The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-25-16 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 2016 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2016. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 1. NEW BUSINESS 1.1. Finding of General Plan Consistency - CIP Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding the proposed CIP projects conform to the general plan. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1. Application MOD 16-0004/12850 Saratoga Avenue (386-14-016); Bougachouch/Westhope Presbyterian Church Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 The applicant is requesting to modify an existing approved Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum enrollment of children from 15 to 30 in the preschool facility on the premises of Westhope Presbyterian Church. Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson, Planner II (408) 868-1209 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-010 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.2. Application MOD 16-0001/14103 Saratoga Ave. (397-25-095); Azarchehr/Immanuel Lutheran Church The applicant is requesting to modify an existing approved Conditional Use Permit to increase the approved number of children from 15 to 30 and to modify the hours of operation from 7:30AM to 7:30 PM. This use would take place within the existing church building. Planning Commission review is required because the applicant seeks to modify a previously approved Conditional Use. Staff Contact: Richard Smeaton, AICP, Senior Planner (408) 868-1225 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-12 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.3. Application ABR-15-0048 & PDR-15-0038/18802 Dundee Avenue (389-17-004); Hartman/Kumar The applicant is requesting to demolish the existing house and construct a new 3,197 sq. ft. house. The height of the new house would be 20.75 feet. Two protected trees are proposed for removal. Planning Commission design review is required because the construction proposed contains a new basement and the proposed building is over 18 feet in height. Staff Contact: Richard Smeaton, AICP, Senior Planner (408) 868-1225 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-011 approving the project subject to recommended conditions of approval. 2.4. Application PDR15-0030 Sullivan Way (503-28-138); Leu/Niederman The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new two-story residence on a vacant lot located on Sullivan Way. Planning Commission design review approval is required because the new structure exceeds 18 feet in height and is two-stories. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordoñez, AICP, Community Development Director, (408) 868- 1231 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-014 approving Design Review PDR15-0030 and ARB15- 0068 subject to conditions of approval. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA I, Janet Costa, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on May 19, 2016 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 19th day of May 2016 at Saratoga, California. Janet Costa, Office Specialist III In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes – Page 1 of 2 P:\PLANNING COMMISSION\PC Minutes\2016\04132016.docx SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ACTION MINUTES APRIL 13, 2016 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Leonard Almalech, Vice Chair Dede Smullen, Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Sunil Ahuja, Tina Walia, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Wendy Chang ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Kate Bear, City Arborist APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 2016. FITZSIMMONS/SMULLEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 23, 2016. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, SMULLEN, HLAVA, AHUJA, WALIA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: CHANG. ELECTION OF CHAIR HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO NOMINATE DEDE SMULLEN AS CHAIR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, SMULLEN, HLAVA, AHUJA, WALIA, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE: ABSENT: NONE. ASTAIN: NONE. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR CHANG/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO NOMINATE TINA WALIA AS VICE CHAIR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, SMULLEN, HLAVA, AHUJA, WALIA, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE: ABSENT: NONE. ASTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes – Page 2 of 2 P:\PLANNING COMMISSION\PC Minutes\2016\04132016.docx 1. NEW BUSINESS 1.1. Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Meeting Schedule (note: heard out of order, after Public Hearing) Recommended Action: Commission asked staff to amend calendar to reflect cancelled meeting dates and to note future 2017 calendar should show planned cancellation of 2nd July and 1st August meetings. Cancelled 2016 meetings:  July 27, 2016  August 10, 2016  November 23, 2016  December 28, 2016 2. PUBLIC HEARING Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1. Appeal of staff denial of tree removal permit application APPC16-0001/TRP16-0071; 19500 Brockton Lane (386-31-051); to remove one mature redwood to allow an addition to the house; Min Yeol Lim, applicant/owner. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-009 denying the application to remove the coast redwood. AHUJA/HLAVA MOVED TO UPHOLD APPEAL WITH FINDINGS #4, 6, 9 REVISED. MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, HLAVA, AHUJA, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: WALIA, ALMALECH: ABSENT: NONE. ASTAIN: NONE. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director noted 1) April 27th Joint Meeting of HPC/PC regarding Village Specific Plan Outreach Results Summary; 2) April 28th Boards and Commissioner Dinner. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Fitzsimmons noted upcoming May 1st Rotary Fine Arts Show at West Valley College. ADJOURNMENT Chair Smullen adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted: Janet Costa, Office Specialist III City of Saratoga 6 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date:May 25, 2016 Application:Finding of General Plan Consistency - CIP Location / APN:Citywide Owner / Applicant:City of Saratoga Staff Planner:Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director SUMMARY: Ten new capital projects are proposed for the Fiscal Year 16-17 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). California Government Code Section 65401 states that the local planning agency should report on the conformity of the CIP with the agency’s general plan. Attachment 4 contains a listing of the proposed projects and the specific general plan policy(s) the project is conforms to. Not all projects have a relationship to specific policies. Staff has reviewed the projects and found that they are not in conflict with general plan policies and a conformity finding can be supported. The environmental determination will be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding the proposed CIP projects conform to the general plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Memo from Public Works Director, John Cherbone 2.Resolution 3.Project Summaries 4.Capital Improvement Project List Spreadsheet (Exhibit A) 7 Memo To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: John Cherbone, Public Works Director Date: May 25, 2016 Re: Proposed Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2016/2017 _________________________________________________________________________ I am pleased to transmit to you for your review 10 proposed projects in connection to the Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) update. The role of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the proposed CIP projects are consistent with the General Plan. The 10 new projects for consideration have been reviewed by the City Council. Attached to this memo is a summary of each project and a spreadsheet (Exhibit A) that lists the applicable City General Plan Goal, Policy, and Implementation Measure. For FY 2016-2017 the proposed projects are generally dedicated to upgrading existing infrastructure (maintenance), improving safety, small upgrades to existing buildings, park projects, and transportation planning. If prior to your meeting you have any questions about this information, please feel free to contact me at 868-1241.  Page 1 Public Works Department 8 RESOLUTION NO. 16-013 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT THE NEW FY 16-17 CIP PROJECTS CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, California Government Section 65401 requires the local planning agency to report on the conformity of proposed public works with the adopted general plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the materials submitted by the Public Works Director which include a listing of each capitol project and the corresponding General Plan Goal and Policy, attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby find that the new Capital Improvement Program projects conform to the Goals and Policies of the City of Saratoga General Plan in that the various improvement projects implement the programs and objectives outlined in the various General Plan Elements. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on May 25, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________________ DeDe Smullen Chair, Planning Commission 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Exhibit "A" Capital Improvement Plan F.Y. 16/17 Update - New Project List NEW CIP PROJECTS GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY LAND USE ELEMENT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT NOTES STREET PROJECTS GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Annual Roadway Improvements No General Plan Element Identified 1 Annual Infrastructure Maintenance and Repairs No General Plan Element Identified 2 Damon Lane Retaining Wall No General Plan Element Identified 3 PARK & TRAIL PROJECTS Hakone Gardens Koi Pond Repairs No General Plan Element Identified 4 Quarry Park ADA Access to Upper Terrace Parking Lot & Pond 1, 3, 5 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 1a, 1b, 5a, 5b 1.1, 1.3, 5.5 2.1, 5.12, 5.13 5 El Quito Park "Magical Bridge" Inclusive Park 1, 3, 5 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 6 FACILITY PROJECTS Senior Center Restroom ADA Improvements No General Plan Element Identified 7 Community Center Electrical Panel Upgrade No General Plan Element Identified 8 Facility Building Improvements No General Plan Element Identified 9 ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS Citywide Transportation Needs Assessment 1a, 1b 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 10 30 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 Application: Conditional Use Permit Modification MOD16-0004 Location / APN: 12850 Saratoga Avenue 386-14-016 Owner / Applicant: Westhope Presbyterian Church/Nadia Bougachouch Staff Planner: Nicole Johnson, Planner II 12850 Saratoga Avenue 31 PROJECT DATA: ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PARCEL SIZE Single Family Residential Community Facility (CFS) 3.75 acres (R-1:10,000) BACKGROUND: • July 8, 1963 - A Conditional Use Permit was approved at this site to operate a church with educational buildings. • September 8, 1969 - A Conditional Use Permit was approved to operate day school classes at the site for up to 50 children. The Church designated specific rooms as classrooms and restroom facilities for the use. The time period requested for this use was for only one year and the use therefore ceased. • July 10, 1972 - A Conditional Use Permit was approved to operate a nursery school at the site for up to 30 students. Subsequently this use ceased. • September 25, 2014 - The applicant obtained a business license from the City to operate a small preschool facility at the site with a maximum of eight students. • September 1, 2015 - Applicant filed an application to increase from a small preschool to a large preschool with a maximum of 15 students. On October 14, 2015, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the request. • March 12, 2016 - Applicant filed an application to increase the number of students from 15 to 30. The use already exists, and no changes are proposed to the building. Staff determined this was a minor request and therefore only required a Conditional Use Permit modification application, and did not require a zone change for the site to develop a master plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit for a French Cultural Preschool, to increase the maximum enrollment number of students from 15 to 30. The subject property contains a church (not a part of this application) with accessory uses and the preschool. The preschool currently uses approximately 617 square feet within 10,092 square feet of the church’s floor area. The revised lease agreement allows the preschool to utilize an additional 583 square feet (1,200 square feet total) within the church. There is an existing 800 square foot outdoor play area adjacent to the preschool. As a part of this application, the preschool