Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102-Attachment 2: Appeal Appllications and Letters.pdfAppellant Name: Address: Telephan • CITY OF SARATOGA • PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL APPLICATION �, r A I. _ -_ -` Applicant Signature: Date: c. )i6 PAVI,es ❑ Municipal Code Section 2- 05.030 (a) appeals: • No Hearing $100.00 • With Hearing $200.00 ❑ Municipal Code Section 15- 90.010 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Commission $250.00 Municipal Code Section 15- 90.020 appeals (Zoning related); • Appeals from the Planning Commission to the City Council $250.00 EJRequest for a Continuance: • First Request No Charge • 2nd Request $250.00 Date Received: _ ��� �, `� 100 Hearing Date:: �.� &'r' Fee: _ f D Receipt #: U/ 74�: I E C E � V E 0 .11 IN 0 4 2007 CITY OF SARATOOA COMMUNITY pEVELOPMENi 3� 0 0 1 - q - 67 7 f�i�t1n�`n CGmn1, sS,,n� dair j'nz Q� G7ru Zam1A p'yf Af17 nf�lani b�+�_r l ..� s (1ptArful u.. .will if darn R d /A 1n J 0 bqj-Lj)j, MA IV( Jfl'O ky' r-I'VO w I/ I in tkc w1t, �ry-. 11 Add 4 + iii � . 4L. 1N A 0 N Of __ �u Cn r a � w �:1 � )'/I VA JA- OAr ,'�� cti ; � , � �tS�c rru►r - o rip - 14 � J1 ,n r � boo.- d f , A rl e� 7i 1 �e-- Osf I _ CAaJ4- �7 04 b6A 'IX 15 �.b ()b -t Gc A �t ktv 1x' y L If iukrc 5 + tOWARPAIL 1-00 V( CaSsi-o r, 4 A 1 !0 a- , m jpd Jz) Mort flu fic _ or. Chrtn i l_� cap i'ar� r � r )hu� Jjnr�9 fin .rr/At 0 q 2007 crr� C QMUNf t Y DEV L� NF /rI CITY OF SARAT49A Q [ Q PLANNING COMMISSION ��� JUN 0� � �U07 APPEAL APPLICATION CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Appellant Name: Address: Telephone # Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant): Project file number and address: Decision being appealed: �7 1571 0 ;� -1-7 �-/,)q- Grounds for appeal (Letter may be attached): Applicant Signature: ❑ City Code Section 2 -05.0 (a) appeals: • No Hearing • With Hearing r n ! $100.00 $200.00 ❑ City Code Section 15- 90.010 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the $250.00 Planning Commission City Code Section 15- 90.020 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Planning Commission to the City Council $250.00 ❑ City Code Section 13- 20.060 appeals • Appeals from Heritage Preservation Commission to the No Charge Planning Commission. ❑ Request for a Continuance: • First Requests No Charge • 2nd Request $250.00 Date Received: ,-2D1) 41 Hearing Date: Zoe Fee: O� r i Receipt #: leiCi ?AFonw & Procedures\Appeal Application.doc Date:. June 4, 2007 0 • To: Saratoga City Council members and Planning Commission From: Mary Boscoe, resident of 14611 Big Basin Way — D, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Planning Decision of Project # 07 -028 (503 -25 -013) Background: Disregarding the initial concerns of the neighbors of 14639 Big Basin Way after its first presentation to the public, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission approved the above - referenced project on May 23, 2007. Asa long -time resident of Saratoga (over 25 years), we were very puzzled by planning commission's approach and disappointed by Planning Commission's very hasty decision. While we understand the need for mixed -use projects in The Village and desire to maximize the use of one's property, we think the Sloan/Zambetti project is out of character with the scale of neighboring properties and creates issues that would have normally warranted further investigation or clarification. Based upon our attendance and subsequent review of the Video Archive, we would like know how the proposed project complies with prevailing zoning or planning guidelines. We would also like to understand how a project scale of this project was approved without developer contacting or taking into consideration any concerns of neighbors who are impacted the most by the proposed project. In particular, we would like to know how the following items were determined or addressed by the planning commission and staff: • Coverage ratio: How was this determined? It sounds like the coverage ratio is determined "net lot size "; however, when various people discussed the allowable square footage of up to 60% for CH2 zoning, it seems like they were using the gross lot size project for their calculation. As a result, it is unclear how coverage ratios referenced throughout the meeting was specifically determined. Was the coverage ratio referenced in the meeting calculated off the gross parcel size or net parcel size? What is the difference between the net lot size versus the gross lot size when determining coverage ratios? Does the topography of the lot or environmental considerations, such as drainage, required set backs, dedicated open space, or proximity /impact to the natural flow of waterways /riparian rights (creek) have any factor in determining the net lot size? Are coverage ratios of existing uses considered? If these factors have an impact on determining the net lot size, what is the net lot size after accounting for these factors? This was never really addressed or clarified in the meeting. With respect to the building square footage, it is unclear how this was determined. Was the basement included or other storage area considered? Since the carport gives the appearance of the enclosed structure from the neighboring properties, were these parking structures considered part of the square footage? Considering the buildings appear more massive than the current properties to the east, how was the height for each building determined and why do they appear more massive than the existing building or neighboring