaining that the home is oriented in such a way that he does not feel the second -story window will impact the privacy. He addressed the height of the home, indicating that he feels toreduce the height to 25 ft. will drastically hurt the architectural appearance of the house. Mr. Bean suggested compromising at 28 ft. maximum, stating that he feels he could still make the home attractive. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she still feels very strongly about the height. She stated that she is not as concerned about the southern elevation because you don't look at that from the valley and,it is up against the hill. She added that it seems,> from a visual poin view, that when there is one roof leading into another, it w. emphasize the height of the roof. Commissioner Peterson stated that the house looks very massive, and he - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7' Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A -1070 is not sure that the difference between 25 and 28 ft. is going to be that great. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she thinks this is a very obvious parcel, and the Commission did make a commitment towards not. having large homes on highly visible ridges. Commissioner Burger commented that it is a visible lot, and she would support the 25 ft. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A -1070, per the Staff Report dated March 19, 1985, deleting Condition lA relative to the window in the master bedroom. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. (Commissioner Schaefer rejoined the meeting during the discussion of this item, and stated that she voted on the item since she had been at the previous meeting when this item was disussed.) The appeal period was noted. 15a. Negative Declaratio - SDR -1593 - Bohn 15b. A -1053 - Robert a Gay Bohn, Request for Design Review, Variance 15c. V -692 - and Build ng Site Approval for a new two - story, single 15d. SDR -1593 - family re 'dence 35 ft. in height where 30 ft. is the maximum h 'ght allowed at 14124 Pike Road, in the NHR zoning dis ict Staff described the prof t, stating that they were recommending C approval of the Negative D laration and the Tentative Building Site Planning Commission Page 7' Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A -1070 is not sure that the difference between 25 and 28 ft. is going to be that great. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she thinks this is a very obvious parcel, and the Commission did make a commitment towards not. having large homes on highly visible ridges. Commissioner Burger commented that it is a visible lot, and she would support the 25 ft. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A -1070, per the Staff Report dated March 19, 1985, deleting Condition lA relative to the window in the master bedroom. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. (Commissioner Schaefer rejoined the meeting during the discussion of this item, and stated that she voted on the item since she had been at the previous meeting when this item was disussed.) The appeal period was noted. 15a. Negative Declaratio - SDR -1593 - Bohn 15b. A -1053 - Robert a Gay Bohn, Request for Design Review, Variance 15c. V -692 - and Build ng Site Approval for a new two - story, single 15d. SDR -1593 - family re 'dence 35 ft. in height where 30 ft. is the maximum h 'ght allowed at 14124 Pike Road, in the NHR zoning dis ict C • 4 Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that Vehe had pointed out to Mrs. Bohn that the Commission needs to make lega findings, and even though the extra square footage is not a problem t her because of the location of- the home, she cannot make the findings r the height. She commented that if the applicant would like to brin further information to a study session, she would be willing to hear tha . She added that she believes the people across the mountain will se this house; however, it is tupked into the setting and it is not high y visible from the valley. Discussion followed on the findings. Chai an Siegfried asked Mr. Bohn if he would like to come back to the Commis 'on With revisions, or if he would like to have a vote taken tonight w N ch -can be appealed to the City Council if it is negative. Mr. Bohn i icated that he would like the vote taken. • 7 Staff described the prof t, stating that they were recommending approval of the Negative D laration and the Tentative Building Site Approval and denial of the Variance and Design Review, having been unable to make the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating tha the site would not appear to be seen from any place except Parker Ranc or the roads off Pierce. She commented that they had suggested that t applicant have the architect draw up a line of sight from the two nei boring homes, since it is possible that it might impact those neighbors. The public hearing was opened at :41 p.m. Mr. Bohn, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project and discussed the visibility of the lot. He