will be responsible for creating an additional 800 square foot outdoor area adjacent to the expanded lease area (Attachment 3). Staff has included condition #14 (Attachment 1) requiring the applicant to comply with all building standards, including any required bathroom improvements/upgrades with the increased student enrollment. Land uses surrounding the site are Quito Park and Challenger School to the east, residential and religious institution to the south, and residential uses to the west and north. Report to the Planning Commission 12850 Saratoga Ave-file #MOD16-0004 May 25, 2016 Page | 2 32 DISCUSSION: Operations Data and Intensity of Use EXISTING PROPOSED Number of Students Max: 15 per day Max: 30 per day Number of Aides/ Instructors on site at one time Max: 4 Max: 6 Business Hours Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5:30 PM Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5:30 PM Parking: The site contains 111 parking spaces, of which 50 of the spaces are shared between the church and Quito Park (located at the rear of the property). The City of Saratoga has an arrangement with the church in regards to access and parking for the park. The Church allows the public to use 50 of their spaces for the park and provides a gated access to the park. In return, the City maintains the parking lot for the Church. Pursuant to City Code, the required parking for schools is one space for each employee plus additional spaces as determined by the Planning Commission to be adequate for student/visitors. Based on previous parking studies done for the City for school uses, a maximum parking ratio previously used by the city was 0.28 spaces per student. It should be noted that this ratio included students and staff, and was the highest observed parking demand for a similar use and, therefore represents the most conservative approach in analyzing parking requirements. Based on this rate, the proposed 30 student preschool use is estimated to require ten parking spaces. Ten parking spaces have been assigned to this use and there is an overflow of additional parking spaces available on site that the Church is not using during the operation of the preschool based on the Church’s service hours; • Sunday Service: 10 AM • Evening Service Tuesday: 7 PM • Morning Prayer Monday through Thursday: 9 AM • Senior Center Monday: 9 AM to 2 PM Staff has concluded that the existing projected parking demand could be accommodated by the proposed use in conjunction with the Church use. In addition, the parking studies noted have demonstrated that the average parking demand for preschools would be less than two minutes as parents and caregivers will only be briefly parking in order to assist their children to the school. Traffic: Using the ITE Trip Generation rates, it is estimated that the net increase of 15 students and two staff would generate 13.6 additional AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips. The ratio for vehicle trips used by ITE includes employee trips. Report to the Planning Commission 12850 Saratoga Ave-file #MOD16-0004 May 25, 2016 Page | 3 33 CODE REQUIREMENTS: Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit are imposed in order to preserve the public health, safety or welfare. A Conditional Use Permit may be revoked by the Planning Commission upon a determination that the holder of the permit has failed to comply with any condition. Staff believes the applicant’s project has met the burden of proof to support the findings required for approval of a Conditional Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as shown below: Findings for issuance of permit: 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. The facility is a conditionally permitted use in a residential district. One purpose of the residential district is to provide space for community facilities to complement residential areas and for institutions, which require a residential environment. 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. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes and Building and Fire Department requirements. Additional conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with zoning requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use Permit. d) That 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. The use currently exists and there have been no complaints regarding the use. Conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. Report to the Planning Commission 12850 Saratoga Ave-file #MOD16-0004 May 25, 2016 Page | 4 34 NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE: A public notice for the May 25, 2016 Planning Commission public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. To date, staff has not received comments from the public. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consists of increasing the number of students for an existing preschool use within an existing building. The project is Class 3 Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301. Class 3 exemptions include the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-010 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Letter from Applicant and Property Owner dated March 12, 2016 3. Floor Plan Report to the Planning Commission 12850 Saratoga Ave-file #MOD16-0004 May 25, 2016 Page | 5 35 RESOLUTION NO. 16-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MOD16-0004, LOCATED AT 12850 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, on March 12, 2016 the property owner/applicant submitted an application MOD16-0004 requesting modification of a Conditional Use Permit to increase the number of students from 15 to 30 on the premises of Westhope Presbyterian Church; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Class 3 Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301. Class 3 exemptions include the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The proposed project consists of increasing the number of students for an existing daycare/preschool use in an existing building. Section 3: The findings required for issuance of a Use Permit are set forth below. The applicant’s project has met the burden of proof to support the findings required for approval of a Conditional Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as set forth below: Finding #1: The Project meets the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The facility is a conditionally permitted use in a residential district. One purpose of the residential district is to provide space for community facilities to complement residential areas and for institutions, which require a residential environment. Finding #2: The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes and Building and Fire Department requirements. Additional conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. 36 Resolution No. 16-010 Finding #3: The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with zoning requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use Permit. Finding #4: 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. The use currently exists and there have been no complaints regarding the use. Conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. Section 4: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves application MOD16-0004, for the project located at 12850 Saratoga Avenue, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 25th day of MAY 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ DeDe Smullen Chair, Planning Commission 37 Resolution No. 16-010 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 12850 SARATOGA AVENUE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Conditions may be modified by the Planning Commission unless it is expressly otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to section 16- 05.035 as applicable. 2. Any intensification of this use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Examples of intensification of use include, but are not limited to, physical changes to the site or structure of the use to accommodate more employees or students and changes in operations or equipment that result in ongoing increases in traffic, noise, or other physical effects. 3. The Community Development Department shall review the Conditional Use Permit upon receipt of any complaints. Any non-compliance issues identified by the Community Development Department shall be reported to the Planning Commission. 4. The use shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to health, sanitation and safety. 5. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 7. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and 38 Resolution No. 16-010 b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8. Hours of Business Operation. The allowed hours of operation shall be from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. 9. Number of Students. The maximum number of students on site at one time shall not exceed 30. 10. Number of Employees. The maximum number of employees on site at one time shall not exceed six. 11. Exterior Modification. No exterior modifications are proposed. Any change in the exterior may require review and approval by the Community Development Department or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of work. 12. Noise Levels. All noise levels will comply with City Code Article 7-30. 13. Signage. No signage is proposed. Signage shall comply with City Code Article 15-30 and may require review and approval by the Community Development Department. 14. Building Department. The applicant shall comply with all building standards including any tenant improvements necessary to comply with building code (including any required bathroom improvements/upgrades). 15. Fire Agency. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements 40 41 42 43 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date:May 25, 2016 Application:Conditional Use Permit Modification MOD16-0001 Location / APN:14103 Saratoga Avenue 397-725-095 Owner / Applicant:Immanuel Lutheran Church/Farinaz Azarchehr Staff Planner:Richard Smeaton, Senior Planner 14103 Saratoga Avenue 44 PROJECT DATA: ZONING GENERAL P LAN D ESIGNATION PARCEL SIZE Single Family Residential Community Facility (CFS)3.2 acres (R-1:20,000) BACKGROUND: ·1965 – Conditional Use (UP-65) and Design Approval (A-171) granted for Church and related facilities. ·1969 – Design Approval (A-332) Design Approval for classroom addition. ·1972 – Conditional Use Permit (UP210 -1) was approved to operate a special school for learning (preschool) with a maximum of 15 students, design review for a small playground, and with hours of operation from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm and from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. ·1997 – Conditional Use Permit (UP97-012) for one year use of property as a school, with a maximum of 150 students, with hours from 7:30 to 6:30 M-F o Approved by Planning Commission o Appealed to City Council and denied Conditional Use PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a daycare center to increase the maximum enrollment number of students from 15 to 30. The existing CUP approval may continue indefinitely and the specific authorized use is allowed to continue indefinitely (i.e. “runs with the land”), unless the revoked by the City. The subject property contains a church. A daycare use is currently approved for the 1,820 square foot space located on the lower floor of the church. There is an existing 860 square foot play area adjacent to the preschool. No increase or expansion of floor area are proposed to the building. However, changes to the site are proposed in order to allow for disabled access accessibility to the lower floor where the daycare use will be located. These improvements include disabled parking spaces and wheelchair ramps required by the Building Code. Land uses surrounding the site are residential to the north, east, south and west. DISCUSSION: Operations Data and Intensity of Use EXISTING APPROVAL PROPOSED Number of Students Max: 15 per day Max: 30 per day Business Hours Mon-Fri 9 AM to 12 PM 1PM to 4 PM Mon-Fri 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM Parking: The site contains 151 parking spaces. Pursuant to City Code, the required parking for schools is one space for each employee plus additional spaces as determined by the Planning Commission to be adequate for student/visitors. Based on previous parking studies done for the Report to the Planning Commission 14103 Saratoga Ave-file #MOD16-0001 May 25, 2016 Page | 2 45 City for school uses, a maximum parking ratio previously used by the city was 0.28 spaces per student and represents the most conservative approach in analyzing parking requirements. Based on this rate, the proposed 30 student daycare/preschool use is estimated to require ten parking spaces. Ten parking spaces have been assigned to this use and there is an overflow of additional parking spaces available on site that the Church is not using during the operation of the preschool/daycare based on the Church’s service hours: ·Sunday Service: 9 AM – 12 PM Staff has concluded that the existing parking could accommodate the proposed use in conjunction with the Church use. In addition, the parking studies noted that the average parking demand for daycare centers would be less than two minutes as parents and caregivers will only be briefly parking in order to assist their children to the school. Traffic: Using the International Traffic Engineers Trip Generation rates, it is estimated that the net increase of 15 students and two staff would generate 13.6 additional AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips. The ratio for vehicle trips used by ITE includes employee trips. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: A public notice for the May 25, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. To date, staff has one comment from an adjoining property owner who was concerned about possible traffic impacts and the hours of operation. CODE REQUIREMENTS: Conditions for a conditional use permit are imposed in order to preserve the public health, safety or welfare. A conditional use permit may be revoked by the Planning Commission upon a determination that the holder of the permit has failed to comply with any condition. Staff believes the applicant’s project has met the burden of proof to support the findings required for approval of a Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as shown below: Findings for issuance of permit: 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. The facility is a conditionally permitted use in a residential district. One purpose of the residential district is to provide space for community facilities to complement residential areas and for institutions, which require a residential environment. Report to the Planning Commission 14103 Saratoga Ave-file #MOD16-0001 May 25, 2016 Page | 3 46 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. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes and Building and Fire Department requirements. Additional conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. c)That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with zoning requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use Permit. d)That 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. The use was previously approved for 15 students and the intensification of the use will not adversely affect the surrounding residential uses or the church property. Conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consists of increasing the number of students for an existing daycare/preschool use within an existing building. The project is Class 3 Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301. Class 3 exemptions include the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-12 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution of Approval 2.Butterflies Academy Cover Sheet, received March 21,2016 3.Floor Plan / Site Plan, received April 23, 2016 Report to the Planning Commission 14103 Saratoga Ave-file #MOD16-0001 May 25, 2016 Page | 4 47 RESOLUTION NO. 16-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MOD16-0001, LOCATED AT 14103 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, on January 20, 2016 the property owner/applicant submitted an application MOD16-0001 requesting modification of a Conditional Use Permit to expand the operating hours and increase the number of students from 15 to 30 on the premises of Immanuel Lutheran Church; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Class 3 Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301. Class 3 exemptions include the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The proposed project consists of increasing the number of students for an existing daycare/preschool use in an existing building. Section 3: The findings required for issuance of a Use Permit are set forth below. The applicant’s project has met the burden of proof to support the findings required for approval of a Conditional Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as set forth below: Finding #1: The Project meets the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The facility is a conditionally permitted use in a residential district. One purpose of the residential district is to provide space for community facilities to complement residential areas and for institutions, which require a residential environment. Finding #2: The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes and Building and Fire Department requirements. Additional conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. 48 Resolution No. 16-012 Finding #3: The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with zoning requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use Permit. Finding #4: 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. The use was previously approved for 15 students and the intensification of the use will not adversely affect the surrounding residential uses or the church property. Conditions are provided to regulate the number of students and hours of operation to protect the adjacent residential uses. Section 4: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves application MOD16-0001, for the project located at 14103 Saratoga Avenue, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 25th day of MAY 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ DeDe Smullen Chair, Planning Commission 49 Resolution No. 16-012 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 14103 SARATOGA AVENUE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A.GENERAL 1.The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Conditions may be modified by the Planning Commission unless it is expressly otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to section 16- 05.035 as applicable. 2.Any intensification of this use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Examples of intensification of use include, but are not limited to, physical changes to the site or structure of the use to accommodate more employees or students and changes in operations or equipment that result in ongoing increases in traffic, noise, or other physical effects. 3.The Community Development Department shall review the Conditional Use Permit upon receipt of any complaints. Any non-compliance issues identified by the Community Development Department shall be reported to the Planning Commission. 4.The use shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to health, sanitation and safety. 5.The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 6.The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 7.As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: 50 Resolution No. 16-012 a.any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b.any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8.Hours of Business Operation. The allowed hours of operation shall be from 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM Monday through Friday. 9.Number of Students. The maximum number of students on site at one time shall not exceed 30. 10.Number of Employees. The maximum number of employees on site at one time shall not exceed five. 11.Exterior Modification. The only exterior modification will be limited to improvements to allow ADA access to the building/site. Any change in the exterior may require review and approval by the Community Development Department or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of work. 12.Noise Levels. All noise levels will comply with City Code Article 7-30. 13.Signage. No signage is proposed. Signage shall comply with City Code Article 15-30 and may require review and approval by the Community Development Department. 14.Building Department. The applicant shall comply with all building standards including any tenant improvements necessary to comply with building code. 15.Fire Agency. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements 51 52 53 Butterflies Academy 14103 Saratoga Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Butterflies Academy Parking Area Lower Fellowhip Hall Parking Entrance 54 55 56 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 Application: PDR15-0038 & ARB15-0048 Location / APN: 18802 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-044 Owner / Applicant: Praveer Kumar / Richard Hartman Staff Planner: Richard Smeaton, Senior Planner 18802 Dundee Avenue 57 2 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new one-story 3,191 square foot home with a two-car garage and a 2,768 square foot basement at 18802 Dundee Ave. The height of the home will not exceed 21 feet. Four of the ten protected trees on the site will be removed because they conflict with the proposed design or are in poor health and structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-011 approving the project subject to recommended conditions of approval. Planning Commission Design Review approval is required because the proposed home exceeds 18 feet in height and pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 10,000 sf gross/net Grading: 60 cy of cut and 0 cy of fill General Plan Designation: Medium Density (M-10) Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-10,000) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Main House & Garage Walkways/ Decks/ Patios Driveway Other Pervious Paver Driveway Pervious Walks and Patios Other Pervious Total Site Coverage Front Yard Impervious 4,171 sf 917 sf 0 sf 284 sf 326.5 sf (50% of 653 sf) 472.5 sf (50% of 945 sf) 0 sf (50% of 0 sf) 5,771 sf (57.7%) 516 sf (25.8%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,000 sf (60%) 1000 sf (50% of 2,000 sf ) Floor Area First Floor Basement Garage Credit Basement Total Floor Area 2,782 2,782 409 sf 2,782 (not included in FAR) 3,191 sf 3,200 sf 58 3 Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 307.2’ 307.7’ 307.5’ 328.5’ (21’0”) 26 feet Maximum Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Story 25.4’ 10.5’ 10.4’ 25’ 1st Story 25’ 8’ 8’ 25’ PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW Site and Neighborhood Description: The 10,000 square foot property is located at 18802 Dundee Ave. The residential neighborhood consist of predominantly single-story houses with various architectural styles. An existing 1,472 square foot single-story home and a 630 square foot detached garage, is proposed to be demolished in order to construct the new 3,191 square foot home and a 2,782 square foot basement. There are two light wells that provide light and access to the basement. The lightwell in the rear yard does not encroach into the rear yard setback. The lightwell on the westside of the house which provides light and access to the basement encroaches 2-feet 5-inches into the required 10-foot side yard setback. The encroachment is allowed as lightwells are permitted to encroach into the required sideyard setback by up to 3-feet. The new home conforms to current setback requirements. A total of ten protected trees were identified for this project and four are proposed for removal. Architectural Design: The proposed residence is 21 feet in height. The proposed exterior materials include stucco exterior, stone trim, mission style garage door, and a mission style roof. The design includes accents such as decorative wrought iron rails around the light wells. Trees: Ten trees meeting City Code thresholds for protection are requested for removal (Attachment 2). Four are proposed for removal and the City Arborist has approved the removal of the requested trees (two Douglas Furs and two Fur Palms). The City Arborist is able to make the findings for removal based on her review. The applicant is required to place a tree deposit of $17,250 and install tree protection fencing prior to the issuance of building permits. Replacement trees required to mitigate the proposed tree removals are valued at $20,120 and must be planted prior to building occupancy. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior & Trim Tan (Stucco) Trim Sequola Stone Veneer Roof Valencia (Tile) 59 4 Landscaping: The landscape design includes several new replacement trees, including four Strawberry Trees, two Queen Palms, and six Saratoga Laurels. Permeable interlocking pavers are proposed for the driveway and other locations on the site. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted neighbor notification forms (Attachment 3). Public notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. One neighbor reviewed the plans and was concerned about the window placement and impacts on privacy. After reviewing the plans the neighbor would be satisfied if the fence surrounding the property was increased in height to the maximum height of 6-feet with an additional 1-foot of lattice work on top of it. This comment has been incorporated into the conditions of approval DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints. The project meets this finding because the residence proposed is located on a relatively flat lot and the proposed relocation on the lot is in the approximate location of the existing home and minimizes the amount of required grading. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding in that the applicant is removing four protected trees with the City Arborist’s approval. The project proposes the removal of four trees out of the ten present on the site. (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the structure meets the front setback of the existing homes on the surrounding properties. The side setback has been increased beyond the minimum required on each side by over 1-foot. The applicant has proposed a 6-foot tall fence and additional shrubs along the east and west property lines to increase privacy screening. The project does not impact any identified community viewsheds. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood . The project meets this finding because the project minimizes the prominence of the structure when viewed from the street by meeting the minimum setback requirements for the front yard. The design features first story elements through the porches and varied wall plates, as well 60 5 as lower eaves. The style employs a hipped roof which reduces the apparent roof mass. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding because impermeable hardscape surfaces constitute less than 50% of the front setback area. The proposed landscaping is complementary of the landscaping in the surrounding neighborhood. (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding because the proposed location and hip roof design would not impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent structures is sufficient to allow solar access. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because the building design and site plan incorporate several techniques from the Residential Design Handbook, including designing first story eave heights and entry eave heights that are in scale with adjacent residences; and selecting materials, colors, and details that enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable because the lot is not a hillside lot. It would not impact community viewsheds. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Story Pole Certification Letter – 18802 Dundee Ave 5. Color Rendering 6. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 61 RESOLUTION NO: 16-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR15-0038 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB15-0048 LOCATED AT 18802 DUNDEE AVENUE WHEREAS, on November 10, 2015, an application was submitted by Richard Hartman on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Praveer Kumar requesting Design Review approval to construct a new one- story home, a basement, and related site improvements located at 18802 Dundee Avenue. The project has a total floor area of 3,191 square feet (not including the 2,782 square foot basement). The height of the proposed residence is approximately 21 feet. The site is located within the R-1- 10,000 Zoning District (APN 389-17-044). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on May 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential area. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes 62 hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR15-0038 and ARB15-0048 located at 18802 Dundee Ave, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 25th day of May 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ DeDe Smullen Chair, Planning Commission 63 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not 64 be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A" dated October 16, 2015 and revised March 7, 2016. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 7. The fencing in side yards and the rear yard shall be solid and 6-feet in height, with 1-foot of lattice work on top for a total height of 7-feet from grade. 8. Prior to submitting for a building permit the plans shall be modified to indicate the location of pervious materials on the site and remove the basketball hoop from the site plan. 9. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated April 15, 2016 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 10. As condition of Public Works approval, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work. 11. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall videotape the surface of the roadway that provides access to the site at 18802 Dundee Ave. A copy of the recording shall be retained by the Community Development Department. Any damage to the roadway caused by project related construction shall be repaired by the applicant prior to building permit final. 12. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to any foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks, pad height, and noted vertical or horizontal control reference points are in compliance with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 65 13. Prior to Building Permit issuance the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 66 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB15-0048 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 18802 Dundee Avenue Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Praveer Kumar Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 389-17-044 Email:praveerkumar@yahoo.com Report History: Report 1 Date: Plans received November 10, 2015 Report completed December 22, 2015 Report 2 – This report replaces report 1 Revised plans and arborist report received January 25, 2016 Report completed January 27, 2016 Report 3 – This report replaces report 2 Revised plans received March 16, 2016 Report completed April 15, 2016 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and out buildings and build a new single story house with a basement and an attached two car garage. Four trees (2, 3, 5 and 7) protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the City’s criteria allowing removal and replacement as part of the project. Trees 4, 6 and 8 are not protected by City Code and may be removed at any time without a permit. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $17,250 Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Trees 2, 3, 5 and 7 are approved for removal once a building permit has been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $20,120 1 67 18802 Dundee Avenue FINDINGS: Tree Removals Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Criteria met 2, 3 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 5, 7 1, 2, 7, 9 Trees 2 and 3 are mature Douglas fir trees planted close to each other and to the incense cedar in the front yard. Both trees will be significantly impacted by excavation for the foundation of the house and basement. They will likely suffer significant root loss which has the potential to destabilize them as well as to negativel y affect their health. Douglas fir trees are not drought tolerant and many have succumbed to the prolonged drought that Saratoga has been experiencing. Removal of these two trees and replacement with large-species drought tolerant trees elsewhere on the propert y would be consistent with the tree regulations. If they are not removed, and survive construction, they will be likely to damage the new structures and walkways. Trees 5 and 7 are fern pines that have been topped, and likely removed and re-sprouted from stumps. They do not have good structure, and are known for an aggressive root system that can damage walkways and building foundations. Removal and replacement of these two trees is consistent with the tree regulations. Replacement Trees New trees equal to the total appraised value of $20,120 will be a condition of approval for the project. At least two of the new trees need to be considered large trees when mature. The submitted arborist report lists several acceptable species. There are others that can be considered. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. The arborist report prepared by Michael Bench and dated July 13, 2015 and the addendum dated March 9, 2016 shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final plan set. This report shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final plan set. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map of Site showing tree locations Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 2 68 18802 Dundee Avenue Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Hometec Architecture, Inc. Date of Plans: October 16, 2015, revised December 2, 2015 and March 7, 2016 Sheet A – 1 Site Plan Sheet A – 2 Floor Plan Sheet A – 3 Basement Floor Plan Sheets A – 4 and A – 5 Elevations and Section Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Carnes & Associates Date of Plans: June 15, 2015 Sheet 1 of 1 Boundary and Topographic Map Preparer: LE Engineering Date of Plans: September 29, 2015, revised February 3, 2016 Sheet C1 Title Sheet Sheet C3 Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet C4 Details Landscape Plans reviewed: Preparer: Mara Young Date of Plans: October 20, 2015, revised March 10, 2016 Sheet L – 0 Cover Sheet Sheet L – 1 Landscape Plan Sheet P – 1 Planting Plan Sheet I – 1 Irrigation Plan TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Michael Bench, Consulting Arborist Date of Report: J u l y 13, 2015, revised September 30, 2015 and January 9, 2016 An arborist report was submitted to the City for this project that inventoried 13 trees. Information on the condition of each tree, potential impacts from construction, suitability for preservation, appraised values and tree protection recommendations was provided. Five trees protected by Saratoga City Code (2, 3, 5 and 7) are requested for removal to construct this project. 3 69 18802 Dundee Avenue Attachment 1 Table 2: List of trees 4 70 18802 Dundee Avenue Attachment 1 Table 3: List of appraised values. 5 71 18802 Dundee Avenue Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2) The necessit y to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the propert y. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularl y on steep slopes. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beaut y, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safet y, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9) The necessit y to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the propert y when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10) The necessit y to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. 6 72 18802 Dundee Avenue Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2. All recommendations in the arborist report dated July 13, 2015 and revised January 9, 2016, prepared by Michael Bench shall become conditions of approval for the project. 3. The arborist report dated July 13, 2015 and revised January 9, 2016, shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 4. This report shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans. 5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Michael Bench, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $17,250 be for tree(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 7. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 8. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting before performing work. 9. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and monthly thereafter. Following visits to the site, the Project Arborist shall provide the City with a report including photos documenting the progress of the project and noting an y tree issues, along with recommendations for addressing them. 7 73 18802 Dundee Avenue Attachment 3 10. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 20 feet of trees 1, 12 and 13. 11. The Project Arborist shall supervise: a. Demolition of the carport under the neighbor’s pine. b. All capping and reconnecting of utilities, as well as excavation for utility lines along the west side of the property. 12. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 13. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 14. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 15. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing. 16. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 17. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 18. Trees 2, 3, 5 and 7 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. 19. Trees permitted for removal shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. The value of the removed trees shall be calculated in accordance with the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal. 20. New trees equal to $20,120 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. 21. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 22. At least two new trees shall be of species that grow to a large size. Acceptable species are listed in the arborist report by M. Bench. If other species are desired, prior approval from the City Arborist is required. 8 74 18802 Dundee Avenue Attachment 3 23. The two large-species trees shall be planted on the property in locations that provide adequate room for them to mature. They shall be set far enough from the fences that the canopies will remain largely on this property rather than the neighbor’s properties. 24. The rest of the replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. 25. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant new trees, some or all of the replacement value for trees shall be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. 26. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and provide information on the condition of the trees. 27. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection securit y deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. 