The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-05-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSCITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 3,53 Dept. Hd. ' DATE: 5/24/85 (.6/5/85) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBjECT: Final Building Site Approval SDR -1574, MacLean Charles r Herriman Ave. (2 lots) Issue Summary 1. SDR -1574 is ready for Final Map Approval. - 2. All requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met. 3. All fees have been paid. Reconrr-ndation Adopt resolution # 1574 -02 attached, approving the building site of SDR -1574. Fiscal Impacts NONE Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1574 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Status Report for Building Site Approval 4. Location Map Council Action 6/5: Approved 3 -0. RESOLUTION NO. 1574 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF MacLean Charles The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The two .04444 acres parcels as shown "A" and "B" on the final parcel map prepared by Thomas Riley, and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga be approved as two (2) 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 • 3 meeting held on the day of_ 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR II O y �E�F, Ssn• �p . 45S��•• fy� IN- i o REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION �= DATE: 7/3/84 Commission Meeting: 7/11/84 SUBJECT: V -653, SDR -1574, Charles and Virginia MacLean, 20315 Herriman -----------------------.------------------------------------ ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of: 1) Variance to allow minimum lot width Of 79.96' where 85' is required. 2) Tentative Building Site .Approval for a two lot subdivision. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /'REQUIRED: Building Permits. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION Final Building Site Approval and ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN: Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10). Project would comply with applicable General Plan goals and policies. cTmF nnmr -- PARCEL,-SIZE.: .38,778 sq. ft. LOT SIZES: Lot A.- 19,389 sq. ft. Lot B - 19,389 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: A row of cedar trees exists along the western edge of the property. Large trees at southeastern corner. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.7 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1.7% HEIGHT: All existing structures are single story. SIZE OF STRUCTURES: Approximately 1,870-sq. ft. including all enclosed structures. Report to the Planning ( nmission ' 7/3/84 V -643, SDR -1574 - MacLean Page 6 D. The existing shed, dog pen, and carport shall be removed or relocated in accordance with ordinance standards or a variance granted to allow them to maintain their existing locations. E. A variance for the existing 18' front yard setback maintained by the existing dwelling is required. Approved: 'gtC ' -� Michael Flores Planner MF /bc /dsc P.C. Agenda: 7/11/84 Report to the Planning Commission 7/3/84 V -643, SDR -1574, Mf aan Page 5 F. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Foundation. B. Bonds required for: backfill of septic tank - $400 and removal of existing structures - $700. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Applicant shall annex the property to County Sanitation District No. 4 and pay the required fees per the letter dated 6/5/84. B. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated, "6/5/84. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Water supply and access for.fire protection are acceptable. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required for both lots. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards. D. Existing residence must - connect to sanitary sewer along with any future residences. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS — PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Report to the Plan g Commission 7/3/85 V -653, SDR -1574, M mean, Page 5 PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. objectives of and 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 Recorders' Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: July 3, 1984 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1574 (Exhibit "B" filed May 29, 1984) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordiance No. 60, including. without limitation, the submission of a Record of.Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site Approval ia-no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, sumit three (3) to- scale prints). C. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. D. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveways.. E. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 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- 157411 MacLean Charles (have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on Listed below are the amounts, dates and City recei�t numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication None Parcel Map yes Storm Drainage Fee $12,000 Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds N.A. All Required Inspection Fees $200.00 Building Site Approval Agreement N.A. Park and Recreation Fee $2600.00 fitted Date Date Date Date Date Submitted ----- Date Submitted 5/24/84 5/24/85 Receipt # Submitted Receipt #, Submitted 5Z24/RS Receipt# 7S56 Signed.. Submitted 5/24,85 Receipt# It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (Cffl * *f Kj*) (Final) Building Site Approval for MacLean Charles SDR- 1574 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non- Compliance Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 0 DATE: DEPARTMENT:_ Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval, SDR -1592, Burt Albrecht San Marcos Road (1 .lot ) Issue Summary 1. SDR -1592 is ready for final. This is an over 50o expansion to existing house. 2. All requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met. 3. All fees have been paid. Recommendation Adopt Resolution 1592 -02 attached, approving the building site of SDR- 1592.. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachn-ents 1. Resolution 1592 -02. 2. Report to Planning Commission. 3. Status Report for Building Site Approval. 4. Location Map. • • RESOLUTION NO. 1592 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Burt Albrecht The City Council of the City of Saratogal,;iereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 1.306 acres parcel as shown•Parcel "A" on the final parcel map prepared by J. M. Heiss Inc. and submitted to the City „Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. 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: CITY CLERK MAYOR �WN t "Q REPORT. TOcIPL, A N N ING COMMISSION" 41 APPROVED' BY: - I , . 'r j) . I .. 11. 1. : DATE: INITIALS: Revised: 3/13/85 Revised: 2/27/85 rl r- TQ Z.? i Date: 2/19/8S. -7 Commission Meeting: � / /? I APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SIDR-I592', 192715 San Marcos Road APPLICANT: :Andarch Associates OWNER: Burt Albrecht ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ACTION REQUESTED Tentative .Building Site Approval for an Over 50t/ Expansion. OTHER APPROVALS, RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval, Building Permits. ENVT ARONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:. Categorically exempt per Section 15301 _of the CEQA Guidelines.. ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 'Residential-Single Family Very Low Density EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING L PON'D USES: Residential PARCEL SIZE: SO,6"o ' sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: No major trees to be removed. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: l.S!.I AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.5%. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 55 Ft. Rear: 189 Ft. Left Side: 52 Ft. Right Side: 31 Ft. HEIGHT: Under 22 Ft SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing:- 2,024 5q. ft. Proposed: 1_S-Fo sn. ft. Total: 3,574 5q. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project meets all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. C Report to Planning Commission 2/19/85 SDR -1592, Andarch ASsoc.fAlbrecht >, San Marcos Rd. Page 3 ** basil- from -Fnrrtvai - Avems -tv -the- terRrrrr�rs -af -EQ �r- �eess -- �e,} �s- I�µ��g- e}�{�ss- f}el;- �ae•ew -�� _� ��.G -a�i d- �- a�- aball. -_fie e�f- ac} e• �- i+ s} �- c =1- ��=- as{�fial- t-- r�aPr��et_e- are- f} = -agg� ®gala -dace . �-r- Maass- ��. da-- ba��Prg--& 1$ geE- daiweaw- �- S°L_aad__12L__sktall__�e a��€ased-- �+s.�- cog- 4=- e€.- R,- G�-- �r�aa�ala _�augb_sua£aced_usiug - -4„ a• ggregert- c- I�crc---- Sleaca- rrt- cxeeaa -e•f - �5�6- sk�a��- stet•- er�eeed -68 ft-- rrt- fcrtgtk. a7-- f' rccc55- -- ape - -Re t aCrf? 2'ttcd . Rfetc�-- Q�-- fkc- rrTn= rrcrrr- rrrarde- eerrre- reefrexs- ehe��- he -42 -f t . ��-- �Frc- Mrnirrexrr- rcrtrcat- cteerar�ce- �tbet�e- Paad- s�rp €aee aherll- i?c- �5 -ft-. e3-- 9t erm- rdM&ff- aha Few gA -4he -wee e€-- etflaePts- apd- Paads��e- d }�elaes. E- 8onstruct turnaround hevzng 32 ft- radius or approved equal using doable leaf coat oil and screenings or better on 6- aggregate base at the terminus of Eampo Eaffe- F. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO 4 A. Sewer connection confirmed. No conditions. IV. SPEC -IFIC 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. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING, DIVISION A. Building and grading plans to be approved by Planning Division prior to issuance of permits. Individual house designs to be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with the physical environment. Complete plans for all on -site grading to be included in evaluation. House foundations to be designed to minimize external grading. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes. .