described the area and the — design of the home. He added that the neighbors have no objection. Mr. Bohn indicated that there seems t be no way to lower the roof without changing the architecture of the ho se. Chairman Siegfried stated he has a ncern about going beyond the height limitations and pointed out the eed to make findings. Mr. Bohn commented that he feels the Commissi should consider the neighborhood, discussing the other homes in the are . Commissioner Schaefer asked about mo 'ng the house further back on the lot, and Staff indicated that that wo ld cause trouble with the build- ing site, C • 4 Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that Vehe had pointed out to Mrs. Bohn that the Commission needs to make lega findings, and even though the extra square footage is not a problem t her because of the location of- the home, she cannot make the findings r the height. She commented that if the applicant would like to brin further information to a study session, she would be willing to hear tha . She added that she believes the people across the mountain will se this house; however, it is tupked into the setting and it is not high y visible from the valley. Discussion followed on the findings. Chai an Siegfried asked Mr. Bohn if he would like to come back to the Commis 'on With revisions, or if he would like to have a vote taken tonight w N ch -can be appealed to the City Council if it is negative. Mr. Bohn i icated that he would like the vote taken. • 7 AGENDA BILL NO. 950L DATE: May 9, 1985 DEPARTMENT: City Attorney CITY OF SARATOGA INITIAL DEPT. HD. C. ATTORNEY C. MGR. SUBJECT: Installation of early warning fire alarm system in Owen Project Issue Summary As one of the conditions of tentative building site approval on the Owen project, the Planning Commission required installation of the early warning fire alarm system with connection to the Saratoga Fire District computer facility. In response to concerns expressed by the Central Fire District, the matter was referred to the Fire Services Task Force committee for a study and report. The committee has now recommended that the condition be waived with respect to this project. The Saratoga Fire District has no objection to this recommendation. The committee will submit a further report dealing with the larger issue of expanding the early warning system to the other areas of the City, including areas serviced by the Central Fire District. Recommendation Consider the Task Force report and determine whether the condition should be waived. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attachments Fire Services Task Force report. Council Action 5/15: Deleted requirement for Owens 3 -1 (Nbyles opposed) . May 2, 1985 TO: MAYOR VIRGINIA LADEN FANELLI FROM: JOY DRINKER, CHAIRMAN, FIRE SERVICES TASK FORCE The Fire Services Task Force was requested by the City Council to review the specific condition imposed by the City on the Owen Co. development which would require an Early Warning Fire Reporting Sys- tem to be installed throughout the buildings and connected to the Saratoga Fire Department Central Monitoring Station. The Fire Services Task Force reviewed the City of Saratoga Ordi- nance No. 38.126, the requirements of.the Early Warning Fire Report- ing System and its application to the Owen Co. buildings and the Central Fire Conditions for the Owen Co. development which lies with- in the Central Fire service area. The Fire Services Task Force recommends that the City Council reconsider the specific condition imposed by the City on the Owen Co. The Task Force recommendation is.-based on several points: 1. The Saratoga City Ordinance No. 38.126 mandates hook -up to the SFD Early Warning Fire Reporting System in all new dwelling units in the hazardous fire area. Hook -up is voluntary for dwellings located in other areas of the city and hotels and motels are the only commercial buildings re- quired to install the system. The Owen Co. development lies outside the scope of the Ordinance mandate. 2. The Owen Co. development property lies within the service area of the Central Fire District and is subject to the Uniform Fire Code and uniform Building Code enforced by CFD., Installation of automatic sprinkler systems along with an automatic alarm are conditions required by Central Fire District. The Fire Services Task Force believes that the CFD conditions imposed upon the Owen Co. development are. appropriate for those buldings and that the level of service provided.by Central Fire District would be equivalent to that provided by Saratoga Fire District. 3. The Fire Service Task Force concluded that the Owen Co. development would-be served properly and appropriately by Central Fire District and that conditions should be limited to those required by Central Fire District. The Fire Services Task Force is developing a report to the City Council which will include recommendations dn..-policy and procedures for the expansion of the Early Warning Fire Reporting System. It is expected that this report will be forthcoming shortly.