9 75 $WWDFKPHQW >P v d v }˙ d W }}v&v]v P v v 10 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Story Pole Certification May 2, 2016 Location: 18802 Dundee Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 To Whom it May Concern: I, Charles Bonadiman, PLS 8922, hereby attest that I am a Professional Land Surveyor, licensed in the State of California. I certify that I performed an inspection of the story poles erected at 18802 Dundee Ave. The story poles substantially conform with the approved plans provided by Hometec Architecture, Inc, dated 10-16-15, as to heights and locatians as shown thereon. Charles J. Bonadiman, PLS 8922 exp. 9/30/2016 85 86 N DN DN Wine CellarDEMO DEMO DEMODEMODEMO DEMODEMO DEMO DEMODEMODEMOxxxx xx x x x xxxxxx x DEMODEMODEMOx x T.P.T .P . T .P .T.P.E / LE / LC / WC / WC / WT.P.GASGASGAST.P.T.P.T.P.T.P.T.P.26'-0"25'-4"25'-0"10'-4" 10'-5" 7'-5" 7'-0" 7'-7 1/4"25'-0"25'-0"8'-0" 8'-0" DUNDEE AVENUE KUMAR LOT 6 BLOCK 10 TRACT 748 APN: 389-17-044 LOT 7 APN: 389-17-045 APN: 389-17-058 LOT 20 APN: 389-17-059 LOT 21 APN: 389-17-043 LOT 5 5' P.U.E. PER TRACT 748 5' P.U.E. PER TRACT 748 30' 30' EX-HOUSE FF=309.1 EX-GARAGE FF=308.0 COVERED CARPORT ACHATCH PLANTER PLANTER COVERED PORCH GATE GATE PAVED ROAD G E N86°28'00"W 80.00'S03°32'00"W 125.00'N03°32'00"E 125.00'S86°28'00"E 80.00' #9 MEXICAN FAN PALM #1 INCENSE CEDAR #2 DOUGLAS FIR TO BE REMOVED #3 DOUGLAS FIR TO BE REMOVED SSCO P. POLE P. POLE WM 307.9 x 308.4x 307.8x 307.7x 308.1 x x 307.2 307.8x x 307.6 x 307.1McDOLESTREET 308.0 x 308.1x 308 308307 306 3 0 6 3 0 8 x307.9 APN: 389-15-071 LOT 1, BLOCK 12 APN: 389-15-089 LOT 19, BLOCK 12 #7 FERN PINE TO BE REMOVED PAVER DRIVEWAY PROPOSED #10 CHERRY PROPOSED #11 PURPLE PLUMPROPOSED PROPOSEDPAVER WALKWAY PAVER PATIO#12 ALEPPO PINE #13 EVERGREEN ASH #5 FERN PINE TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTIVE FENCE #6 FERN PINE TO BE REMOVED #8 PURPLE PLUM TO BE REMOVED #4 DATE PALM TO BE REMOVED NEW WOOD FENCE ON PROPERTY LINE C.O. 17.5 38.9 118 1,214.1 83.4 630 181 74.2 192 441 655.5 226 529 235 96.5 53421'-0"3'-6"7'-0"2'-8"1'-0"11'-0"1'-4" 8"19'-0"38'-0"18'-1"10'-6"13'-8"17'-3"25'-1"19'-8"13'-0"21'-6" 2'-0"13'-3"6'-9"16'-0"21'-0"11'-6"5'-1"27'-2"17.5 38.9 118 1,214.1 83.4 630 181 74.2 192 441 655.5 226 529 235 96.5 534 10 - 16 - 15 NEW HOUSE: 389 - 17 - 044 R 1 - 10 10,000 S.F. (GROSS = NET) LOT COV. ALLOWED: 2,710 S.F. PROPOSED: 10,000 X .60 = 6,000 S.F. NEW HOUSE BASEMENT: 1,472 S.F. (TO BE REMOVED) BUILT 1951 F.A.R. ALLOWED: PROPOSED: 5 (160) + 2,400 = 3200 S.F. 409 S.F. (NEW) 2,768 S.F.18802 DUNDEE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA. 95070NEW HOME FOR:MR. & MRS. PRAVEER KUMARRICHARD A. HARTMAN A.I.A.HOMETECARCHITECTURE, INC.619 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112408/995-0496 HometecArch@hotmail.com15-025 RAH 1/4" = 1'-0" PLANNING 2-4-16 5,887 S.F. 22 3,191 S.F. A-2 A.P.N. : A-1 ZONING: OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3, U Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets REVISIONS BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB LOT SIZE: EXISTING HOUSE: TOTAL HOUSE: VICINITY MAPSITE DATA SITE PLAN 5,771 S.F. GARAGE: 1" = 10'-0" THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH 2013 CBC, CRC, CMC, CPC, CEC, CFC, CAL GREEN, CAL ENERGY CODE, AND LOCAL ORD. 1" = 10'-0" SHEET INDEX A-1 SITE PLAN A-2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A-3 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A-4 ELEVATIONS A-5 ELEVATION, SECTIONS A-6 STREET SCAPE, ROOF PLAN C-1 GRADING & DRAINING C-2 GRADING, DRAINING & EROSION C-3 DETAILS C-4 DETAILS L-0 LANDSCAPE COVER SHEET L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN P-1 PLANTING PLAN I-1 IRRIGATION PLAN T-1 TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY 22 2,782 S.F. 409 S.F. (NEW) EXISTING HOUSE AREA NEW HOUSE AREA PLANNING 12-2-15 PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE L.L.S. OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORMWATER WILL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM. (2,768 S.F.) 3,191 S.F. FRONT SETBACK AREA = 2000 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE WALK: 191 DRIVE: 650/2=325 TOTAL = 516S.F. = 25.8% BUILDING DEPT. DATA 11 22 11 11 11 PLANNING 3-7-16 33 33 33 630 S.F. (TO BE REMOVED)EXISTING GARAGE: 87 DN DN Wine Cellar16082 3040DH30688068 8020FX 16070 1080FX 3080 1080FX5620FX 2868 6040RS 6016FX 5050RS 5020FX6068 60210FX5050RS 5020FX 28866068 2668 26682868 28682468 2468 4986 6068606824682668 51086 15090 286826682050SC2016FX2050SC2016FX6050RS6016FX4036RS4016FX100863030LS6050RS 6016FX 379062100 529028682640SC2616FX2640SC2616FX50902640SC2616FX2640SC2616FX2040SC2016FX2040SC2016FX26682050SC2016FX24682468 206831026PT3018PT31026PT3018PT5086205031026PT3018PT125862008612586 1116 0 S C2710 sq ft 7'-0"47'-4"5'-0"5'-6"4'-6"11'-8"2'-0"5'-10"11'-5"9'-11"15'-2"13'-3"6'-2"13'-3"5'-4"1'-8"11'-3 1/2"5'-4 1/2"11'-6"21'-0"2'-0" 59'-0" 1'-11 3/4"17'-1 1/2"1'-10 3/4"15'-4 1/2"8'-0"12'-7 1/2" 1'-4" 3'-6" 5'-9 3/8"7'-2 5/8" 21'-6"2'-8"1'-0"8"7 1/4"16'-0"6'-9"13'-3" 20'-1" 21'-0"15'-8"11'-7"5'-1"11'-6"21'-0"2'-6"16'-1"2'-5"15'-4 1/2"8'-0"12'-7 1/2"4'-0"5'-0"4'-4"2'-2"4'-4" 4'-4" BEDROOM #4 GARAGE CLOSET BATH HALL BEDROOM #3 BATH BEDROOM #2 OPEN BELOW MUD ROOM BATHLAUNDRY PANTRY BATH FAMILY ENTRY PRAYERNICHELIGHTWELL LIGHTWELL PORCH DESKSEATD W LIGHTWELL LIVING HALL SLOPED CEILING MASTER BDRM SHOWER 72" X 42" TUB SHOWER 10'-0" CEILING 10'-0" CEILING 10'-0" CEILING 10'-0" CEILING 11'-0" CEILING FAMILY BARRELL CEILING 11'-0" CEILINGKITCHEN DINING 11'-0" CEILING 10'-0" SOFFITS GARAGE PORCH WINEFRIG1 A-5 1 A-5 LIVING AREA 19. ALL ELECTRIC SWITCHES SHALL BE OF THE SCREW TYPE GROUND. 20. ALL BRANCH CIRCUITS IN ALL ROOMS OTHER THAN KITCHEN & BATHS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY COMBINATION ARCH-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTERS.(C.E.C. 210.12.B) 18. LAUNDRY ROOM AND BATHROOM COUNTERTOP OUTLETS SHALL BE EACH SUPPLIED WITH A DEDICATED 20 AMP CIRCUIT 13. SHOWER AND TUB/SHOWER COMBINATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH PRESSURE BALANCE ANTI-SCALD VALVES TO 120f MAX. WITH MAX. 2.0 GPM FLOW @ 80 PSI, SINK FAUCETS MAX. 1.5 GPM FLOW @ 20 PSI. 14. SHOWER COMPARTMENTS, REGARDLESS OF SHAPE, HAVING A MINIMUM INTERIOR FLOOR AREA OF 1,024 SQUARE INCHES, SHALL ALSO BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30-INCH CIRCLE, AND OUTWARD SWING 22" MIN. DOOR 11. ALL WATER CLOSETS SHALL BE MAXIMUM 1.28 GALLONS PER FLUSH 8. TERMINATION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AIR DUCTS (I.E., DRYERS, BATH & UTILITY FANS, ECT.) SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET AWAY FROM ANY OPENINGS INTO THE BUILDING (DOORS, WINDOWS, OPENING SKYLIGHTS, OR ATTIC VENTS) 9. ALL AIR DUCTS PENETRATING A SEPARATION WALL OR CEILING BETWEEN GARAGE AND LIVING AERA SHALL BE 26 GA. MINIMUM 12. PROVIDE A SMOOTH, HARD, NONABSORBENT SURFACE OVER A MOISTURE RESISTANT UNDERLAYMENT TO A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 72" ABOVE THE DRAIN INLET AT SHOWERS & TUB/SHOWERS (NO GREEN BOARD) 7. PROVIDE EMERGENCY EGRESS FROM SLEEPING ROOMS, MIN. WINDOW OPENINGS OF 24" MIN. CLEAR HEIGHT, 20" MIN. CLEAR WIDTH, 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA WITH 44" MAXIMUM TO BOTTOM 5. SLOPE FINISH GRADE AT 5% MIN. FOR 10' AWAY FROM HOUSE & 1% MIN. TO AN APPROVED FACILITY 4. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL LISTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE POSTED AND PROVIDED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR AT TIME OF INSPECTION 6. PROVIDE NON-REMOVABLE BACK FLOW PROTECTION AT ALL EXTERIOR HOSE BIBBS 2. ADJUST DIMENSIONS TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD, WHERE APPLICABLE. 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. 10. ALL EXHAUST FANS SHALL BE "ENERGY STAR" AND SEPARATELY SWITCHED WITH TIMER OR HUMIDISTAT SWITCHES AND CAPABLE OF 5 AIR CHANGES PER HOUR (MIN. 50 CFM) AT BATHS, TOILETS, AND LAUNDRY 17. ELECTRIC DRYERS AND COOKTOPS SHALL HAVE A DEDICATED 30 AMP CIRCUIT, PROVIDE WIRES WITH INSULATED NEUTRAL. 16. KITCHEN SHALL HAVE SEPARATE CIRCUITS FOR DISPOSAL, DISHWASHER, & TWO (2) 20 AMP CIRCUITS LIMITED TO SUPPLYING WALL AND COUNTER SPACE OUTLETS. GENERAL NOTES 22. A PERMANENT LABEL SHALL IDENTIFY EACH LITE OF SAFETY GLAZING 23. T-24 INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE (CF-2R-LTG-01-E) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR AT TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. 21. LIGHT FIXTURES LOCATED OVER OR WITH-IN 3' OF TUBS OR SHOWER ENCLOSURES SHALL BE LABELED "SUITABLE FOR DAMP LOCATIONS" 24. RECESSED LUMINARIES IN INSULATED CEILINGS SHALL BE A.T. & I.C. RATED, ELECTRONIC BALLAST AND CAULKED AIR-TIGHT 15. ALL UNDERFLOOR PLUMBING CLEANOUTS SHALL BE WITHIN 20' OF THE UNDERFLOOR ACESS, OR EXTENDED TO THE EXTERIOR 25. DRYER EXHAUST VENTS SHALL BE PER MANUF. REQUIRMENTS OR MAX. 14' IN LENGTH, TERMINATING 3' CLEAR OF ANY OPENING 26. JOINTS AND SEAMS OF DUCT SYSTEMS SHALL BE SEALED WITH UL 181 LISTED DUCT TAPE, AND INSULATED WITH R-6 MIN. 27. ALL PENETRATIONS INTO UNCONDITIONED SPACE (ATTICS, UNDERFLOORS, ECT.) SHALL BE CAULKED, GASKETED, WEATHERSTRIPPED, OR SEALED TO LIMIT INFILTRATION AND EXFILTRATION. 31. SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL BEDROOMS AND AT AREAS LEADING TO BEDROOMS. 28. ALL PENETRATIONS IN TOP PLATES, FLOORS, ETC. SHALL BE CAULKED WITH A RESIDENTIAL FIRE RATED CAULK WITH AN ASTM E136 OR E814 RATING 29. EGRESS WINDOWS WITH MULTIPLE LATCHES SHALL HAVE THEM INTERCONNECTED AND OPERABLE FROM THE LOWEST LATCH. 30. SHOWER ENCLOSURE DOORS SHALL OPEN OUT WITH A CLEAR OPENING OF 22" MIN. IN THE OPEN POSITION 32. ALL 15-AMP AND 20-AMP DWELLING UNIT RECEPTACLE OUTLETS SHALL BE LISTED TAMPER-RESISTANT RECEPTICALS (CEC 406.11) 33. MAIN ENTRY DOOR SHALL BE OPENABLE FROM THE INSIDE OF THE DWELLING WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY, SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT. 34. KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM FLOW RATE NOT TO EXCEED 1.8 GPM AT 60 PSI. CGBSC SECT. 4.303.1.4.4 35. VENTILATION HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS SHALL HAVE A MERV-6 FILTER OR BETTER. 36. PROVIDE STATE ARCHITECT CERTIFIED EARTHQUAKE-ACTUATED GAS SHUT OFF VALVES AT ALL NEW, RELOCATED, AND REPLACED GAS UTILITY METERS. 37. PROVIDE A DEDICATED 20 AMP CIRCUIT FOR EACH FAN MOTOR (F.A.U., EXHAUST, ECT.) 38. PROVIDE COMBO SMOKE/CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS AT HALLWAYS ON EACH LEVEL,AND OUTSIDE OF BEDROOMS 40. FOR ANY L.E.D. LIGHTS TO QUALIFY AS HIGH EFFICACY LIFTING, THEY MUST BE CERTIFIED BY THE ENERGY COMMISSION AND LISTED ON THEIR DATABASE AT http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/. PROVIDE TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR EVIDENCE OF CERTIFICATION FOR ALL HIGH EFFICACY L.E.D. LIGHTS AS SELECTED BY THE OWNER. 39. A GAS PIPING LAYOUT PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR BY THE CONTRACTOR AT TIME OF INSPECTION. CAL-GREEN MANDATORY MEASURES 41. ALL PLASTIC PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL MEET THE 'NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION' AND STANDARDS REFERENCED IN TABLE 1401.1 OF THE 2013 CPC 301.1. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE SYSTEM MEASURES SHALL BE IN PLACE TO KEEP WATER AWAY FROM BUILDING. 3. T-24 ENERGY REPORT SHALL BE ATTACHED AND PRINTED INTO THE SET. SEE SHEETS T-24. 4. WALLS WITH 2X6 AND LARGER FRAMING SHALL HAVE R-19 INSULATION, MIN. 5. ALL COPPER HOT WATER PIPES SHALL BE FULLY INSULATED. 6. ALL INDOOR ROOMS SHALL HAVE THE NEW MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS, PER GBC 150.0(k) 7. JOINTS AND SEAMS OF DUCT SYSTEMS SHALL BE SEALED WITH UL 181 LISTED DUCT TAPE, AND INSULATED WITH R-6 MIN. 8. AIR DUCTS SHALL BE LEAK TESTED (HERS) TO MAX. 6% WITHOUT AIR HANDLER, AND 4% WITH AIR HANDLER. 9. HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CGBSC SEC 4.507.2 10. A AGS SUPPLY LINE OF 200,000 BTU/HR MIN. SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO THE WATER HEATER WITH 120 VOLT RECEPTACLE. 11. HERS Verification required for the HVAC cooling, HVAC distribution systems, HVAC fan systems, and IAQ (indoor air qualify) fans. Provide evidence of a Third-Party Verification (HERS) to project building inspector, prior to final building inspection. 12. ALL FENESTRATION AND SKYLIGHTS SHALL HAVE A U-FACTOR OF 0.58 OR BETTER. 13. FOR ANY L.E.D. LIGHTS TO QUALIFY AS HIGH EFFICACY LIFTING, THEY MUST BE CERTIFIED BY THE ENERGY COMMISSION AND LISTED ON THEIR DATABASE AT http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/. PROVIDE TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR EVIDENCE OF CERTIFICATION FOR ALL HIGH EFFICACY L.E.D. LIGHTS AS SELECTED BY THE OWNER. 14. HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CGBSC SEC 4.507.2 15. PLYWOOD (OR OSB) ROOF SHEATHING WITH RADIANT BARRIER REQUIRED. 16. WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A REDUCED U-FACTOR OF 0.32 AND SHGC OF 0.25 OR BETTER. 17. THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF ALL TOILETS WILL NOT EXCEED 2.28 GALLONS PER FLUSH. 18. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED REDUCED FLOW RATES FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CAL-GREEN ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1.28 GALLONS PER FLUSH FOR TOILETS 1.0 GALLONS PER FLUSH FOR URINALS 2.0 GPM FOR SHOWERHEADS 1.5 GPM FOR ANY LAV. FAUCETS 1.8 GPM FOR KITCHEN FAUCET 19. AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER WITH RAIN SENSER SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. 20. ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, CONDUITS OR OTHER OPENINGS IN SOLE/ BOTTOM PLATES AT EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF RODENTS BY CLOSING SUCH OPENINGS WITH CEMENT MORTAR, CONC. MASONRY, OR SIMILAR ACCEPTABLE METHODS. CGBSC SEC. 4.406.1 21. DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED, PROIR TO THE FIRST INSPECTION, CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVIDED TO THE JURISDICTION. CGBSC 4.408.2.1 22. AT FINAL INSPECTION, A MANUAL, COMPACT DISC, WEB-BASED REFERENCE, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEDIA INCLUDING ITEMS 1 - 10 IN ACCORDANCE TO CGBSC SEC. 4.410.1 SHALL BE PLACED IN THE BUILDING. 23. DIRECT-VENT GAS FIREPLACE WITH SEALED COMBUSTION SHALL BE INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. 24. ANY PELLET OR WOOD BURNING STOVE SHALL COMPLY WITH EPA PHASE II EMISSIONS LIMITS. 25. ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METAL, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE METHODS AT THE TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION OR DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THE HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT. CGBSC SEC. 4.504.1 26. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS SHALL COMPLY WITH LOCAL , REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION AND AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS. 27. PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH VOC LIMITS. 28. AEROSOL PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH PRODUCT-WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. 29. DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR OF COMPLIANCE WITH VOC LIMITS FOR FINISH MATERIALS. 30. ALL CARPET SYSTEMS INSTALLED SHALL MEET THE TESTING AND PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS IN CGBC. 31. WHERE RESILIENT FLOORING IS INSTALLED, AT LEAST 80% OF THE INSTALLED FLOOR AREA WILL COMPLY WITH CGBC. 32. HARDWOOD PLYWOOD, PARTICLE BOARD, AND MEDIUM-DENSITY FIBER BOARD COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS USED ON THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOW FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS STANDARDS. 33. A CAPILLARY BREAK WILL BE INSTALLED IF A SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION IS USED. 34. BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE WILL NOT BE INSTALLED. WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING WILL NOT BE ENCLOSED WHEN THE FRAMING MEMBERS EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT WILL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINISH MATERIAL BEING APPLIED. 35. ENERGY STAR COMPLIANT EXHAUST FANS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN EVERY BATHROOM, DUCTED TO TERMINATE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING. ALL EXHAUST FANS MUST BE CONTROLLED INDEPENDENTLY BY A HUMIDISTAT OR TIMER SWITCH. 36. THE HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM WILL BE SIZED, DESIGNED AND HAVE THEIR EQUIPMENT USING THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 1. HEAT LOSS/HEAT GAIN VALUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/ACCA 2 MANUAL J 2004 OR EQUAL 2. DUCT SYSTEMS ARE SIZED ACCORDING TO ANSI/ACCA 1, MANUAL D 2009 OR EQUAL. 3. SELECT HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/ACCA 3, MANUAL S 2004 OR EQUAL. 37. HVAC SYSTEM INSTALLERS WILL BE TRAINED AND CERTIFIED IN THE PROPER INSTALLATION OF HVAC SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT BY A RECOGNIZED TRAINING/CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. 38. UPON REQUEST, VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE MAY INCLUDE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLATION CERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BUILDING DIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2013 CODE REQUIREMENTS. 43. ALL PIPE, TUBE, SOLVENT, CEMENT, THREAD SEALANT, SOLDER AND/ OR FLUX AND FITTINGS FOR POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS SHALL MEET THE 'NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION' STANDARDS AND OF THE 2013 CPC 604.1 44. ALL GAS LINE PRESSURE TESTING SHALL BE AT 10 PSI FOR 15 MINUTES AND WELDED PIPING IS 60 PSI FOR 30 MINUTES. CPC 1213.3 N 10 - 16 - 15 A-2 18802 DUNDEE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA. 95070NEW HOME FOR:MR. & MRS. PRAVEER KUMARRICHARD A. HARTMAN A.I.A.HOMETECARCHITECTURE, INC.619 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112408/995-0496 HometecArch@hotmail.com15-025 RAH 1/4" = 1'-0" PLANNING 2-4-16 22 FLOOR PLAN Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets REVISIONS BY PLANNING 12-2-15 11 PLANNING 3-7-16 33 88 SYMBOLS & LEGEND VS NEW WALLS DUPLEX OUTLET (ALL 1-HOUR FIRE RATED WALLS N306826682668 6040LS16080 4050RS26682868 24686068286826686068606826682668 3068UP UP 2768 sq ft 1'-11 1/2"4'-0" 4'-4"8" 66'-0" 20'-6"6 3/8"15'-3 11/16"20'-8 7/16"6'-5 1/4"6'-11 1/2"4'-5 15/16"60'-0 1/2"13'-11 1/2"1'-9"14'-6 3/4"29'-9 1/4"4'-0"6'-1 15/16"2'-7 1/4"65'-2"16'-0"5'-5 3/4"5'-6 3/4"6'-2 1/2"10'-11 7/8"7 5/8"20'-3 1/2"1'-4" 4'-4" 66'-0" 8'-1"20'-11"13'-0"19'-8" FAMILY GARAGE LIGHTWELL CLOSET BATH BEDROOM PLAY ROOM UTILITY STUDY F.A.U. LIGHTWELL CLOSET36" REFSINKDW1 A-5 1 A-5 LIVING AREA STORAGE STORAGE LIGHTWELL 10 - 16 - 15 A-3BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 18802 DUNDEE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA. 95070NEW HOME FOR:MR. & MRS. PRAVEER KUMARRICHARD A. HARTMAN A.I.A.HOMETECARCHITECTURE, INC.619 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112408/995-0496 HometecArch@hotmail.com15-025 RAH 1/4" = 1'-0" PLANNING 2-4-16 22 Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets REVISIONS BY PLANNING 12-2-15 11 PLANNING 3-7-16 33 89 1'-3"10'-1"9'-3"20'-8"307.50 AVE. GRADE 308.75' FIN. FLOOR 318.83' TOP PLATE 328.08' BUILDING HEIGHT 1'-3"10'-1"9'-3"20'-8"307.50AVE. GRADE 308.75'FIN. FLOOR 318.83'TOP PLATE 328.08'BUILDING HEIGHT1'-3"10'-1"9'-3"20'-8"307.50AVE. GRADE 308.75'FIN. FLOOR 318.83'TOP PLATE 328.08'BUILDING HEIGHT 12 4 12 4 12 4 26'-0"18'-0"20'-6"15'-4"11'-4"4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 10 - 16 - 15 26' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE 18802 DUNDEE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA. 95070NEW HOME FOR:MR. & MRS. PRAVEER KUMARRICHARD A. HARTMAN A.I.A.HOMETECARCHITECTURE, INC.619 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112408/995-0496 HometecArch@hotmail.com15-025 RAH 1/4" = 1'-0" PLANNING 2-4-16 22MISSION TILE ROOF BY 'EAGLE' VALENCIA - 3526 CAPISTRANO WITH 30 LB. FELT UNDERLAYMENT, CLASS 'A', INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS A-4 7/8'' (3) COAT STUCCO OVER METAL LATH OVER (2) LAYERS GRADE "D" BUILDING PAPER .(PER C.B.C. 2512) 26 GA. GALV. WEEP SCREED, 4" MIN. ABOVE GRADE, 2" MIN ABOVE CONCRETE (TYP.) 36'' CONCRETE LANDING AS REQUIRED, 4'' MIN. 7" MAX. STEP DOWN WITH 3/4" MAX. THRESHOLD@ SLIDERS & 1/2" MAX. THRESHOLD @ DOORS SLOPE FINISH GRADE AT 5% MIN. FOR 10' AWAY FROM HOUSE & 1% MIN. TO AN APPROVED FACILITY SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION MIN. 4" TALL STREET ADDRESS NUMERALS OF CONTRASTING COLOR TO BACKGROUND. Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets REVISIONS BY 18' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE PLANNING 12-2-15 ANDERSEN TRUE DIVIDED LITE WINDOWS - WHITE 2X4 STUCCO DOOR/WINDOW TRIM STONE VENEER FRONT WINDOW TRIM W.I. RAILS AT LIGHTWELLS STONE VENEER BY "ELDORADO STONE" RUSTIC LEDGE - SEQUOIA, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS STUCCO COLOR: KELLY-MOORE CLASSIC - 41 'STRIP OF TANNIN' -- -- -- 11 PLANNING 3-7-16 33 18' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE 26' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE 18' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE 26' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE 33 33 33 33 33 33 90 1'-3"10'-1"9'-3"20'-8"307.50AVE. GRADE 308.75' FIN. FLOOR 318.83' TOP PLATE 328.08' BUILDING HEIGHT 9'-0"10'-1"12 4 12 4 1'-3"10'-1"9'-3"20'-8"307.50AVE. GRADE 308.75'FIN. FLOOR 318.83'TOP PLATE 328.08'BUILDING HEIGHT 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 10 - 16 - 15 18802 DUNDEE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA. 95070A-5NEW HOME FOR:MR. & MRS. PRAVEER KUMARRICHARD A. HARTMAN A.I.A.HOMETECARCHITECTURE, INC.619 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112408/995-0496 HometecArch@hotmail.com15-025 RAH 1/4" = 1'-0" PLANNING 2-4-16 22 SECTION WEST ELEVATION 11 R-19 FIBERGLASS BATT. INSULATION R-30 FIBERGLASS BATT. INSULATION R-30 FIBERGLASS BATT. INSULATION 2 x 6 D.F. #2 STUDS AT 16'' O.C. (TYP.) 5/8'' TYPE ''X'' GYP. BD. 1/2'' GYP. BD. (TYP.) Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets REVISIONS BY R-13 FIBERGLASS BATT. INSULATION PLANNING 12-2-15 -- TILE ROOF STONE VENEER STONE CAP STUCCO FRIEZE STAMPED CONCRETE PATIO PORCH POST DETAIL TYPICAL WINDOW TRIM33 22 11 PLANNING 3-7-16 33 18' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE 26' HEIGHT ABOVE AVE. GRADE 33 33 91 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 124 : 12 4 : 124 : 12 10 - 16 - 15 18802 DUNDEE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA. 95070A-6NEW HOME FOR:MR. & MRS. PRAVEER KUMARRICHARD A. HARTMAN A.I.A.HOMETECARCHITECTURE, INC.619 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112408/995-0496 HometecArch@hotmail.com15-025 RAH 1/4" = 1'-0" PLANNING 2-4-16 22 Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets REVISIONS BY PLANNING 12-2-15 SUBJECT STREET SCAPE ROOF PLAN22WOOD FENCE 11 PLANNING 3-7-16 33 92 93 94 Wine Cellar95 96 97 98 99 100 101 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 Application: PDR15-0030 / ARB15-0068 Location / APN: Sullivan Way (vacant lot) / 503-28-138 Owner / Applicant: Joe Niederman/Louie Leu Staff Planner: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Sullivan Way (vacant lot) 102 2 SUMMARY PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 22,246 sf gross /8,899 sf. net (due to slope reduction) Grading: Excavation: 961 cy (cut), 66 cy (fill), and 895 (export) General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-40,000) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Main House & Garage Walkways/ Decks/ Patios Driveway Other (pool) Pervious Paver Driveway Pervious Walks and Patios Other Pervious Total Site Coverage 2,844 sf 1,196 sf 1,894 sf 322 sf 5,966 sf 947 sf (50% of 1,894 sf) 177.5 sf (50% of 355 sf) 182.5 sf (50% of 365 sf) 1,307 sf 6,438.5 sf (33.1%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,806 sf (35% o 19,446 s.f.) Floor Area First Floor Second Floor Basement Garage Credit Basement Total Floor Area 1,412 sf 1,144 sf 1,456 sf 482 af 1,456 (not included in FAR) 3,038 sf 3,040 sf Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 637’ 640.5’ 638.75’ 664.75’ (26’0”) 26 feet Maximum Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Story 55’ 8’ 16’ 167’ 1st Story 30’ 8’ 8’ 50’ 103 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new 23-foot tall, two- story home on a vacant lot located on Sullivan Way. The house will be 3,038 square feet with a two-car garage and a 1,456 square foot basement. Seven of 34 protected trees located on the site are proposed to be removed, as they are either in conflict with the design or have viability issues. A row of mature Olive Trees along the west property line were previously proposed to be removed but will now be retained for screening as a result of the adjacent neighbor’s request to the property owner. Additionally, in response to concerns from uphill neighbors regarding the potential visibility of the proposed residence above the existing tree canopy in the neighborhood, the proposed build pad will be lowered 30-inches so the apparent height of the home will be lowered and be less visible from nearby neighbors’ residences. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story main structure or multi-story accessory structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a Site Visit and Study Session to conduct a preliminarily review of this project on March 22, 2016. The Commission at the conclusion of the Study Session noted that the following design considerations would be important for the applicant to address in a formal application:  Minimizing potential privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors  Confirming requirements for fire truck turn-a-round.  