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- 1592, Burt Albrecht (have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 3/13/85 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication N/A Date Submitted Record of Survey or Parcel Map Storm Drainage Fee N/A All Required Improvement Bonds All Required Inspection Fees Building Site Approval Agreeme Park and Recreation Fee yes Date Subm N/A 200.00 at N/A N/A fitted Date Date Date Date Date Submitted 5/2478-5 - - -- Receipt # - - - - -- Submitted - - -- Recept#. Submitted Receipt # — Signed. - - - -- Submitted - - - -- Receipt# It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (Q0 XMMMX X(Final) Building Site Approval. for Burt Albrecht SDR- 1592 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon.compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non- Compliance t<ooer�JJ. Jnooic Director of Community Development \ K CIV(C y j wild CENTER ,_ .. _ ALLICNDA V , Al Q Al RCOW00D SCHCo6 R-1- 40,000 t1' 92's ...... . . . . . . . . ..... StL:.11 a WEST VAl.l.LY COI.LBGE :r 0 M r N 2 'rte. MEN, IN' 0131141M=600 WEST VAl.l.LY COI.LBGE :r 0 M r N 2 'rte. AGENDA BILL NO. --957 5 DATE: May 30, 1985 DEPARTMENT: City Attorney CITY OF SARATOGA INITIAL DEPT. HD. C. ATTORNEY C. MGR. SUBJECT: Amendment to Hakone Foundation Trust Agreement Issue Summary William Glennon has requested that two amendments be made to the Hakone Trust Agreement, as executed by the City on December 19, 1984. The first amendment would reduce the number of trustees from 3 to 2, and the second amendment was a technical change to Paragraph 14 of the Trust Agreement requested by the IRS. At the Council meeting on May 15th, the second amendment was approved and the Council deferred action on the first amendment, pending further consideration as to the desirability of reducing the number of trustees. Submitted herewith are two alternative versions of the amendment. One version includes the change in the number of trustees and the other does not include this change. Recommendation Consider and determine request for reduction in number of trustees and authorize mayor to execute appropriate amendment to trust agreement. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments (a) Amendment to Trust Agreement - Alternative No. 1 - reduction in number. (b) Amendment to Trust Agreement - Alternative No. 2 - no reduction. (c) Trust Agreement dated December 19, 1984. Council Action 6/5: Approved Trust Agreement #2 with time.extension for trustee selection, 3 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 5/29/85 (6/5/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Iid. C. Atty. C. Mgr. A -1069, Eric & Linda Prot)7a, Lot 10,. 1 -4T6TTa- FPT.Appe`aT7y-- �pTicanf or7 na'i =- SUB.TLCT: tion of Design Review Approval to Limit the Size of the Residence to 2,380 sq. ft. _— Lnd- Appeal of Design Review Approval �y William & Althea Cou2hl an____w_w____. Issue Sunmzry This item has been continued from the 5/1/85 City Council Meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to provide revised plans. Attached is a Staff Report analyzing the new proposal and the Agenda Bill from the previous City Council Meeting. 'ReconrL-ndation 1. Determine the merits of appeals and uphold or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. Staff recommendations for approval and conditions were consistent with the Planning . Commission's actions. Fiscal Impacts N/A Exhibits /Attachments 1. Report to the City Council 2. Agenda Bill dated 4/23/85 3. Appeal Letters 4. Staff Report for A -1069 5. Resolution No. A- 1069 -1 Council Action 4- 6. Minutes dated 3/27/85 7. Exhibits for Original Proposal 8. Exhibits for Revised Proposal 9. Solar Shade Study 10. Correspondence Received on Project 6/5: Continued to 7/3- 7/3: Hied = Coughlan ,appeal; .granted Protiva appeal with conditions. Z&� 14 6 It fF3. t U REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 5/28/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 6/5/85 SUBJECT: Revisions to Plans for Linda & Eric Protiva, A -1069, Lot 10 14466 Oak Place ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- The applicants submitted revised plans which show a further reduction in height and gross floor area. The following table outlines.these changes in comparison to previous proposals: Previous Proposal Original Proposal Before the City Council New Proposal Height: 30 Ft. 26 Ft. 24 Ft. Size of Structure (Per Staff): First Floor: 1,640 sq. ft. 1,555.5 sq. ft. 1,542 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1,512 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 997 sq.-ft. TOTAL 3,152 sq. ft. 2,555.5 sq.ft. 2,539 sq. ft. Rear Yard Setback: 52 Ft. 59 Ft. 57 Ft. Impervious Coverage: 36% 34% 34% Exterior Materials:. Old Mill Masonite Vertical Open Vertical Wood Siding, Dove Gray Siding, Dove Gray Garage Height: 19.5 Ft. 19.5 Ft. 15.5 Ft. It should also be noted that with the new proposal, the garage has been relocated to the left of the residence. Also, the master bedroom has been cantilevered out to the rear yard. Staff would like to point out the discrepancy between the gross floor area figures shown on the plans submitted, and those calculated by staff. Most of this discrepancy can be attri- buted to staff including the floor area of the stairway on the first and second story. t Report to Mayor and City Council A -1069, Protiva, Oak Place 5/28/85 Page 2 Staff, under the Planning Commission's direction, has consistently double- counted stairways as their areas contribute to the bulk of the home. In the situation where the ceiling is slanted, staff has made the additional interpretation that areas that have a 6 ft. clearance above the finished floor level should be counted in floor areas figures. According to the project's designer, the exterior wall of the stairway on the second level is 6 ft. in height. Therefore, staff's inclusion of this area in with the total square footage is consistent with our standard policy. The designer has stated that it would be possible to reduce the height of the wall and thereby eleiminate some floor area from the calculations. Again, the City Council has the option to approve or deny the appeals making the necessary findings, if applicable, per Exhibits "B -1 and C -l'.'.' Approved: k� Diana Lewis Planner DL /dsc A. It-ell". THE PLA< -E ,q99.5- �,• or, • /oc' one • 4 5" 04 LOr_ _ID•_ I {I K. o" • PAD •449"Q • 1 . C. 500. i \ Aqq.9 1 I o � . I Ira FIQSY FLR. = Iio2 GA¢AGE = 920 -roTA L — — 741$ C1 . F T RREPLACE euii.A LW 25 y IMPEelllalS Gw• — S&v yo fiR altl I.or ro, plc• l aF "owler40F.0 rMP of he?s-fcr� P4P,� 1�f5" QELOeDF�O I� U0� "0" oP r V P5, PA jC � hAq-1_A GL.ARA (.oU.�T`j P�CO�Ct?5 Zorn � � I ri, 000 SOT PLAN Scs1�E L "= lo`-O� IOL•011 _.i�Un -. �RoPpSED 72E51De�vGE •�cr MK •� MRS, i�ROTLvq e.o 5ARAToG:<t r G.4 L IF. S Evi LA 77 I ' - -� - X02 _iii •J,'.�` , , '. -r-, Al, �Nt -Eli �l EOGI; OF I�AVF/V16/�l tvf. ''MONARCH, - ASSOCIATES INC planners.. desi h:nrs 12b s�:y.:�Sr. G4, yS1lpi c4as1 <G' -3167 1 'IF3 A-10V NSA 8 °S � — U MAST 8DRM 12' e'X ' � 10'4k 12* 4' SECOND FLOOR SQ. FT � ` | | � / / . | | | ' � | | i | | ` - i | � � ' - � LIVING Rk LUI � P� 19WX 20'8* 50'CC DEEP TOTAL 3Q,FT 1998 ." � /mscCwnS ' o;omz-;n U FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT1102 jr2 ` r. Z,i 'o t/t *Td — orl.cl 6dflar, "al"rl y1- - Sj —JU -- - > mum IBM -ir 'Emoll 16-1 H /S tfFl, C v- MaAArlCH ASSOCIATES NC. plarros daqgg�vrs JEHI RXA6 Txm o f- L e-v Z, T I o hjdcco car 013 MaAArlCH ASSOCIATES NC. plarros daqgg�vrs 04.. �7549 IT NI t{I to 1 oc 0 2 RM FI REP% -AG! I FIRST FLlz = IIoz. _GARsaG_E = Q20 - TOTAL -- = 241a 5Q.F7. MILA w. IMPE2 -1/IaJ toj. ^� 3/ q -R Gigfir - Lor lo, OL4--V- I aF , vN1eµoF.0 MM oP P,&&- Loft" QECaea7EO 1� Va,L, 11011 oP V PS, Pr+�� , h� Cra GVQA cou>� P�co�cf�5 �Ep Q lo,OOo 11-0-F PL A N SGAt -F- I "= lo'-o° ppoPp5E0 RE6j1DeNGE 411 MR•FMszs, Pfzor�vv Il �c.o � SATZAT�A 1 GA L IF. 'a,J SE'.vF.a•� - N G�K LAcr ffV. S/22/BS u6e m� atJ tat. NICWRCH. ASSOCIATES INC planners - h:ut1 = 126 1404) 1 OF .3 &9 rvONARCH t a AS O--WES pbr ray ful MAST BD.RM B B DRM 12 8'X 17 =0 10 =4k 12=4' _I0 0i� I -- is =akn =o 1 I SECOND FLOOR $Q. FL 896 i I i r i I Q— - K look a' FAMILYM ( DINING. RM 12 =8 14'0'X 19'4" i �I LIVING RM fD] I 17= 8'X12 -8' P-!LA BA GARAGE 38� O" WI D�- I9'4 0 8' 50 =0" DEEP i TOTAL S Q. FT 1998 - '1/41=0't� 1998 FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT.1102 2 ". 3 *Td� �r. 4XIO vLav_ 5, ITC. iit vdjil A; IA6 TP11 e45f Ak ASSOCWTES Pb-os dagros SLdLG r7= Y6 51dcco ca(' ® I E13 cacao 2�� ec... .,. WWI 8505 • PAD -Z I FIRST FLIZ. ii'oZ' SFfonv FAR. a 896 'TOTAL IF*F-KA<-E 4�6 - oA k: • -4F.• C4.:. t u I L.- v -7 '3o IT L-f ar ""mvfAL?w • PAD -Z I FIRST FLIZ. ii'oZ' SFfonv FAR. a 896 'TOTAL IF*F-KA<-E t u I L.- v L-f ar ""mvfAL?w wv"19 of VII, 1100 oQ r N P5 rAll I-IrA 6L.-IIjZA 498.1 PLA�j SCALE f to,: PPOP06ED ;z Er6 I D mg-$f'm;z5, PROTkVA ISARA7,r-aA C-A I L lip, V - of A v.v ; - 2 .9 (?Tlj MONARCH ASSC )QATES � L Ac— planner.s.. rq4 Hot oij (40e) :.Cc.316r Lzyr. OF FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT1102, j bd K/ONIARCH ASSCCIATES h'\K--, Car res cia-Aoners A1M2 0 15L4" DINING, RM, 8 14'-O'X 15'4" LIVING RM IF -, I IIA, .dab.. 38'-0" WID�- GARAGE I 9'4X 2 0' 8' 50'CC DEEP TOTAL SQ,FT 1998 FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT1102, j bd K/ONIARCH ASSCCIATES h'\K--, Car res cia-Aoners 1 fd-, �( �v N/CNAFK�H ASSCCL4fES pbry)s dag-es • IT to -Z nPEPLAigr I F I Q15T FL R TOTAL = 24i SQ.P7, OlUILA "'W. — IL 6 yo �q *,ttj - or- " PAvgt7w MM of ;10" of' r-iNF6, rAl�� ,�A 6LAIZA 4179 SOT PLAQ •?U- M;Z.�M;Z5. -PR070/A 5.4 RA7-,,:7a.4 GA L L47 ?Ttj� NA PAVFivtEN )f 5/22 /8`2 wvce6�D� ASSOCIATES INC� planners.. 3-1 MAST RD.RM BA, D BED RM. 2 12 =e" 17' 0 10'0124' 10 BED.RM. 3 13-'4k,l'-O' SECOND FLOOR SQ. FT 896 Irtd ASSCCWTES KIT 10�0,AI514, A RM, DINING, RM. 22 -4" 14'0'X 1514" � A LIVING RM. of �L, /IBA. IT I I A/\ GARAGE 38 O" WID�,, -F974"X20-8- -50'-0' DEEP TOTAL SQ.FT 1998 . ..r - FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT 1102 JE2 3 Too ED 75 �e moolum 6eD r- 4A to MU� E-I TTT-n L -1 ITA I HI LL:= ZRa T" 4A L e-v z- K I 6A H I -S 1 :D VC IPCH ASSCCL4TES • W- dpb2sg-mo2rs s. FIRE P, I .qq N LAf-F FIQ15T FL9. = HoZ 55�o&)V-rLJZ' c V16 - I 091 tT - L----r 10, VO 11011 of, r-"k?6j flAje� -e'�A :;LAIZA C-oully P-QT PLAQ SCALE 71 PPoPo5E0 'A E51 DeNG6 7 L A o r4? 1j: SLF"Fa' 4JF JFAN E ^J FEW LAC F- 512 2 /155 o Ohl N/IONIARCH., ASSOCIATES INC. planners,. 1409 <G e31G7 SECOND FLOOR SQ. FT 896 lia bd NY RCH ASSC�WES piarros ci��-nw I p KIT -4 DINING, RM. ,y 14'0'X 15!4" LIVING RM BA. GARAGE 38'0" WID�- -F9-4'X20-8- 50'-0" DEEP TOTAL SQ. FT. 1998 FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT . 1102_ JE2 3 � ` L J . .. . - . . , . .. . ^ ' � . � ` Nk / qw .. *CNmocH, INC. pO ' now� U ~ fcl j • 6C- OAK • <o75D IT �1 I {I to D I� I O 2 "��7 FIQ57 FAR. = Iio2 Sr�on� t=�R. O9�v - 6A¢dGE = Q2p p•a r. -raTA — -Z41$ �Q . F "f, fl REPLAGf Lo�/E{71�(E�i P1ult 0� 26, f�R bzly> t or lo, ITV I KW of T f,4Z- Lard✓" QBCOeOP.v f� VpL "o'I oP rMPS, f'A� �?p, '51* YA Gv.L1I1+ 60LIT`( 0-60ICr7S- za,-�Y e I,e,,00a -!�-Ol- PLAN N ;D(Z�PpSE 0 �Z Eg I DevGE " �or MR.�"N{iZS, PROT�v,O Y �c .v G SAVA7oGA E `1i 1A 7 t A L i I I — >: o1-i(PTIJ /'1JJLJ�..�/'1 1 . ES :� q" Nt-EU EDGE OF PAVFiViEN �} IN manners designers ; — We) :cGG3iC r MAST BD,RM BA- L----/'SA I BEDRM 2 12ts"x 7. o 10'4A 12'4' BED.RM. 3 1314k llO' SECOND FLOOR SQ. FT 896 , . 0 N/ Awl ARCH ASSCCL4TF,5 Ci2xiners 98 FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT 1102 1 2 . E13 K I T. IEA� DINING Rm TLyNN I21i 2I . 14'0'S( 15'4" LIVING RM ,F IF Ll� B 38'0" WID�- GARAGE t4 8. DEEP TOTAL SQ. FT 1998 , . 0 N/ Awl ARCH ASSCCL4TF,5 Ci2xiners 98 FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT 1102 1 2 . E13 51Juo tar__. 