Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6 - -applicant Presentation SlidesSaratoga City Council Hearing 21794 Heber Way Request for Variance and Design Approval September 2, 2015 Project applicants: Steven & Rounda Sheng Project legal counsel: Bradley M. Matteoni of Matteoni, O'Laughlin & Hechtman Project architect: Eric Keng Project geologists: William Cotton and Tim J. Manzagol C.E.G. Our variance requests Front Side (facing the Lin's home) Side (facing a vacant lot) Requesting a 99ft setback (versus 131ft currently required) Requesting a 35ft setback (versus 45ft currently required) Requesting a 22ft setback (versus 45ft currently required) 3 Our home- without the variance grants 'ROVnE E,C,A,CTI, -"PT A... BDG SETBACKS ARE PER LOT AREA R,SCENC, .25E, Art, SLOPE 4 Special circumstances No special privilege Why we qualify for a variance No detriment to public health, safety or welfare; not materially injurious to neighboring properties or improvements Easements cover 90% of our land Setbacks would severely limit our ability to build a home Resulting home would not fit with the characteristics of the neighborhood • Asking to build a home that is smaller than most in neighborhood with a beautiful design that keeps with the neighborhood's character and is in conformance with neighborhood setbacks. Conclusive geo-technical clearance obtained Minimized grading Additional drainage makes property safer Built so as to avoid intruding on neighbors' privacy • Meets code requirements • House designed for our family members - highlighting our confidence in its safety 5 Putting our variance request into context Comparison of existing homes on Heber Way- from smallest to largest Lot size (acres) House size (sq ft) 21781 Heber Way 1.2 3,683 21780 Heber Way 1.1 4,498 21770 Heber Way 1.4 5,271 21771 Heber Way 1.2 5,615 21760 Heber Way 1.4 5,615 Lin's home 1.6 6,190 21791 Heber Way 6.6 6,297 6 Putting our variance request into context (cont.) Comparison of homes on Heber Way- from smallest to largest Lot size House size (acres) (sq ft) Our home (without variances) 6.1 around 2,000 21781 Heber Way 1.2 3,683 21780 Heber Way 1.1 4,498 21770 Heber Way 1.4 5,271 21771 Heber Way 1.2 5,615 21760 Heber Way 1.4 5,615 Lin's home 1.6 6,190 21791 Heber Way 6.6 6,297 7 Putting our variance request into context (cont1) Comparison of homes on Heber Way- from smallest to largest Lot size (acres) House size (sq ft) 21781 Heber Way 1.2 3,683 21780 Heber Way 1.1 4,498 Our home (with variances) 6.1 4,989 21770 Heber Way 1.4 5,271 21771 Heber Way 1.2 5,615 21760 Heber Way 1.4 5,615 Lin's home 1.6 6,190 21791 Heber Way 6.6 6,297 8 a Our requested setbacks are in line with others in the neighborhood Side setbacks- from smallest to largest 21781 Heber Way 20ft (right) 21771 Heber Way 20ft (right) 1 Our home 22ft oto vacant lot) 21771 Heber Way 24ft (left) 21780 Heber Way 24ft (left) 21780 Heber Way 25ft (right) Lin's home 25ft (left) Lin's home 30ft (right) Our home 35ft (to Lin's driveway) 21760 Heber Way 45ft (right) 21760 Heber Way 50ft (left) 21770 Heber Way 50ft (right) 21770 Heber Way 50ft (left) 21791 Heber Way 70ft (right) 21781 Heber Way 90ft (left) 21791 Heber Way 213ft (left) 9 Further comparison of house sizes on Heber Lot size of neighboring houses (sq ft) 21791 Heber 6,297 Lin's home 6,190 21771 Heber 5,615 21760 Heber 5,615 21770 Heber 5,271 Our home 4,989 21780 Heber 4,498 21781 Heber 3,683 *Average calculation excludes proposed proportions of our home 10 Lot size (acres) House size (sq ft) Utilization 21791 Heber 6.6 6,297 2.2% Lin's home 1.6 6,190 8.9% 21771 Heber 1.2 5,615 10.9% 21760 Heber 1.4 5,615 9.2% 21770 Heber 1.4 5,271 8.5% Our home 6.1 4,989 1.9% 21780 Heber 1.1 4,498 9.4% 21781 Heber 1.2 3,683 7.0% Average* 2.1 5,310 8.0% *Average calculation excludes proposed proportions of our home 10 And (re-)introducing... our home 11 Design approval — the key criteria Follow natural contours and constraints of the site, and minimize grading Preserve protected trees Structure, location on site, and architectural elements designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to privacy of adjoining