Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-City Council Memo with Attachment 1: Resolution.pdf SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: ______ PREPARED BY: _______________________ DEPT HEAD: ______ Dave Anderson Heather Bradley, Contract Planner John Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Application No. 07-028: 14639 Big Basin Way, which was approved by the Planning Commission allowing construction of a mixed-use development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building at the rear of the site and a separate two-story commercial building at the front of the site. APPELLANTS: 1. C. Holly Davies, owner of 14625 Big Basin Way 2. Mary Beach Boscoe owner of 14611-D Big Basin Way APPLICANT: Zambetti Family Trust RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Use Permit and Design Review Approval issued on May 23, 2007. REPORT SUMMARY: The applicant received Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct a mixed-use development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building at the rear of the site and a separate two–story commercial building at the front of the site. Each apartment is a 1,250 square foot two-bedroom unit; the commercial building is 2,348 square feet (with a 974 square foot basement). The maximum building coverage is 28.8% of the site. The maximum height of the buildings is 26 feet. The gross lot gross size is 17,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH-2. Staff met with both Mrs. Davies & Ms. Boscoe, Mrs. Davies tenant, Mr. Martin Fenster, the applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Zambetti, and their architect Mr. Tom Sloan on July 9, 2007 to discuss the concerns of both appellants. The appellants are requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission Use Permit and Design Review Approval granted on May 23, 2007, on the following grounds as summarized by staff: Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 2 From C. Holly Davies’ appeal letter dated June 4th, 2007 1. The approved site plan situates the buildings too close to the development on the appellant’s adjacent property to the east, providing only a ten-foot separation between buildings (five feet of setback from the property line on either side). The appellant contends that the Planning Commission should have given more consideration to the sitting of the structures and should have required that the site plan be flipped so that the buildings were located closer to the property to the west while maintaining the driveway in the current location on the east side, thereby providing a greater separation between the appellant’s building at 14625 Big Basin Way. The appellant is further concerned about the loss of light due to the proximity of the approved buildings and the invasion of privacy. The appellant contends that the proximity of the proposed basement to the existing basement located on the appellant’s property could threaten both structures in the event of an earthquake. 2. The existing driveway location should be maintained. The appellant contends that the Planning Commission should have required the applicant to maintain the driveway in its current location because that is where it has always been. If a wider driveway is necessary the appellant contends that the existing oak tree could be moved or replaced and the existing crosswalk over Big Basin Way could be relocated to a safer location, so as not to intersect with the widened driveway. In addition, the appellant’s tenant, Mr. Martin Fenster stated concerns with the limited number of parking spaces provided by the project and the intensive use of the property at the meeting held with staff on July 9, 2007. The Planning Commissioners did discuss these issues, as reflected in the attached minutes, and determined that the building and driveway location were appropriately sited given that the neighboring property to the west is residential. They determined that widening the existing driveway would require the unnecessary removal of an oak tree valued at $12,500 and relocation of the exiting crosswalk. The Commission further found that the proposal at 28.8 % coverage was well below the allowable building site coverage of 60% for the property. The Commission determined that the architectural style was compatible with the Village and that the Design Review findings could be made, including findings of appropriate mass and bulk. This project was reviewed by the City Geologist and was granted a Geotechnical Clearance. Appropriate construction methods will be used to ensure that the basement does not pose a threat to neighboring properties in the event of an earthquake. From Mary Beach Boscoe’s appeal letter dated June 4th, 2007 1. The project is out of scale with neighboring properties. The appellant contends that the approved project is out of scale and character with other buildings in the neighborhood. 2. The project is too intensive for the site. The appellant contends that the project is too large Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 3 for the site and that the amount of building coverage is too high. 3. The project does not have enough parking. The appellant contends that there was not enough consideration given to the amount of parking that would be needed for the project. 4. The design review process is flawed. The appellant contends that not enough time was given to neighbors to review the plans and that the project was so large in scope that it should not have been approved in one Planning Commission meeting. 5. The project is too tall and will reduce the view from the appellant’s property. The appellant contends that the project will dwarf neighboring buildings to the east and will block or eliminate views from neighboring properties. The Planning Commission did take these concerns into consideration when discussing the project. The Commission determined, that the buildings were compatible with the Village and were of an appropriate bulk and mass compared with neighboring properties. The Commission further determined that the proposal was not too intensive for the site as the site coverage ratio is 28.8% where 60% is allowed. With the adoption last year of the zoning text amendment which relaxed the parking requirements in the Village this project does not have to provide parking. However, the project will provide three spaces including one van-accessible handicapped space. These spaces are intended to serve the dual purpose of providing space to retail customers during the day and residents of the apartments in the evenings. In response to the appellant’s concern with the Design Review process, this project was noticed in conformance with City of Saratoga regulations prior to the May 23rd 2007 meeting. A notice was published in the Saratoga News on May 9th, 2007, mailings were sent to every property owner within 500 feet of the property on May 4th, 2007 and the notice was posted on May 17, 2007. The project height is 26 feet, compatible with other structures on adjacent lots and within the Village. The appellant will loose some of the view of the Saratoga hills that is currently enjoyed from the property. Relevant background documents, including the Staff Report, Planning Commission minutes, and letters from the appellants have been attached for further reference. A resolution denying the appeal has been prepared for Council adoption (see Attachment 1). ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the appeal thereby denying the applicant Use Permit and Design Review Approval. 2. Continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal to address issues and concerns of the appellants. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 4 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet, posted notice, and advertised the notice in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution affirming Planning Commission approval of application 07-028. 2. Appeal applications and letters from appellants dated June 4th, & 5th 2007. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 23, 2007. 4. Excerpt of Minutes from the May 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. 5. Exhibit A. RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENING AN APPEAL; THEREBY AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISIION’S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 07-028 ZAMBETTI FAMILY TRUST; 14639 Big Basin Way WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, following a public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence the City of Saratoga Planning Commission approved a Use Permit and Design Review application (No. 07-028) to construct and operate a mixed-use development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building at the rear of the site and a separate two–story commercial building at the front of the site. The maximum building coverage is 28.8% of the site. The maximum height of the buildings is 26 feet. The gross lot gross size is 17,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH-2; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2007, separate appeals of the Planning Commission decision were filed by C. Holly Davies and Mary Beach Boscoe; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeals at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has considered the appeals and all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby: I. Denies each of the appeals and affirms the Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit Design Review application; and II. Determines that the proposed project including the construction of a mixed use development is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) [New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures] which provides: “A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.” III. Determines that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval and makes the following findings as specified in Municipal Code Section 15-46.040: Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 2 Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Multi-Family and Commercial Design Review findings stated in Municipal Code Section 15-46.040: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The mixed-use development is located in the Village commercial district and is designed to minimize interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties. To the north of the property the neighbors will be separated by over 150 feet of setback and Saratoga Creek which provides a natural buffer, to the south is Big Basin Way and the intersection with Sixth Street, to the east is an attorney’s office and to the west is a two-story townhome development separated by a fence. The setbacks meet the requirements of the City Code. The Project proposes maintaining existing vegetation to help screen the project along the rear adjacent property line. The structures are designed in a similar style and with similar materials as other historic structure in the Village, especially resembling the Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse currently under renovation on Third Street, with horizontal shiplap siding and metal roof. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Any future signage will be required to meet the City sign code requirements and Village Design Guidelines. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent feasible it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The applicant intends to leave most of the vegetation at the rear of the site untouched. At the front of the site the applicant will leave the existing oak trees and will provide flower boxes and shrubs along the east and west property line. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be non- reflective. The proposed colors and materials will blend with the natural landscape and be non-reflective. Further, the use of colors, materials and detailing add interest and articulation to the buildings. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The proposed structures will use metal roofs similar to those found on structures built at the turn of the century when Saratoga was a logging town rather than a residential suburb. The roofs will receive a non-reflective treatment. No mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof. Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 3 (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project will be compatible with other developments in the Village. The area is mostly comprised of two-story structures of approximately the same height and bulk. While the architectural styles in the area vary, this proposal will be compatible. It will provide a good transition from the eastern end of the Village to the more residential uses at this eastern end. An attorney’s office is located in an old home to the east of the subject property. The property to the west is developed with townhomes of similar height, bulk and a contemporary craftsman design. Sixth Street makes a T intersection directly in front of this property. The properties across the street are developed to the west with a large condominium complex and to the east with an architect’s office in an historic residence. Accordingly, the proposed project is compatible in height, bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area. IV. The proposed project supports the findings for Conditional Use Permit approval subject to City Code 15-55.070: (a) That the proposed 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a mixed-use development may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CH-2). The Zoning Ordinance states that the purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located include: “Preservation and enhancement of the small-scale pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners”; “Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village”; and “Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences.” The proposed development will preserve and enhance the pedestrian environment by maintaining the oak trees at the front of the site and adding a seating area around them, making the area inviting to shoppers. The architectural style of the buildings is also in keeping with Saratoga’s history and the mix of retail office and residential uses on this site provides a good transition from the more retail east end of the Village to the more residential west end. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable building codes. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. Any Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 4 intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use permit. (d) The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development will attract customers from the Village and may bring additional customers for other businesses in the vicinity. Additionally the residential use at the rear will provide potential customers to businesses throughout the Village. Although there are residential uses located to the west and across the street the impact should be minimal as the applicant is proposing parking spaces on site, which will be used by the residential tenants during non-retail shopping hours. Further, employee access and deliveries will be made through the front door, facing Big Basin Way. V. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07-028 for Use Permit and Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL – None CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on “Exhibit A” (incorporated by reference, date stamped May 8th, 2007) and in compliance with the conditions state in this Resolution. Any proposed changes-including but not limited to façade design and materials – to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials Board date stamped May 14, 2007. The metal roof shall receive a non-reflective treatment. 4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Reports (see Arborist item below), as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 5. Two final sets of landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director and the City Arborist incorporating all recommendations from the Arborist’s reports dated May 8, 2007, August 22, 2006, and May 9, 2006 prior to issuance of a building permit. Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 5 6. The applicant shall obtain access rights to the pedestrian access easement at 14645 Big Basin Way to the satisfaction of the City Attorney or shall provide a pedestrian access easement on said property to access the open space easement prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The applicant shall submit a final public open space plan indicating the location of the open space easement, access thereto, connection to any adjoining Creekside open space easements and signage to the satisfaction of the City and a landscape and maintenance agreement for said easements prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 9. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 10. The applicant/owner shall save and reuse hardware and windows as practical for the new construction subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 11. All fireplaces shall be gas-fired with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. 12. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans.” 13. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices. 14. Post construction water quality mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with measures found in the “Start at the Source – Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection” prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. 15. Site drainage shall be directed toward the front of the property, if possible, or be dispersed across landscape or vegetated area and not allowed to discharge as concentrated flow to Saratoga Creek. 16. The design of the dissipater and storm water detention pipe as shown on sheet C-1 shall follow the guidelines found in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s C.3 Stormwater Handbook. 17. The applicant shall submit details of the proposed trash enclosure for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 6 18. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit to and obtain approval from the Community Development Department for a business license. ARBORIST 1. All recommendations of the Arborist Reports dated May 8, 2007, August 22, 2006, and May 9, 2006, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism as approved by the Community Development Director, in the amount of $65,130.00. PUBLIC WORKS 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical design aspects of the detailed site development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading and design parameters for the proposed construction) to ensure that the geotechnical recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review(s) shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively “City”) from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City’s processing and/or approval of the subject application. VI. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. VII. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga. State of California, the 18th day of July 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________________ Aileen Kao, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 8 or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. __________________________________ _________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way 9