6/b OttdV- Zeq��e Lq L -5,7- -5,7 - \1 4-r 1, OBI -- . qA - , 114 1 bd WCNARCH ASSOCWTIES Nc. JL= � A f ,6,,7. o0 • /pG GeC • ,5 01.5 10r 10 _ _ o f 6o75D IT �I dl �� I Ir FIRST FL P_ = Ilo2 G,o, G41T. 5oc. -t G 0" si%OUO FL.R. = 6U _.._._.., 6A2/�GE 9°=? c -- ._.-._..--------- iB rCTAL 241$ S� . P 7, cY �'- • -PAD \ RREPLALF - Lo./E�ES IMPE2v 4"v 3fo% -� a�•y � � �R 6xlvi � LOf 10, 61.t?G�c. l of ° o��HV�O Th,s}9q.'jfj \ MAP OP �jeKiKfcY.� P4Z� LOf<j" QECOtA� I� \ V�L 11011 vP rMPS, PAC�� , h.•,�rA GUIQA Gou•isY owicc75. Q l000a Pl- OT PL A 0 IV'O11 _.I�Ge 9;20 P05E0 �RE51DeNGE __ �or- M�•�MRS, �PFzoTlvp -.G. � SARATcYA 1 GA L 1F. �Pr�dj ARCH -: -- -- J S7e 0 SL WF. � A JJL`I H rr PAVFMaA/ _ I INC OAK LAC_ planners.. Iq- 6x,£r ca; -- .�.. -- •..,___D ._..�� `r'.�1/_ 5/22/85 - taco; <ca-3tG7 ��x �► 23-1 Lat. 'IF3 bd ASSOCIATES Pbnners d2s�s t' MAST BD RM BA l/ BFDRM� KIT. FAM RM, 10!01Xl5=4" DINING. RM. :- 12,8 „x 17 =0 10' - -4')( 12 =4' 12 =8 22=4” I 14 =0'k 104" ' 10 - I LIVING RM I • BED.RM. 3 _ _ n= e'x17 -8• i 1314)(110" ,F 3H�O � WID�- GARAGE R 19' - 20 8' 50 -0" DEEP . TOTAL SQ. FT 1998 -- 0" 86 1998 SECOND FLOOR SQ. FT 896 FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT. 1102 - 2 w 3 t' a ' o% M1ryy: Ma... 4x10 pprll K�aZ 6L�V�,71o1� td• n�rvar�l ' • ,assocKFES pbnres dzsigners w I jai I } GK:I2 Pi1aF —,- I I _ � I , `o I KooF °LatJ St�Lu �fj• =�'�n -��' �LEVOTI ofJ 6a om¢7 h T FIREPLFlC_E .g99.s LC' • 1- �' 2 19. "f'Irc FIRST FLIZ. c Ilo2 �. SE�onro ♦'LR. = gqr� q a;•a � � � - GARAGE -_. —_ Q20 ib -rITAL 24116 4 . F- 7. • PAD F.F. �co.% \ \ RREPLAcf E �uu -OCR lW 26 '�'�•`% I FAR 6,gvl � LOT e� 6t�rrK l aP "�eF10E0 - T.S,gyq.�y \ MAP vF �'�T� P4P.� 1!x(5" t2ELOeaF.v 1� \ VpL IIO'I oil rNPS� PAll 'gyp/ 6- to GV.RA GoU*Tf P-60ICf7Lj . Zl.NEp � IOi000 4 99.1 FLOT PLAN N n_ �2G'PpjED "FtE51DL�.vGE c T"' MR- �MtZS, PRoTivp 5c .o SATZAToG/l �. GA L %F, -� won 8%'p.f -• 6YT. Q' \Nt -E' ✓... f t=vGl; of fOAVFiVIfi/�l - I —� ......_�_ (W. S/22/8^5 u6c �t� ON Laf. MONARCH,: /��o ASSOCIATES 1 INC. �h �01 FIREPLFlC_E .g99.s LC' • 1- �' 2 19. "f'Irc FIRST FLIZ. c Ilo2 �. SE�onro ♦'LR. = gqr� q a;•a � � � - GARAGE -_. —_ Q20 ib -rITAL 24116 4 . F- 7. • PAD F.F. �co.% \ \ RREPLAcf E �uu -OCR lW 26 '�'�•`% I FAR 6,gvl � LOT e� 6t�rrK l aP "�eF10E0 - T.S,gyq.�y \ MAP vF �'�T� P4P.� 1!x(5" t2ELOeaF.v 1� \ VpL IIO'I oil rNPS� PAll 'gyp/ 6- to GV.RA GoU*Tf P-60ICf7Lj . Zl.NEp � IOi000 4 99.1 FLOT PLAN N n_ �2G'PpjED "FtE51DL�.vGE c T"' MR- �MtZS, PRoTivp 5c .o SATZAToG/l �. GA L %F, -� won 8%'p.f -• 6YT. Q' \Nt -E' ✓... f t=vGl; of fOAVFiVIfi/�l - I —� ......_�_ (W. S/22/8^5 u6c �t� ON Laf. MONARCH,: /��o ASSOCIATES 1 INC. �h �01 SIP,�i N�w�cwt.Y plc, L"J ITV IZJ y.. ;mix Go, 9sll� taoe) ::G :3�rr 1 OF3 v Or MASTBD.RM BA 8 DRM 12 -a' x n- O IOt O 12 =4• lJ -p+•- BED.RM. 3 I 13 =4J(I I -0" td'� • n�lvar�- AS�:.1.4TES hVC. ti plprr�¢rs C329OnQis FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT.1102 2 « 3 I I -��- -I�z LiwG .F c.�UTft IV IG ♦owl 1 L_ FA DINING. RM. 12= a ["1V0J1A 22=4" 14'-O"x 13'4" 11 LIVING RM U g l r- � L--�• / I 1 BnLCOi /Y I 38'-0" WI D�- GARAGE 19'=4x o a' I 50'-CC D E E P I I TOTAL SQ. FT 1998 td'� • n�lvar�- AS�:.1.4TES hVC. ti plprr�¢rs C329OnQis FIRST FLOOR SQ.FT.1102 2 « 3 ax 10 tj" 1�1 6,5 TRIM .fir TT' 11-V - EB LLLLLij K oor FLA 5'(Jcco car �. u ® I 4 ® L,7 *6 -rr4il 130 OR I'N I I ASSOCWTES dam s CITY OF'SARATOGA AGENDA BILL N0. OS q Dept. Hd, ' DATE: 5/24/85 (6/5/85) C. Atty. .�_ DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. M A -1087, UP -578 Paul Heath - 14311 Quito Road S��: Appeal by Mr. and Mrs. John ,Pope of Planning Commission decision, to grant Design Review Approval to exceed the •6200.,', sq..:ft:.. standard. and Use Permit Approval to permit construction of single -story accessory structure.in rear yard. Issue Summary The applicant requested a Use Permit to allow construction of a 880 sq. ft. storage building in the rear yard, 15 ft. from the•rear and right property lines. Design Review was also required as-.the total gross floor area of structures on site presently exceeds- the '6200 sq...-ft. standard; One issue f of the application is that the structure"s foundation was laid and the framing was erected without building permits. The appellants, Mr. & Mrs. Pope,,are concerned about the proximity of'the proposed storage - building to their pro- perty line and about the number of structures on site, the total area of which -• exceeds the Design Review standard for gross floor area. Recommendation 1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny Design Review A -1087 and Use Permit UP-578, making the necessary findings. 2. Staff recommended approval of both of the applications.with certain con - ditions. Fiscal impacts N /A. Exhibits /Attache -tints 1. Appeal letter dated 5/3/85 2. Staff Reports for A -1087, UP -578 3. Resolution No. A- 1087 -1 and UP- 578 -1 j 4. Minutes dated 4/24/85 5. Exhibits "B", "C" 6. Correspondence from applicant dated 5/20/85 T. Other 'correspondence Council Action 6/5: 1 Denied appeal 2 -1. J RECEIVED MAY 0 3 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: John N. and Patricia B. Pope Address: 14356 Evans Lane Telephone: 866 -6560 Name of Applicant: Paul Heath Project File No.: UP -578; A -1087 Project Address: 14311 Quito Road, Saratoga Date Received:J24� Hearing Date: Fee CITY USE ONLY Project Description: Use Permit Approval to allow construction of a one -story storage building within 15 feet of the rear & side property lines and Desi—gn---R-eview Approval to exceed the 6200 sq.ft. gross floor area standard at 14311 Quito Road. Decision Being Appealed: Both of above. - i Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): - -See attached letter - r, X. Appellant's Sign•ture *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 'I HF pF('TSTnN _ RECEIVED MAY 0 3 1985 MRS. JOHN POPE, JR. 14888 EVANS LANE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 May 3, 1985 City Council City of Saratoga 13777'Frutvale' Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear members of the City Council: Under article 16 of the city code governing accessory structures in rear yard (Sec. 3.7.1 (b) (1) it specifically recites that a use permit be obtained for any accessory structure over six feet in height. Further, Sec. 3.7 - maximum coverage and minimum yards emphasizes that the maximum coverage under District R -1 40,000 sq.ft. shall be 35% coverage including all structures ;and that, furthermore, the multi -story rear yard standard set back requirement is 60 ft., ~ i-..'1. o. The site consists of approximately 1.6 acres, having a square footage of approximately 69,696. It contains a large home, and large guest home, both being multi- storied. Mr. Heath began construction of this third."building on his property by pouring the concrete slab and erecting the framing of the new building prior to getting a building or use permit. He is much too close to our rear property line, and also that of the side yard set back requirements presently outlined in the city code. Neither my neighbor nor I were notified that the Planning Commission were going to visit the site; it was posted in the city office, but not in the Saratoga News, nor by mail to us, even though both of us have been in close contact with the city offices. To make a correct evaluation of the impact of these three structures on our properties, it would be important to view them from our areas, so that you could understand our concern. I would be happy to make any arrangements to see that such a visit is convenient for you; my home telephone # is 866 -6560; my office # is 996 -1100. S e ely, Patricia B Po e P 0 0 33F3 FF':� I F g, Q1 §&M& � O bF €+ L0R50 �. u?[�. w %ad:..uy�x�xa9w€FP.,S 3, &OridFdrlooFf�iS��.��F�% REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Saratoga APPROVED Y: F PATEz dMIi S: *Revised: 4/24/85 DATE: 4 -18 -85 COMMISSION MEETING: 4 -24 -85 APN: 397 -05 -82 ' APPLICANT: Paul Heath PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Heath APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -578, A -1087, 14311 Quito Road ACTION REQUESTED: Use Permit Approval to permit construction of accessory structure within 15 ft. of the side and rear property line and Design Review Approval to exceed the gross floor area standard of 6,200 sq. ft. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits Required ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt ZONING: R- 1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density Single Family EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 1.6 Acres NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The lot itself is presently landscaped. The home to the rear of the subject parcel sits on a hill which overlooks the applicants rear yard. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: < 10% AVERAGE BUILDING SITE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: None required I'] Report to the Planning Commission UP --578, A- 1087, 14311 Quito Road EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: N/A Left Side: N/A r] L 4/18/85 Page 2 Rear: 15 Ft. Right Side: 15 ft. HEIGHT: 13 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 10.8% SIZE OF STRUCTURES: Main Dwelling: 5366 sq. ft. Guest House: 1232 sq. ft. Proposed Accessory Structure: 880 so. ft. TOTAL: 7478 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the total gross floor area exceeds the Design Review standard of 6200 sq. ft. MATERIALS & COLORS FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Off- white, resawn plywood with brown trim and medium cedar shake roof. 2 Report to the Planning Commission UP -578, A -1087, 14311 Quito Road USE PERMIT. UP -578 4/18/85 Page 3 The location of the accessory structure does not appear to impact any adjoining neighbors. The residence on the property to the rear is located on a small hill some distance from the proposed structure. The storage building will be visible from the neighbors's home, as is much of the applicant's rear yard, but the building will be somewhat screened when the applicants landscaping matures. To the right, the neighbor's corral area abuts the applicant's property. Staff has no real concerns about the location of the structure. However, the building was partially completed without the applicant first obtaining a building permit. Staff will recommend that the structure be brought up to code and that the applicant pay double fees for the Building Permit. In addition to the use permit application, the applicant must also receive Design Review approval. This is because that total gross floor area of the structures on site excceds the 6,200 sq. ft, standard. In 1981, the applicant received Design Review Approval for his two -story guest house. At this time, the gross floor area standard was not a part of the Design Review Ordinance, therefore, this issue was not addressed. FINDINGS: 1. Accordance with Zoning Ordinance 'The location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that the accessory structure does not impact the light, air or privacy of surrounding properties. 