properties and community viewsheds • Set on a relatively flat portion of property • Designed to minimize grading • No protected trees being removed Voluntarily agreed to implement special procedures to protect existing trees • Planting additional line of trees • Built to blend in with surroundings • Well set back from other homes and street • Hillside will remain in natural condition 12 Design approval — the key criteria (cont.) Mass and height of structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood Landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood streetscape Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of the adjoining properties to utilize solar energy • House will be significantly smaller than the average for the neighborhood (4,989 sq ft versus 5,310 sq ft) • Designed to minimize bulk • Design in keeping with beauty of the neighborhood and environment • Only hardscape will be front driveway • Remainder will be landscaped with native trees • Well set back from neighboring properties 13 Design approval —the key criteria (cont.) Design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook Location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to the ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15.13.100 (height limitation of 26 feet) • Our design is fully consistent with Saratoga's Residential Design Handbook • Effectively manages mass, minimizes excessive colors, and incorporates roof lines that are in scale with adjacent residences • Home is built outside open space • • easements Less than 26 feet in height No impact on ridgelines, hillside features, or community viewsheds 14 Additional background — some history • We acquired the property in 1990 • We applied to develop the property in March 1991 • Set-back requirements at that time: 30ft (front) x 20ft (side) x 50ft (rear) Rules were substantially more permissive when we initially applied to build our home 15 And subsequent to our initial application... • Geological and setback requirements changed later in 1991 and 1992 respectively (after we submitted our application) o Geo -technical clearance was required • We hired renowned Geological and Environmental expert Tim J. Manzagol R.G., C.E.G. o Extensive work done to ensure geological safety Town Geologist Cotton and Manzagol confirmed in 2001, and reconfirmed in 2015, that geo-technical clearance is approved 16 We've compromised significantly on size... • In 1999 we re -submitted for approval of a 6,483 sq ft home- with a setback of 25ft • Design continuance was granted in 2004- project did not proceed due to illness • Current design review began in February 2011- when we submitted an application for a smaller (5,890 sq ft) home • Based on input from Lin and the Planning Commission - we're back proposing a 4,989 sq ft home- with a 35ft setback Our dream home has "shrunk" by around 1,494 sq ft 17 ... And we've made further design concessions °We're incorporating a split level design to reduce grading- which is more environmentally friendly ®We moved the garage to the front of the house- away from the Lin's house. (However the resulting design means the Lin's garage faces our living and dining room- instead of garage -to - garage) ®We reduced the size of our balcony, and moved it to the back - away from the Lin's house. This results in a Tess optimal view for us, but greater privacy for the Lins ®We reduced our upper level windows- less light for us, but more privacy for the Lins ()We're using higher window openings to provide the Lins with even more privacy to the Lins 18 ... And we've made further design concessions (cont.) ©We moved the second story master bedroom to the back of the house- which is a worse view for us, but provides greater assurances of privacy ()We adjusted the second story so that it is 45ft away from the Lin's driveway- reducing perceived mass ®We changed our roof design- reducing the roof mass by 30% ®We lowered the height of our roof by 14 inches- well below Saratoga's requirement of 26 ft Our design is EXTREMELY sensitive to our neighbors' privacy and environmental concerns, while still incorporating a beautiful aesthetic 19