office building or existing building? Again, this comparison was never specifically addressed. > In. *addition, the story poehowing differences in mass appeare *anginal without proper netting or horizontal beams representing the true size of the proposed project. These story poles were up for very short time before the planning commission meeting and removed almost immediately following the planning commission's approval. We believe the total time the poles were up was less than two weeks. In that regard, we would like to know whether story poles were up the required amount of time to give the community a true sense the scale of the proposed project relative to the surrounding buildings. • Parking: Given demand for parking in Village, how does the subject project comply with parking requirements for more the 4,800 square feet (2,348 square feet or more of commercial space (office and retail space) plus two rental units totaling 2,500 square feet? Since the project appears to have a low number of on -site parking spots and demand for street parking is high, what is this project doing comply with parking requirements and satisfy the increased parking demand created by its proposed higher impact use? Does the project fulfill the parking requirements for the proposed use and zoning? If it does not, what variance, concessions, or restrictions are being made to insure the proposed use legally conforms to the current zoning ordinance and does not add to current parking issues in the underparked Village area? Again, we feel the parking issue was not adequately addressed in the May 23rd meeting. • Studies: Considering the increased square footage of this project, what kind of studies were done to ensure the subject site can support the higher density use? Were there any soil or drainage studies done to determine the impact this project might have on the creek or properties downstream to the east? Does the site require any review by the Army Corps of Engineers, other regulatory bodies or agencies to make sure the area will not be subjected to increased erosion caused the proposed higher impact use? Given the increased residential and commercial use, was any sort of environmental impact study (EIR) completed or soils /erosion study completed for this project? If these studies were done, are they available to the public? • Design Process: It appears there have been several design concepts and uses contemplated by the current Applicant / Property owner since they made their first submission back in January 2006. However, it seems the May 23rd meeting was first time the project went before the planning commission or public. How does a project of this magnitude get approved the first time when developer never seriously approached the neighboring property owners who will be most dramatically impacted by the scale of the project? Why did the planning commission unanimously approve without any serious consideration from the neighbors impacted by this Property when the proposed plans were only presented to the general public at the May 23' meeting? The Planning Commission's decision seemed to support premise that neighborhood input is really unimportant and unnecessary for future projects. Based upon a review of the plans, it appears the height of the subject dwarfs the neighboring properties to the east. It also seems like neighborhood concerns were never a consideration for this project, as most of the neighbors were never contacted regarding the prior plans for this project and all previous uses discussed on the site excluded neighborhood input from the property owners to the east.. Since the height and mass is out of character with neighboring properties, the subject creates a denser, cavernous feeling that reduces natural light, views and the overall ambience that attracted neighboring property owners to the area. Frankly, the planning commission's responses to the neighboring properties were somewhat offensive and ii.sensitive. In one ca-lWhen the concern of a view was ro the neighboring office tenant, a planning commissioner responded by saying "wouldn't an office building be a non- conforming use under the current zoning ". Another commissioner stated that neighboring residence only had "small view of the mountains from their living room and it would only be cut half', as if having a view reduced by 50% was no major concern. We really feel that the planning commission failed to protect the rights or concerns of the current neighbors and we are wondering why the concerns expressed by the neighbors weren't given further consideration at or prior to planning commission meeting. To get a unanimous approval after the first public presentation for a project of this size appears unprecedented and we believe a more sensitive design with more neighborhood input is warranted. Since the May 23`d Planning Commission meeting occurred shortly after the required notices went out neighboring properties and the story poles were only up for a very short period of time, we did not have adequate time to prepare for the planning commission meeting. As a result, we remain confused about how a project of this magnitude was approved so quickly and we still have numerous questions regarding the design, zoning, parking, and environmental impact of this projdect has on the neighborhood. Therefore, we are appealing the Planning Commission's May 23 decision in order to get further clarification regarding the questions raised herein and to see if a less intensive project could be given more consideration by the developer.