2. Public Health. Safety and Welfare: The location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it is operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public halth, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Comolinace with Ordinance Provisions: The proposed conditional use complies with the provisions of the ordinance in that through the use permit process, an accessory structure may be located within the required rear, yard. In addition, the applicant will be required to obtain Design Review Approval because the total gross floor area of the structures on site exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. design review standard. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval per Staff Report dated 4/18/85 and exhibits "B and C" with the following conditions: 1. The temporary metal storage shed on site shall be removed or must be relocated to meet setback requirements. 3 Report to the Planning Commission 4/18/85 UP -578, A -1087, 14311 Quito Road Page 4 2. The accessory structure shall meet all Uniform Building Code requirements. 3. The applicant shall pay double fees for Building Permits on the accessory structure. 4. Design Review Approval is required to exceed the 6200 sq. ft. gross floor area standard. S. All conditions of the Design Review shall be met. * 6. Landscaping shall be installed along the northern and western property lines to provide screening to adjacent properties. Landscaping along the northern property line shall extend to the eastern edge of the guest house; landscaping along the western property line shall extend 50 ft. south of the southern edge of the guest house. 4 0 0 Report to the Planning Commission 4- 18 -85 UP -578, A -1087 Page 5 DESIGN REVIEW The addition of the accessory structure will not impact the light, air or privacy of surrounding properties. The area of the parcel exceeds the minimum lot size required in this zoning district by approximately 31,000 sq. ft. With the large area of the lot, the bulk of the structure on site is minimized. 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 accessory structure is one -story and isolated at a lower elevation than surrounding residences. The main dwelling and guest house are existing structures. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the accessory structure will be used as a storage area. In addition, this structure is one -story and windows will face in one direction, towards the applicant's property. 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 no grading is required. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk: The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that despite the increase in the amount of gross floor area. The lot is very large which serves to minimize the appearance of bulk: of the structures. 4. Compatible Bulk. and Height: The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 feet and in the same zoning district in that the main dwelling is of comparable size and height as that of surrounding structures. the guest house and storage building are located in the rear, not visible from the road. S. Grading and Erosion Control Standards: No grading is proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 4/18/85 and Exhibits "B & C ", subject to the following conditions: 5 Report to the Planning Commission 4/18/85 UP- --578 , A-1087 Page 6 1. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations shall require Planning Division review and approval. 2. Use Permit Approval is required to place the accessory structure in the required rear yard. 3. All conditions of the Use Permit Approval shall be met. APPROVED _ DL /bjc P.C. Agenda 4/24/85 APPROVED: C Diana'Lewi Planner r 'a 0 0,11■■ n v ;mm .mm imm V Ian � 11137 ll NEB LE fA air►. DESIGN REVIEW r RESOLUTION NO.A- 1087 -1 s CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE NO.- A 7-1087 WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval •. to exceed the 6200 sq. ft. floor area standard at 14311 Quito Road and WHEREAS, the applicant (has) RN moU) 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 Paul Heath for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (&eC -keid) subject to the following conditions: Per the amended Staff Report dated April 18, 1985 and Exhibits B and C. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of April , 19 85 by _the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, McGoldrick and Peterson NOES: Commissioners B. Harris and J. Harris ABSENT:Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfried ATTEST: .S. SAool� S cre ry, Planning Commission USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. UP -578 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE NO: UP -578 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the application of PAUL HEATH for a Use Permit for a one- story storage building within 15 ft of the rear and side property lines at 14311 Quito Road and WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (hXAxK6tJ met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the Use Permit be, and the same is here- by (granted) (cK i) subject to the following conditions: Per the amended Staff Report dated April 18, 1985 and Exhibits 'B and C. DE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted) (Y?F�?bXriiiZCX�{��XXX��X 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 24th day of April , 19 85 , by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, McGoldrick and Peterson NOES: Commissioners B. Harris and J. Harris ADSENT: Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfried AT'T'EST': rmaa, Planning Commission Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A -1079 Richard Haro, the designer, addressed the 98 sq. ft. over the standard and asked that it be allowed. He discussed the calculation of this area, stating that they had a high ceiling area which allows for a loft to look into the living room below. He added that it is not actually floor area and to reduce it would drasticallly hurt the design. He, commented that if the square footage is reduced from the back it will not reduce the.bulk.in any way. Bob Drew, Braemar Drive, spoke in support of the project, stating that he feels the plans would blend well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -1079, Maureen and 'Pat Wright, per the Staff Report dated April 12, 1985 and Exhibits B, C and D, allowing the addition to be 3600 sq. ft. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on Item #4, SDR -1512, Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District. Staff explained the request. The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m. Donald Miner, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue, requested that a barrier similar to that along the roadway into the property be put up between the proposed subdivision and his property. He clarified that he meant a concrete barrier, rather than landscaping, because of his dogs. The City Attorney stated that if the school district wishes to do that as a matter of good neighborliness that would be fine; however, State law would prohibit the City from imposing a new condition as part of an extension of a tentative map. Staff suggested that any agreement of that type be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the applicant, commented that they intend to.put normal fencing in that area. The City Attorney indicated that the Planning Commission would have an opportunity at the time of design review to impose a condition.. Mr. Heiss indicated that they would be coming in soon for design review of the soundwall along River Ranch Circle. Mr. Miner was asked to file a request for special notice of that hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the request for extension for SDR -1512, Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District, per the Staff Memorandum dated April 10, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on Item #5, UP -578 and A -1 87, Pal McGoldrick noted the letters regarding t licati She gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing,the site. S e noted that the garage /guest house is quite low; therefore, she did not have the concerns for privacy or interference that she might have had if she had just looked at. maps'. She added that she does not see how it would affect the Bolin property, even if it were subdivided, since it is higher and is off to the side. She commented on the beautiful landscaping in the back of the applicant's property. Commissioner Harris added that the fence along the back line did appear to be directly in line with the surveying stake at the edge of the applicant's property, which was an issue in one of the letters received. Staff indicated that they were able to make the findings and recommended approval of the application. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. John Pope, 14356 Evans Lane, spoke in opposition to the application. He commented that he felt the structure could be moved back 30 ft. to 2 �Y • r. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A -1079 Richard Haro, the designer, addressed the 98 sq. ft. over the standard and asked that it be allowed. He discussed the calculation of this area, stating that they had a high ceiling area which allows for a loft to look into the living room below. He added that it is not actually floor area and to reduce it would drasticallly hurt the design. He, commented that if the square footage is reduced from the back it will not reduce the.bulk.in any way. Bob Drew, Braemar Drive, spoke in support of the project, stating that he feels the plans would blend well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -1079, Maureen and 'Pat Wright, per the Staff Report dated April 12, 1985 and Exhibits B, C and D, allowing the addition to be 3600 sq. ft. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on Item #4, SDR -1512, Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District. Staff explained the request. The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m. Donald Miner, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue, requested that a barrier similar to that along the roadway into the property be put up between the proposed subdivision and his property. He clarified that he meant a concrete barrier, rather than landscaping, because of his dogs. The City Attorney stated that if the school district wishes to do that as a matter of good neighborliness that would be fine; however, State law would prohibit the City from imposing a new condition as part of an extension of a tentative map. Staff suggested that any agreement of that type be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the applicant, commented that they intend to.put normal fencing in that area. The City Attorney indicated that the Planning Commission would have an opportunity at the time of design review to impose a condition.. Mr. Heiss indicated that they would be coming in soon for design review of the soundwall along River Ranch Circle. Mr. Miner was asked to file a request for special notice of that hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the request for extension for SDR -1512, Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District, per the Staff Memorandum dated April 10, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on Item #5, UP -578 and A -1 87, Pal McGoldrick noted the letters regarding t licati She gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing,the site. S e noted that the garage /guest house is quite low; therefore, she did not have the concerns for privacy or interference that she might have had if she had just looked at. maps'. She added that she does not see how it would affect the Bolin property, even if it were subdivided, since it is higher and is off to the side. She commented on the beautiful landscaping in the back of the applicant's property. Commissioner Harris added that the fence along the back line did appear to be directly in line with the surveying stake at the edge of the applicant's property, which was an issue in one of the letters received. Staff indicated that they were able to make the findings and recommended approval of the application. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. John Pope, 14356 Evans Lane, spoke in opposition to the application. He commented that he felt the structure could be moved back 30 ft. to 2 � s Planning Commission Page Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 UP -578 and A -1087 mitigate the impact on their property. Anita Bolin submitted a map showing the area, noting that she owns three building lots adjacent to this property. She also submitted pictures showing how the property has not been kept up. She commented that if the commissioners had gone onto her property and looked down, they would have seen the refuse there. She expressed concern over the appearance of Mr. Heath's site because of the fact that she is subdividing and selling two lots and will build a retirement home on the third lot. She discussed the debris on Mr. Heath's property. She clarified to Commissioner McGoldrick that one would have to look down on Mr. Heath's property from her parents' home to see all of the debris on the site. Commissioners McGoldrick and Burger commented that they did•not see much of the debris shown on the pictures when they made their on -site visit. Ms. Christensen, 18510 Sobey Road, commented that the debris has been there for over a year and is still there. Pa't "Pope, 14356 Evans Lane, stated that she would like to make arrangements to show the Planning Commission Mr. Heath's site from her home, since she was unaware of the previous visit. She expressed concern about the debris. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she was concerned about 7500 sq. ft. of building on a 1 -1/2 acre, and Mrs. Pope clarified that she has visibility of all three of the buildings from her home. Mrs.. Pope indicated that they feel the storage shed is a real danger because of security. Mr. Heath, the applicant, explained the application. He indicated that he did have lumber on the site and was trying to build the storage shed to respond to the criticism from the neighbors and resolve the issue. He described the location of the storage shed and the plans for landscaping. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the poublic hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she is very uncomfortable with neighborhood disputes. She stated that she would like to add a condition to the Staff Report, requiring trees around the accessory structure and around the perimeter where the huge piles of wood are. She added that she feels tall trees would protect the neighbors'view of the site and would cover the safety aspect. Commissioner.Burger asked if a condition could be added, saying that all debris, machinery, etc. be stored within the accessory structure by a date certain. Staff noted that there would be an enforcement problem with such a condition and recommended that such a condition not be placed. Commissioner J. Harris indicated again her concern regarding the 7500 sq. ft. of structure on this site, especially considering that two of the structures are large two -story houses. She added that if she felt that all of the debris would disappear because of the accessory structure, it might be a nice compromise. However, there is no guarantee of that. Commissioner B. Harris agreed with those comments. Commissioner Peterson noted that the Commission has recently been approving some large garages because it is a storage area for cars, and he is feeling the same analogy here. He commented that all of the neighbors who are opposed are all looking down on the site; therefore, he does not know what is gained by moving it back'. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would be happy to take this matter to a study session or make another visit to the site if she felt it would make a difference. However, even if there are large amounts of debris there, she does not think it is within the province of the Commission to discuss it on this application. She moved to approve UP- 578 and A -1087, Paul Heath, per the Staff Report with an additional f 3 - 9 WW!__ Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 j V -689 and A -1081 condition on the design review requiring landscaping around the structure and the perimeter of the property, with Staff review and approval. Discussion followed on clarification of the location of the landscaping. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners B. Harris and J. Harris dissenting. The appeal period was noted. Discussion followed on Items 47a and 7b, V -689 and A -1081, Jonathan Roeloffs. Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that it is not very visible from Sobey. She stated that she does not feel there is any problem with the setback and feels that landscaping would mitigate any privacy problems. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Dr. Lund, 14720 Sobey Road, spoke in opposition to the project, stating that the guest house now impacts his privacy, and the new home will destroy all privacy. He also expressed concern about the drainage. He noted that Mr. Thompkins, who lives south of him, agrees. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that the Land Use Committee was not concerned with the guest house, so they did not look at privacy impacts from the guest house or from the balcony. Therese Feigl, 14710 Sobey, spoke in opposition to the project. She addressed the drainage in the area. Mr. Roeloffs, the applicant, addressed the privacy aspect relative to Dr. Lund's and Ms. Feigl's homes. Regarding the drainage issue, he commented that he had not altered the slope of his land. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested a condition stating that drainage will be subject to Staff review and approval. Discussion followed on the landscaping. Commissioner J. Harris commented that when she was on site she was particularly concerned where the balcony was and the impact on privacy. She added that she cannot say in her own mind that there is not an impact from the main part of the two - story structure that will be built. She indicated that she would like a condition to have Staff "'.. review landscaping in general to mitigate any privacy impacts. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -689 and A -1081, Jonathan Roeloffs, per the Staff Report dated April 15, 1985 and Exhibits -Band C, with the conditions regarding landscaping and drainage previously discussed. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. The appeal period was noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. A -1039 - Sidney Smith, Request for Design Review Approval for a 8b. V -676•- second -story addition to an existing single -story resi- dence, and Variance Approval to maintain an existing 24 ft. rear yard setback where 25 ft. is required for a one -story structure and where 35 ft. is required for a two -story structure in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district at 12599 Titus Avenue ------------------------------------------------------------------- Staff explained that this matter was before the Commission several months ago, and the applicant was instructed to meet with the neighbors in an attempt to mitigate their concerns. They indicated that they had received word today that the neighbors, Mr, and Mrs. Bruning, were withdrawing their objection. - 4 - 0 • • • Paul Heath 14311 Quito Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 May 20, 1985 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 RE: Appeal filed on project file No# UP -578; A -1087 Dear City Council Members, I am writting this response to the grounds for appeal that Patricia Pope outlined in her letter of appeal dated May 3, 1985 to the city of Saratoga. I have received Approval from the Planning Commission for a Use Permit to allow construction of a one -story storage building. I need to have this building to house and store most of my yard and household equipment and misc. items that I have. I have recently had Brawner Pools come out and re- design my pool. Mr Wist (a landscape designer) has also come out to my property and done a fantastic job of re- landscaping my home. As of this date the rear yard, of which Patricia Pope views, has been completed and since been featured in advertising for Brawner Pools, San Jose Mercury's West Magazine (see enclosed May 12,1985 article and pictures) and soon after my whole yard is completed Sunset Magazine will do a story and have pictures of my yard in their magazine. So as you will see it is my intention to have my home be a show place and that is why I need a storage building to place all my misc. equipment and items in. Patricia Pope's home is on a hill behind my home and she is able to look down upon one of the premier landscaping jobs in Saratoga. Why even the ecology of my little valley has changed, bringing in new forms of wild birds and animals for us to enjoy viewing. Below I have responded to Patricia Pope's letter of May 3, 1985. 1. In the first paragraph she sites Sec 3.7.1. (b) (1) , of the Saratoga city codes, and she states that we would be required to get a use permit for our building. ANSWER: We have received an Approval for a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. 4%.L -*.A :hVL- L) MAY 211985 PERMIT REV -All 2. Also in the first paragraph she sites Sec. 3.7 and states that "the multi -story rear yard standard set back requirement is 60 feet ". ANSWER: This storage building is only one 111 story not 2 stories. 3. Her second paragraph states our site is approx. 1.6 acres etc. ANSWER: This paragraph has no relivance to the matter being appealed. Except that my property is almost large enough for 2- 40,000 square foot lots. 4. Her third paragraph states I poured a concrete slab etc. without getting a building permit. ANSWER: Yes this is true as I had work crews out here at the time and they were pouring cement and I called the City of Saratoga offices at that time to get information on the building requirements for such a building and I poured the slab using the information I received in my call to the city and have since applied for and paid fees for a permit and received approval by the Planning commission. 5. Patricia Pope in her third paragraph states our building is too close to her rear property line and also that ofthe side yard set backs. e ANSWER: The planning department came and visited my yard and found absolutely minimal impact by the storage building on any property and therefore approved the use permit. Enclosed please find pictures I have taken from the three (3) corners of my building that face Patricia Pope's home. NOTE that the pictures numbering 1 -3 are from ground level and picture 4 and 5 are from ten (10) feet up. You will notice that Patricia Pope can't even see the proposed building from her home. What Patricia Pope does see of my property from her home is a fantastically beautiful landscaping job. NOTE: After my neighbor and I used Brawner Pools and Dick Wist to build our pools and re- landscape our yards Patricia Pope contacted Brawner Pools to have a pool installed and now is currently having a Brawner Pool installed at her home. The view of my pool and yard from her home must not be that bad if she wants a pool like mine. 6. In her fourth (4) and last paragraph Patricia Pope askes that someone come out and view our property from her home. I would also ask that someone come out to visit Patricia Pope and that they would visit my property so I may answer any questions and show them what I am doing. Thank you for y9dr time any4 consiaeration, Paul Hea • •. S'•' .:�,�� •r' • i•t �i %• •�� „�.' fit,• _ _ ?t. °t i� p,t'� '.•�:' ,`:.' .•}-..l` �i"Y .. '.9••u' ..7J�+.` r }r7.,' •,t ^)' ♦ � �. '. - 1,: i,J! ^.l.. !' ".•! `i`��`y'•.'+y' +� � '.Aar' t.`,L, +,.�,.. «��', ; �, �.t, {jQ�,} �:t a`,;•� , •�..' �.� �,:5:`u+" '`' �pTF ;t•�' �''..�� .4 "' ' r• er!s' _ �:.,:�'..� — �.::,. , .. -• . :: .,;'.• �1�+gF; . �J �! "g` �' `t''; °ems 1: } ;„ S„ a�,�.K �1 ,�:, -r' � 'w+rr \'.�•a' .�'� "•1~ i�, Cam.. i `A"A!•,�.�•• ,1 � 6, Il � +,M .. �i mot• .�rj �.. � w`,�i . A 11 _ R � aY:p .r.. �`•'' `.y- ?y ,� -'�:'. i •-'.'_•'••� A/r nom'• ;_7 _7- y� ��.a •, LN �'%•� ;. Ali '�' •� � \_'..� VJ..}J ` �`.�' J ...,`'•!?'a 'fir -: '.. '.: lip . . . . . . . . . . . . . V v 't, K ? .�tj�t. RS? y', i- ~• �" .(fit ? :. ,i' � . Ape at .`:• :`'':; ='. �...� .� ;. ry, .'•st''�:',ir`:ayc;:: '"':'..':: , -.�'~T •, art, .ar _ 27. .��.'• -� „�^ - .p°^"' ' -' -t,:a q•' gip. � ;a.° iii°P�? �}•: �,., -. .. .•.,� ems..• v�• •.rr: ..,�:,�, a.. � �Yj��' 3 r•� � ,i ��_�� •. .fir a is ✓ •'r _. .x✓,.. ``_:^ `"tiL. %S r�.y:%O . -� - f. i.. ,�-C•� t hr 'a °f,, , i��..Yy�� '�7�[!gyL�y�y IIIII= `��`.-..�`.!f��'�t �,�`� � ,'. .:A yJ �s . ��r^�' 'Aji•� ,. :.�. ,�Iy.�f1' �� {r�T ,_a{•y: �•�� +(� .r I / I /_�_ `-y '_' f - �':1'�ixi'.•r '; :t .F.. '�•4. aY' iii i.� +� . ✓,:� �,. rw V�- �,.•JfC.�'^ _Aiy' %b..,'fTJc. �i'.C� I ` �-bf II I_1 7 ��' AF „(rP ,.�•,�� ".'L'F C;°•u J d. .t�.l;•;, •y/s. `t:.cSn.,,..'�'S c` .a+" ��~ r •r +` i�� qw� a , %. -/r• _ :;:ieat;'•:..,.r r I 3r �,r •�'. '.i�.- . -r'�i, 1: mss. `r.t !. �: . ,/• .� ;.L, +.:a,, ,;" alt' .�`..`� .} � IS �•1 ' �.. >3'��' : a,� , r� o . , -r : $' , . •'•'', , -:. a °� r i A L 1 r ti \` •..f, i �. , �`."•i7•1.. %�• J1 " 4':.y ri, �l -�'_` - ,'t :y .� � • •'ai',: [•,• t1 •,! _ r. r. _•T s ! �1 - . T7 ... :�.2 i4� � �I • \y � ^fin ,.a, • - �i( •�,`"`= r- ds•.-• `f ► 'W. . +. - �, -.J� .. -�''• ( � 1 � yid�/;As� ��`'•�.�Sll" ',•1►.p�.� i R .:� ws'r .� %'i;' `irk' � .....'• :"s:.� vim.:. 'S..��✓'.lti,. '� •- `��,':r' r'S " "S�?`�' -.�i: 1 y _l. - .''.,._..i�: `�w,�'''F `� / L' , {•• �b�jt rr`` ..��.:jd4,"M - - n�- ..f �w�,: - � :::!5C`is�fsrw..?{'V =::r • 4 � ;�:.� r' ✓��) r •I �M1'� - •r l' t {�•� r :�„� �:'� f � y �,r.a ` 4��?�? •;:'• 'lr`' {�s�ti¢� --,.. r: °�.rl\' = ,: :I,! •��, - �'a., `,thy �,,,�; i� "� 1. , ,'�..yy��LGj{ :f: t' .t �..,�A•.; •�sL}yc�;.�J �C•'4., r:•t: _ �� •ti: °� h.;�..' :,,.^an 't'• `}:'T':,• r .11; �i� "S'.Yy'`� � • �' .'lT�.� -,, i.-'y. :"t+ /i •rJ '��. _ _ �r.. .q ..Z; %ti. _ /' ,y ,• - .� •�r��•��tt, �� +��L�T'�Op�Ty.- }F,` .y`.1 •/. r. �.Z.... ,,�d•:�-~ y /. r h -M. r `7r •'i -0r.•. .�„•, ,�.::o ` +:; J.•;�'�:1 •' �tw. •'F A� rf.:. i ••i` -�. '. 1' � ✓+ wr l {{ •'� � ' ,mss•, 'X•'t� ��. ' ."r! . _ :.�a • ��+k:. �•.....' • � 7 .� mod, - �.�.�• .a� ir•' - {. �- t� �} Alm j. ;•f i. -- l.��r';r'1°: rte• - .Q. s� MRS. JOHN POPE, JR. Ra:CjE1 vJeD 14856 EVANS LANE OR 16 1985 SARAT06A, CALIFORNIA 95070 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 14 April 1985 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Attn: Robert S. Shook, Director of Community Development RE: Use permit, 14311 Quito Road, Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Shook: Please be advised that my husband and I are opposing the granting of the use permit to Mr. and Mrs. Heath, 14311 Quito Road, Saratoga, Calif. Their property is directly adjacent and behind ours, and at present is in definite violation of the existing zoning ordinances pertinant to the City of Saratoga on many counts. There are, at present, two homes on the subject property, which I believe would call for an R -2 or duplex zoning. The so- called guest house /office has a kitchen, and is approximately 2500 -2600 sq.ft. Now, Mr. Heath has already begun his so- called storage shed which exceeds not only the height and square footage guides, but is also much too close to our property as well as too close to the Christiansen property. When we put up our cyclone fence six years ago, we constructed it one foot inside our property line, to avoid any neighborhood disputes. Now, it appears that Mr. Heath considers that one foot his. However, he is still too close for comfort, as far as this structure is concerned. Mr. Heath is well aware of the provisions of building under existing city codes. However, he obviously chose to ignore them as the cement slab flooring and framing for this so- called storage shed are already in existence. He.chose not to apply for a use permit or building permit prior to this construction - - -in fact, until he was cited by the building department of the City of Saratoga. I do not feel that such an action merits compassion, and urge you to deny him this use permit. TaSi erely, t� �--- Patricia B. ope MRS. JOHN POPE, JR. 14956 EVANS LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 18 April 1985 Mr. Robert Shook ...Director of Community Development City of Saratoga Saratoga, California RE: UP -578 and A -1087 Dear Mr. Shook: RECEIVEr) APR 18 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Inadvertently, I may have made:a mistake in two areas in my prior letter: (1) I have no proof that Mr. Heath has a kitchen in his guest house - this could only be done by an inspection of the premises and (2) the property next to Mr. Heath's (upon which at present much debris is located) is vested in the name of Mrs. Christiansen's sister, Mrs. Bolin. It is my understanding that she plans to be present at the public hearing. Sineig7e ly, P �tricia/ B: Pope I • � RECEIVED APR 18 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 19, 1985 Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: I am objecting to the granting of a use permit to Mr. Paul Heath of 143111 Quito Road, Saratoga. I am the owner of the acreage immediately adjacent to the North of the Heath property. The building that he is requesting a use permit for is within 15 feet of my side property line. According to Zoning Ordinance No. NS 3.54 of the City of Saratoga he is required to be 60 feet from the property line. He is requesting a use permit approval to allow construction of a building that has already been nearly constructed. The slab floor and the framing for the building have been in existence for many weeks. He did not apply for a use permit or a building permit prior to this construction. ;'Be 880 sq. ft. building for which he is requesting a use permit places him in direct violation of the 6200 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area Standard. The two large buildings presently built on his property exceed this limit already. To allow another building to be placed on this property would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinances and is certainly detrimental to my property. I ask that you deny this Use Permit. Sincerely, a4vk - , gi�� Anita. K. Bolin 11274 Rolling Hills Drive El Cajon, California 92020 Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Shook, RECEIVED APR 18 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 17,1985 I would like to be placed on record as opposing the granting of a Use Permit to Mr. Paul Heath, 143111 Quito Road, Saratoga, California. I own two homes on three acres that look directly down the hill to the Heath property. My property line is within a few feet of the Heath lands. The building that he is requesting a use permit for is in violation,of the 60 foot setback required by ordinance Number N S 3.54. He is within only 15 feet of the Anita Bolin property line and only a few feet from the John and Pat Pope property line. The cement foundation and framing for the building are already in existence and.were built without a building permit and without regard for the required setbacks. The two buildings on his property, consisting of a home and a separate building containing.an office, guest house and. garage, already exceed the 6200 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area Standard for this R.1. District. The 880 sq. ft. building for which he is requesting a Use Permit would put him far in excess of this limitation. The Zoning Ordinances of ttkity of Saratoga .regarding Set Backs and Gross Floor Area Standards should not be revoked in this case. Sincerely, Nona H. Christensen 18510 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 f CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO... 0 6 D DATE: Jc m e 5, 1985 DEPARTMENT:-Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd '' C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing):' Issue Summary At the May 1, 1985 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2227B a Resolution of preliminary approval of Engineer's Report arid- Resolution No. 2227C a Resolution of Intention to order the Levy and collection of assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act 1972. Reso- utiori'No. 2227B also set the time and date for the Public Hearing at June 5, 1985, at 7:00 P.M. Recommendation Utilize the agenda provided by Wilson, Morton, ASSAF and McElligott, for Public Hearing. Upon closing the-Protest Hearing, order improvements and confirm the diagram and assessments. Fiscal Impacts Tho cost for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting cost are charged to the various zones within the District, based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's office will collect the amount through the taxes and, in turn, send to the City. Exhibits /Attachrmnts 1. Resolution No. 2. Engineer's Report (available in City Clerk.'s office) 3. Agenda for Public Hearing 4. Mayor'.s statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is open. 5. Statement of the Clerk of the City. verifying Affidavit of Publication Council Action and Certification of posting Resolution of Intention are on file. 6/5: 1 Adopted REsolution 2227D,'3 -0. 1 265/17A AGENDA CITY OF SARATOGA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 5, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1985 -1986 A. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is open. 2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Posting the Resolution of Intention are on file. 3. Statement of Director of Public Works as to the nature of the Project. 4. Reading of written protests. 5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments. 6. Closing of Public Hearing. B. POSSIBLE.COUNCIL ACTION 1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment. 265/17A OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA JUNE 5, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 This is the time and place set. for hearing on the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1985 -1986 for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District. Notices have been published and posted pursuant to law and the certificates and affidavits of publishing and posting are on file in the office of the City Clerk. These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. This hearing is a hearing on the Engineer's Report prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act. The Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer consists of the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District and any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of cost thereof and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District. Any one of these items may be the subject of protests or endorsements. You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property owned by you so that your statements may be correctly recorded. The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing. R 265/17A CLERK'S STATEMENT JUNE 5, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 Notices have been Landscaping and Lighting Act publishing and posting are Engineer's Report prepared office on May 1, 1985, and that time. published and posted as required by the of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of on file in my office. A copy of the by the City Engineer was filed in my has been open to public inspection since AGENDA BILL NO. ff6 s DATE: June 5, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation) Issue Summary At the May 1, 1985 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2228B, a Resolution of preliminary approval of Engineer's Report and-Resolution No. 2228C, a Resolution of Intention to order the Levy and collection of assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting-Act 1972. Reso- lution No 2228C also set the time and.date for the Public Hearing at June 5, 1985, at 7:00 P.M. Recommendation Utilize the agenda provided by Wilson, Morton, ASSAF and McElligott, for Public Hearing. Upon closing the Protest Hearing, order improvements and confirm the diagram and assessments. Fiscal Impacts The cost for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting cost are charged to the various zones within the District, based on benefit received. The Santa Clara Assessor's office will collect the amount through the taxes.and in turn., send'to..the City. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 2. Engineer's Report (available in City Clerk's Office) 3. Agenda for Public Hearing 4. Mayor's-statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is open. 5. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of Publication and Council Action Certification of posting Resolution of Intention are on 'file. 6/5: 1 Approved'Resolution 2228D, 3 -0. 266/17A AGENDA CITY OF SARATOGA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 5, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1985 -1 A. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is open. 2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing the Resolution of Intention are on file. 3. Statement of Director of Public Works as to the nature of the Project. 4. Reading of written protests. 5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments. 6. Closing of Public Hearing. B. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION 1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District, Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment. •266/17A OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA JUNE 5, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1985 -1 This is the time and place set for hearing on the annexation of territory to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment. Notices have been published and mailed pursuant.to law and the certificates and affidavits of publishing and mailing are on file in the office of the City Clerk. These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. This hearing is a hearing on the Engineer's Report prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act. The Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer consists of the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the territory to be annexed and any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of cost thereof and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the area proposed to be annexed to the District. Any one of'these items may be the subject of protests or endorsements. All written protests to be computed in the protest percentage in relation to the annexation of territory to the District including the Engineer's Report should be filed with the City Clerk at or before the conclusion of this hearing. Protests or endorsements may be made by any person interested, but only written protests filed by property owners of assessable lands in the territory proposed to be annexed may be considered in determining the percentage of protests. You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property owned by you so that your statements may be correctly recorded. The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing. 266/17A CLERK'S STATEMENT JUNE 5, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1985 -1 Notices have been published and mailed as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of publishing and mailing are on file in my office. A copy of the Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed in my office on May. 1, 1985, and has been open to public inspection since that time. CITY OF SARADDGA AGENDA BILL NO. 9&d--., DEPARTMENT: Community Services SUBJECT: GREEN VALLEY CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS Issue Sunuary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Green Valley will have a balanced budget by the next fiscal year without any adjustments in rates required. However, the budget is balanced because of a projected savings this year being,used to subsidize the rates for next year. For Saratoga, the rate issue is more complicated. The Cost Allocation Study completed by Main Hurdman and Associates indicated Saratoga's costs were higher than originally assumed in.the existing cost allocation formula developed by the Rate Review Committee. Saratoga rates would have to be increased by $1.09 per month per household (on the average) if Saratoga were to switch over to the Main Hurdman cost allocation formula all at once next year. Any increase for Green Valley would be additional. The other cities have appeared agreeable to phasing Saratoga in over a three -year period, althpugh no formal commit- ments have been made in that regard. if agreed to by the other cities, switching over to the Main.Hurdznan formula over a three -year period beginning next year would only require a'39-cent increase per month per household with any increase for Green Valley being additional. �. Recommendation Establish a position with regard to the Main Hurdman Allocation of costs formula, the Green Valley budget, and the use of excess revenue for the purpose of furthering the discussions on the subject with the other cities. Fiscal Impacts Both the transfer to the Main Hurdman Cost Allocation formula and adjustments to Green Valley's rates would affect the City's franchise fees, which are based on ten percent of gross revenues. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Report to Council from Community Services Director 2. 'Main Hurdman Cost Allocation Study findings Council Action 6/5: Gave direction on negotiations. O� REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Q) gz�� Rev: 5/29/85 DATE: 5f 24AB5 COUNCIL MEETING: 6/5/85 SUBJECT: Green Valley Allocation of Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- This is the third transmittal to examine issues germane to the negotiations between the Green Valley Disposal Company and the City. The focus of this report will be on the Allocation of Costs Study prepared by Main Hurdman and Associates last fall, and a review of the other issues which have the potential to affect rates in Saratoga. Factors which could cause Rate Increases The Cost Allocation Study is one of many factors which could cause a rate increase in Saratoga. A summary of all factors follows: a. Transfer to the Main Hurdman cost allocation system. b. Action on Green Valley revised budget. C. Distribution of excess revenue from previous years. d. Advanced subsidy of future projected rate increases. e. Landfill expansion. Main Hurdman Cost Allocation Study The Cost Allocation Study was completed last fall at the request of Saratoga with the consent of the other cities. Before the study was performed, Green Valley budgeted costs were allocated to individual cities based on assumptions concerning where the costs were incurred. The purpose of the study was to determine (for the first time) within which jurisdictions the costs were actually incurred. This involved monitoring actual garbage pickups on assigned routes to determine man -hours consumed, allocating the costs of equipment repairs based on the time each piece of equipment is used to serve an individual jurisdiction, allocation of bad debts based on the jurisdiction in which they actually occurred, etc. The findings of the study revealed that Saratoga was responsible for more costs than had originally been assumed in the existing cost allocation formula. When the actual costs are compared to the actual revenues, Saratoga's would require approximately a $1.09 per month adjustment in rates per average household to cover all of its costs. It is important to note that such a rate adjustment would not impact Green Valley's revenues, but rather only the division of costs between cities. A copy of the Cost Allocation Study is attached. Green Valley Budget Green Valley will have a balanced budget for next year without any additional revenue from a rate increase. The Rate Review Committee cut the proposed Green Valley Budget by $73,500. Therefore, assuming Green Valley does not come in over or under budget next year, they would end the year with a $34,723 surplus. The concern the Committee has is over how the budget is balanced; specifically, because the balancing of the budget is not the result of the rate structure, but due to excess revenue generated from this year being carried forward to subsidize next year. Distribution of Excess Revenue It is expected that Green Valley will come in under budget by $221,063 this year as a result of certain costs coming in lower than had been anticipated. This savings will be returned to the cities and can be used to subsidize the rates next year. In addition, Drop Off Box (DOB) revenue was $185,892 higher than had been expected, so that amount can be combined with the savings to provide a total subsidy of $406,955. The problem is that a more substantial rate increase could be required at the end of next year when all the subsidies are used up and the existing rate structure becomes the only revenue source available to pay for the service. Landfill Expansion Although not affecting the rates next year except as identified in the next paragraph of this report, the expansion of the landfill will be a factor impacting rates beginning with the 1986 -87 fiscal year. At that time, an additional 59 cents per month per account charge will start being applied to finance the expansion of the existing landfill. Under the existing contract between Green Valley and the City, dumping costs can exceed the prevailing rates charged in the area by $1.49 per month per household. Their existing rates appear to equal the prevailing rates currently being charged; therefore, it does appear that the company will have the authority to start passing along this increase. The Rate Review Committee plans on taking a closer look at this issue next year after the current rate issues are resolved. 2 Advanced Subsidy of Rates The "worst- case" projections for next year, excluding the allocation of costs issue, indicate that as much as a $1.39 per month rate increase for the average household could be required if no adjustment to rates were made this year. This is based on the following assumptions: a. The 3% shortfall between revenue and costs uses up all the existing subsidies and carries forward into 1986 -87 without any additional subisdy available to address it. b. The cost of living goes up by 5% during 1985 -86, resulting in an additional need to increase revenues for 1986 -87 by 5 %. c. The 6% landfill expansion charge is applied for the first time next year. The sum total of the above three items equals 14 %. If it were the desire of the involved city councils to avoid dealing with a rate increase during an election year, a rate increase for fiscal year 1985 -86 would avoid the necessity of a rate adjustment in fiscal year 1986 -87. One example of doing this would be to increase next fiscal year's rates by an average of $1.39 per month per account, and carry forward all subsidies as a contingency. Such an action would make it nearly a certainty that no rate adjustment would be required next year. However, if Saratoga were required to switch over to the Main Hurdman Cost Allocation formula at the same time, the $1.39 per month per account rate adjustment in Green Valley's rates would translate into $2.48 more per month per household in Saratoga (an average monthly bill would go from $9.95 to $12.43 per month). Alternate Solutions On May 9, 1985, the Green Valley issue was discussed at the Mayors and Managers meeting. Present were the mayors and managers from all of the affected cities and the members of the Rate Review Committee. Of the four cities involved, Campbell and Los Gatos are generating revenues in excess of costs while Saratoga and Monte Sereno do not generate enough revenue to cover their costs, according to the Main Hurdman Cost Allocation Study. While none of the councils represented at the meeting had established a position with regard to any rate increase for Green Valley, the Los Gatos City Council had taken a position with regard to the Cost Allocation Study; that being the issue would have to be addressed in the rates next year (fiscal year 1985- 86). When asked if this meant that Saratoga and Monte Sereno would have to make the entire change over all at once, the response was no - -that the position was the issue would have to be "addressed" in the rates for next year. While the Los Gatos Council had not defined what "addressed" meant in exact terms, there was agreement that switching over from the existing cost allocation formula to the Main Hurdman formula over a three -year period might be a workable compromise. This would mean that the $1.09 per month per household impact would be phased in with an 3 increase of, for example, 39 cents this year, 29 cents next year, and 39 cents the following year. Any cost increase for Green Valley would be additional. For example, a 29 cent increase for Green Valley this year would translate into a 69 cent rate adjustment in Saratoga (combining the phasing in of the new cost allocation formula with an actual rate increase for Green Valley). Other alternative ways of reducing the impact on residential accounts include: a. Increasing commercial rates and Drop Off Box (DOB) rates to a greater extent to offset residential rates. b. Increasing backyard service rates to a greater extent. c. Increasing the hard -to -serve rates to more closely recover the cost of providing the service. d. Developing a deposit system to further reduce bad debts. The current status of the cost allocation issue is being discussed by the councils of the different cities. In mid June, the mayors and managers will again meet to communicate the positions of their respective councils. The group will then attempt to develop their own recommendations concerning how to proceed in the matter. Those recommendations will then be taken back to the involved councils for final action. The landfill expansion issue will be considered by the Rate Review Committee next year. One way of dealing with the issue is to separate costs for waste transport services from waste disposal costs. There are no major cost increases anticipated in the waste transport industry, but the costs of using landfills are expected to rise dramatically in the not too distant future. Listing the items separately on the bill would help focus attention on the landfill crisis and would explain the reason for the cost increases to the public. In addition, the garbage transport part of the bill would actually go down since dumping costs are already a significant part of the existing bill. Summary Green Valley will have a balanced budget by the next fiscal year without any adjustments in rates required. However, the budget is balanced because of a projected savings this year being used to subsidize the rates for next year. For Saratoga, the rate issue is more complicated. The Cost Allocation Study completed by Main Hurdman and Associates indicated Saratoga's costs were higher than had originally been assumed in the existing cost allocation formula developed by the Rate Review Committee. Saratoga rates would have to be increased by $1.09 per month per household (on the average) if Saratoga were to switch over to the Main Hurdman cost allocation formula all at once next year. Any increase for Green Valley would be additional. The other cities have appeared agreeable to phasing Saratoga in over a three year period, although no formal commitments have been made in that regard. If agreed to by the other cities, switching over to the Main Hurdman formula over a three year period beginning next year would only require 39 cent per month per household with any increase for Green Valley being additional. Should the Council have any questions, I would appreciate hearing you prior to the June 5, 1985, Council meeting when this matter will be before you formally. If desired, a representative from Main Hurdman can be present at the Council meeting to discuss the audit and /or the Cost Allocation Study they prepared. Prepared by: Todd f. Argow� Community Services Director twa32 5 { GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. SCHEDULE OF COST ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES Year Ended June 30, 1984 Description CITY Campbe 1 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Saratoga Ca�b�ll Los Gatos Monte Serreno Mountains Mandays - Saratoga San Jose DOB - Total residential Equivalent bins - 24.71% 19.69% 3.14% 33.07% 1.63% 3.38% 73% 2.402 1.232 10.022 N/A 100.002 coamercial 52.25 32.02 .21 10.12 - " Weights - .78 .08 .54 .30 3.64 N/A 100.00 residential (cans) Weights - 24.93 19.84 3.66 33.03 1.60 3.18 .59 1.89 .96 10.32 N/A 100.00 commercial (cu. yd.) Franchise fees 52.12 32.91 .18 9.83 .59 .05 .52 .25 3.50 N/A 100.00 (gross revenue based): Residential 22.56 26.94 44.93 5.57 - Commercial 54.18 34.54 .18 11.10 - - - - - - N/A 100.00 Customers: - - - - N/A 100.00 Residential Commercial 23.92 55.28 24.90 3.43 28.25 28.60 1.35 4.04 .74 2.76 1.03 9.23 N/A 100.00 Customers - .43 9.42 - .95 .14 .61 .38 4.54 N/A 100.00 clean -up Bad debts: - 75.47 4.85 4.58 - 12.25 1.93 - .92 - N/A 100.00 Residential Commercial 18.32 44.38 27.02 1.79 32.53 15.94 4.58 7.51 .13 10.08 "1. 26 13.37 N/A 100.00 - 3.00 - .85 - 3.61 .63 15.00 N/A 100.00 Residential Commercial DOB Administrative Total Franchise fees (gross revenue - , based) Customers- 37.42% 40.97% 21.61% ' 100.00% Bad debts 92.68 75.60 6.41 24.40 .41 100.00 Vehicle parts Garage labor 24.62 44.55 22.83 8.00% 100.00 100.00 Outside repairs 18.49 33.86 39.39 35.91 23.14 19.77 18.98 100.00 Fuel Oil 22.16 42.18 27.34 10.46 8.32 100.00 100.00 Tires 25.26 33.07 51.20 36.37 19.44 4.10 100.00 Truck washing- 57 20.00 28.11 22.86 2.45 100.00 Interest - equipment Taxes and licenses - 53.37 22.20 19.91 4.52 100.00 100.00 equipment Depreciation - equipment 39.94 42.55 15.69 23.85 12.63 31.74 100.00 16.90 11.70 100.00 N/A - Not Applicable See accountants' report. -2-