Minimizing exterior night time illumination A copy of the Commission’s summary comments as recorded by a neighbor, Brian Berkeley, is provided as Attachment 2. On April 21, 2016, the Applicant completed the application submittal to the City and requested that the application be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for a public hearing (Attachment 6). Since the March 22, 2016 Study Session, the applicant and property owner have also continued to meet with neighbors in an attempt to address concerns (Attachments 8-11). As a result of their discussions the applicant submitted revised development plans to staff on May 16, 2016 (Attachment 11). The revised plans show two windows on the upstairs bedroom above the garage relocated from the North elevation to the West elevation and replaced with clerestory windows as requested by their adjacent neighbor to the East. As a result of the change the adjacent neighbor no longer has any issues with the proposed design of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-014 approving Design Review PDR15-0030 and ARB15-0068 subject to conditions of approval. 104 4 SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Site Description The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new two-story residence on a vacant lot located on a private driveway portion of Sullivan Way. The vacant lot is shaped like a long rectangle and is approximately 22,200 square feet in area. The lot is bisected midway by the private driveway which runs perpendicular to the main property lines. The driveway is maintained by the adjoining property owners informally on an as-needed basis. The topography of the project site is generally comprised of very steep slopes with the exception of the driveway alignment and an approximately 2,500 square foot level area (roughly 50’ X 50’) which is the applicant’s proposed building site immediately adjacent to the driveway. The site topography North of the driveway is best characterized as a heavily wooded ravine with slopes exceeding 30-percent. The site topography South of the proposed building area also exceeds a 30-percent slope but has less vegetation and is more accessible. At the end of the roadway alignment are many mature Oak trees which establish a Northern boundary to the potential building site. At the southern edge of the proposed building pad area a grouping of mature Oak trees which would be impacted by the new structure. With the exception of another home that is being remodeled at the end of the private driveway, the Southside of Sullivan Way is mainly characterized by single family homes. Most of these homes are one-story as viewed from the roadway but two houses are multi- story with lower levels constructed to take advantage of the sloping topography (See Attachment 3 Sullivan Way Street Elevation). The applicant’s proposed design is for a contemporary, T-shaped two-story 3,038 square foot home with an attached 2-car garage and a 1,456 square foot basement. The building’s mass has been designed to be integrated into the hillside with an underground basement. The layout of the house also attempts to follow the hillside’s slope and contours. The designer has created yards for recreation in the form of terraces integrated with the natural grade. Retaining walls are stepped appropriately to minimize height and approximate the contours of the site. An in ground pool and lower level patio are also proposed on the South sloping portion of the property. Access for the residence will be via a large private paver driveway perpendicular to Sullivan Way which also serves a fire truck turn-a-round that was required as part of the County Fire Department’s review of the project. Staff has confirmed with the Fire Department that this is the most efficient design to address their required site access while maintain the mature trees along Sullivan Way. Building Orientation The main entrance of the proposed house and garage face North toward Sullivan Way. The majority of the full-sized windows, sliding glass doors, and rear facing decks proposed for the structure are oriented South and East toward the sloping portions of the property and to maximize the potential view of Santa Clara Valley instead of adjacent residences. 105 5 Building Architecture The design of the proposed structure is contemporary and utilizes simple linear horizontal building forms and a rich palette of natural materials. The main exterior material proposed for the house is vertical-installed, natural Ipe wood siding for main wall surfaces. Adhered stone is also used as a contrasting texture in vertical accent columns at key corners of the structure. Wide-width horizontal board fascia are proposed to be used by the designer along prominent rooflines that provide deep overhangs and also create well defined shadow lines. The roof and roof trim elements are proposed to be painted a dark color to help the structure better blend in with the backdrop of the tree canopy of the existing trees which are being retained. Proposed window fenestration includes linear rows of clerestory glazing immediately below the roof overhangs, integrated glass panel windows, tempered-glass panel garage doors and large glass doors on the rear facing facade. Large outdoor decks on both the first and second story are oriented to the rear of the home and have both glass and metal railings. Privacy and Screening At the encouragement of staff, the applicant and property owner have been working with the neighbors to try and address any potential or perceived privacy impacts that have been raised. The property owner has agreed to maintain a row of mature Olive trees along the West property line and plant supplemental trees or shrubs to provide addition visual screening of the structure and address perceived privacy impacts. For the Northeastern neighbor, the property owner has agreed to relocate the egress windows for the upstairs bedroom above the garage from the North (front) to the East (side) elevation. The property owner has also agreed to further decrease their uphill neighbors’ perceived height of the building by grading the building pad by another 30-inches. This will lower the elevation of the building pad and allows the roof elevation to be lower so it blends in visually with the backdrop of the nearby tree canopy rather than projecting above it. This should minimize the visibility of the second floor of the structure relative to the neighbors’ Southern views of Santa Clara Valley. Fire Department turn-a-round As requested by the Planning Commission, staff has confirmed with the Santa Clara County Fire Department the requirements for the fire truck turn-a-round as depicted on the applicant’s development plans. No other feasible alternative was identified. Night Time Illumination The applicants have noted that exterior lighting for the home will be kept to a minimum and that all fixtures will be directed downward to limit illumination on-site. Tree Removal/Landscaping The designer and the project arborist have been working with the City Arborist to retain as many trees on site as possible since this project was originally submitted. The current development plans reflect significant design revisions resulting from the City Arborist preliminary reviews and her recommendations. Currently, seven of 34 protected trees located on the site are proposed to be removed because they are either in conflict with the design of the house or have viability issues. A row of mature Olive Trees along the west 106 6 property line were previously proposed to be removed but will now be retained for screening as a result of the neighboring home owners request to the property owner. An Arborist Report commissioned by the applicant has been reviewed by the City Arborist and is provided as Attachment 4. A detailed landscaping plan with irrigation is incorporated into the development plans ins Attachment 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits this project will be required to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Neighbor Notification Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property for the Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 2015. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News at least 10 days prior to the hearing. In addition to the City’s formal notifications, the property owner and applicant have been voluntarily meeting with his Sullivan Way neighbors since the plans were submitted to the City in late 2015. Staff has also met with the neighbors on at least three occasions prior to the Planning Commission’s March 2016 Site Visit and has distributed information about project materials or upcoming meeting via e-mail to the Sullivan Way neighbors. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints. The project meets this finding because the residence has been designed to work with the natural slope and contours of this lot and the grading proposed has been reduced to what is required to accommodate neighbors’ request to decrease the pad elevation by 30-inches. Additionally, areas of the site with slopes in excess of 30 percent have been avoided. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding in that the applicant located the proposed structure to minimize the number of healthy trees that would need to be removed and still allow reasonable development and use of the property for the owner’s enjoyment. The project proposes the removal of 7 trees out of the 34 present on the site. The City Arborist has determined that the criteria for tree removal under Article 15-50 has been met and has approved the removal of the trees, with conditions. 107 7 (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the applicant has designed the structure with a maximum height of 23feet, is located on a flatter portion of the property with increase setbacks, has reoriented lower sill windows away from adjacent neighbors, incorporated the use of clerestory windows into the design to avoid privacy impacts, and lowered the building pad elevation by 30-inches to address perceived visibility or privacy impacts. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. The project meets this finding because the project minimizes the prominence of the structure with a lower building height of 23 feet, utilizes smaller building forms on the second floor, has a reduced building pad elevation, incorporates high quality exterior materials and colors in an attractive contemporary design that blends in with the surroundings, and is designed to be compatible with the natural contours of the site. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding because no new impermeable surfaces are proposed within the required front setback area and proposed landscaping improvements will complement the neighborhood. (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding because the proposed location design of the structure would not impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent structures is sufficient to allow solar access. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because the building design and site plan incorporate several techniques from the Residential Design Handbook, including increased setbacks; minimizing the size of second story windows; and selecting materials, colors, and details that enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable because the lot is not a hillside lot as defined by the zoning of the property and as designed would not impact any community viewsheds. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. 108 8 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Brian Berkeley notes from 3/22/2016 PC Study Session 3. Site Analysis Presentation from 3/22/2016 PC Study Session 4. Arborist Report dated 2/18/2016 5. Letter of Justification dated 3/4/2016 6. Reduced Development Plans dated 4/21/2016 7. Schaefer Letter dated 3/18/2016 8. Bahl-Niederman e-mail thread 5/13/2016 9. Bahl-Niederman Illustrations 5/2/2016 10. Addendum Letter of Justification dated 5/16/2016 11. Supplemental Development Plans dated 5/16/2016 109 RESOLUTION NO. 16-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR15-0030 / ARBORIST REVIEW NO. ARB15-0068 APPROVING A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON SULLIVAN WAY. (APN 503-28-138) WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Louie Leu in order to construct a new 23 foot, two-story 3,038 square foot home that would include a two-car garage and a 1,456 square foot basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new single-story residence over 18 feet in height. Seven protected trees are proposed for removal and an arborist report regarding the proposed removal was reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on May 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review pr ocess to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. 110 Resolution No. 16-014 Page 2 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project’s site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints; all protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15- 50 (Tree Regulations) and if constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080; and the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community view sheds; and the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; and the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; and the development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055; and that if the project is a hillside lot, that the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community view sheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100 of the City Code (not applicable as this is not a hillside lot). Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR15-030/, ARB15-0068 located on Sullivan Way (APN 503-28-138), subject to the above Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 25th day of May 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ DeDe Smullen Chair, Planning Commission 111 Resolution No. 16-014 Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR15-0030/ ARB15-0068 SULLIVAN WAY (APN: 503-28-138) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus ba lance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 112 Resolution No. 16-014 Page 4 5. Construction must be commenced within 36 months of the date of this approval, or the resolution will expire. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated June 10, 2015 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition 3, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance - protected tree on the site; c. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required setback areas; e. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan; f. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded and downward directed so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Sectio n 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Construction Management Plan. Prior to Building Permit issuance the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. 113 Resolution No. 16-014 Page 5 d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 11. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges not in connection with the proposed fence exception shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 12. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees 13. Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 14. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. PUBLIC WORKS 15. Encroachment Permit. The applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 114 Resolution No. 16-014 Page 6 ARBORIST 16. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ARBORIST’S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The applicant (owner) shall comply with all requirements and Conditions of Approval contained in the City Arborist Report prepared for this project. A copy of the Arborist Report shall be printed on the 115 Individual comments from the commissioners at 3/22/2016 study session: Kookie Fitzsimmons: Overall aesthetics are great. Lighting may needs to be adjusted (issue not unspecified) but the concern can be easily fixed. For her, it comes down to the fixed pieces and the movable pieces. Fire truck turnaround is fixed. Issues: 2nd story, precedents that a 2nd story would set for the neighborhood. Is leaning toward the 2nd story being consistent with the neighborhood. Biggest issue is privacy, concerned about impact to Mr. Bahl. Sunil Ahuja: Wondered if the front tree could be replaced, enabling the fire truck turnaround to be moved, in turn offering a bigger footprint – thinks that this potentially could be done albeit at sigificant expense. Biggest issue with 2-story house is nighttime privacy and “dark Saratoga”. Want to keep outdoor illumination to a minimum. DeDe Smullen: Impressed that there is a design that works on this property. Lowering it by 30” is a big improvement for the people uphill. Wants to see the proposed construction from Mr. Bahl’s property, although she doesn’t think that the new property would have views into any of the Bahl’s living areas. Agrees that keeping outdoor lighting to a minimum would be important. Doesn’t think that the windows will be visible from the Berkeley property. Would hate to eliminate anyone’s ability to have outdoor space. Likes the design overall. It’s the privacy impact that she’s concerned about. Joyce Hlava: Doesn’t agree with Sunil about movability of the tree. Lowering the design by 30” is huge. Not a big fan of swimming pools in the hillside, but based on seeing the Berkeley’s pool, she feels that restricting a pool would be overly harsh. Having a hard time understanding that there would be such a huge privacy impact on the Bahls. Given how far down Bahls are down the hill, she questions whether any home could be built on that site, 2-story, single story, or otherwise, without looking down on the Bahls. Two big concerns: How would the design really impact the Bahls, and how feasible is the fire truck turnaround. Wants formal review of the fire truck turnaround from the fire department. Would like to get Bahl’s building permit. Tina Walia: Everyone has made excellent points. Loves the oak trees, doesn’t want them moved. Can hear concerns of the neighbors. She wishes that there was a way that the fire truck turnaround could be moved to provide a bigger building footprint. Suggests that turnaround be studied. Would like to see size of the 2nd story reduced. Wonders if anything could be done to reduce the bulk of the 2nd floor. Leonard Almalech, Chair: Thanks the neighbors for being at the meeting. Also thanks Louie for the well- developed plans. His only concern was about illumination, but he no longer has those concerns based on feedback given during the meeting. Wants the oaks preserved, they should not be moved. He is not in favor of positioning the house further out to the hillside because of the substantial piering and foundational support required, which in turn could change the character of the hillside. Note: Wendy Chang not present at this session. 116 EXHIBIT A.1- Site Analysis - Existing Conditions LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.• Valley views to the South• Front setback is on South side• Slope > 30% on large portion of site• Many existing heritage Oak trees• Existing screen trees on South property line are in poor condition or dead.117 EXHIBIT A.2- Valley Views LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.118 EXHIBIT B- Fire Truck Access Study LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.•"A" Hammerhead fire truck turn around.Offers maximum buildable area.•"B"40'x50' rectangle fire truck turn around.•"C"36' radius circle fire truck turn around.119 EXHIBIT C - Building & Site Section LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.• Building is merged into the hillside with an underground basement.• Building follows the contours of the hillside, and yards are terraced to follow the natural grade.• Retaining walls are stepped appropriately to minimize height and follow the contour of the land.• Many existing trees are preserved to screen the structure. New trees provide additional screening on the South and West sides.120 EXHIBIT D- Neighborhood Context, Street Elevation LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.• Sullivan Way slopes downward toward the project site.• The proposed building frontage is only visible at the end of Sullivan Way. • The proposed home is 22'-6" in overall height, well below the maximum 26 foot height limit.• The proposed home keeps within the neighborhood context in terms of overall design, building massing and setbacks.Sullivan Way Street Elevation121 EXHIBIT E- Neighborhood Context, Plan View LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.• Sullivan Way slopes downward ending at project site at the bottom of the hill.• Neighboring homes predominantly "L" shaped building plan footprints.• Garages at front elevations.• Consistent setbacks, except for several homes that appear to be non-conforming to current front yard setback standards.122 EXHIBIT F- Privacy Study LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.• New row of screen trees to provide privacy to the South• Existing large heritage Oak provides privacy on East side. Additional evergreens proposed as screen between bedroom windows.• Existing Olive trees at West property line to be retained. Additional lower plantings are proposed to fill gaps between the trees & provide screen to West.123 EXHIBIT G.1- Story Poles, Initial design Height LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.Story Poles at initial design height, as seen from 21140 Sullivan Way (house above). 124 EXHIBIT G.2- Story Poles, Building lowered 30" LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.Story Poles with building lowered 30", as seen from 21140 Sullivan Way (house above). 125 WINDOWS DARK BRONZEANODIZED ALUMINUM ADHERED STONE“MOUNT MARIAH” LEDGESTONE SIDINGIPE WOOD VERTICAL SIDING PLASTERDE6172 LRV 49 PLASTERDE6216LRV 21 WOOD FASCIADE6217LRV 13 ROOF MEMBRANEColor: Brown LOUIE LEU ARCHITECTINCINC236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 210, Los Gatos, CA 95030Ph. 408.399.2222 Fax 408.399.2223 222.louieleuarch.comD E S I G N F O R L I V I N GMATERIAL BOARDNIEDERMAN RESIDENCESULLIVAN WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070126 Exterior Elevations LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 127 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB15-0068 PDR15-0019 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: Sullivan Way Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Joe Niederman Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-28-138 Email:joe@ajtutoring.com REPORT HISTORY: Date: Incomplete Memo Received plans September 9, 2015 Memo completed October 14, 2015 Incomplete Memo, Design Review Committee Meeting Received revised plans November 10, 2015 Memo completed December 9, 2015 Report – Project complete Revised plans received December 22, 2015 Report completed January 12, 2016 Report 2 FRUUHFWHG – This report replaces the previous report and reflects design revisions Revised plans received March 2, 2016 Report completed April 21, 2016 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to build a new house with a basement, swimming pool, and two-car garage, on a vacant lot. The design has be revised to retain additional trees and lower the height of the house. Seven trees (23 – 28 and 30) are requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the criteria in the City Code allowing removal and replacement as part of the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $102,060 Equal to 100% of trees 1, 4, 5, 21, 22, 29 and 31 – 34 Tree removals – Trees 23 – 28 and 30 are approved for removal once building permits have been issued. 11 128 Sullivan Way, APN 503-28-138 Replacement trees – Required = $11,320 Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. FINDINGS: Tree Removals Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Trees 23 – 28 and 30 meet the Cit y’s criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. A summar y chart and details are below. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met 23 – 28 Coast live oak 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 30 Coast live oak 4, 5, 7, 9 Five young coast live oaks (trees 23 – 38) in good health are in conflict with the proposed home and swimming pool. Grading for the basement and pool, and installation of site drainage and utilities will all affect these trees. Oak tree 30 grows about two feet from oak tree 29. This tree could be retained and protected, but the two oaks are too close together for good forestry practices, and this tree is the smaller of the two. Its removal will improve growing conditions for oak tree 29, allowing it to become a focal point for the propert y as it matures. Replacement Trees The total appraised value of tree 23 – 28 and 30 is $11,320. New trees equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project. The proposed replacement trees shown on the Planting Plan (Sheet L-1) are acceptable. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. The submitted arborist report, once included in the final set of plans, will satisfy this requirement. Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 22 129 Sullivan Way, APN 503-28-138 The sections Project Data In Brief, Map and Conditions of Approval from this report are to be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans. PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Louie Leu, Architect Date of Plans: September 8, 2015, October 30, December 21, 2015 and March 2, 2016 Sheet A – 0.0 Title Sheet Sheet A – 1.1 Site Plan Sheet A – 2.1 Basement Floor Plan Sheet A – 2.2 Main Level Floor Plan Sheet A – 2.3 Upper Level Floor Plan Sheets A – 3.1 and A3.2 Sections Sheets A – 4.1 and A – 4.2 Elevations Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Giuliani and Kull, Inc. Date of Plans: October 9, 2015, revised December 18, 2015 and February 16, 2016 Sheet C – 1 Cover Sheet Sheet C – 2 Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet C – 3 Sanitary Sewer Plan Preparer: Roger Dodge, Dodge Associates Surveying Date of Plans: March 2014 No Sheet Number Boundary and Topographic Survey Landscape Plans reviewed: Preparer: Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group Date of Plans: October 8, 2015, October 28, December 21, 2015 and February 19, 2016 Sheet L – 1 Planting Plan Sheet L – 2 Irrigation Plan ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map of Site with Tree Locations 5 – Map Showing Tree Protection Fence Locations 33 130 Sullivan Way, APN 503-28-138 Attachment 1 TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Katherine Naegele, Anderson Tree Care Specialists, Inc. Date of Report: June 5, 2015; addenda dated August 18, 2015, October 30, 2015 and February 18, 2016 An arborist report was submitted to the City for this project that inventoried seventeen trees protected by Saratoga City Code. Information on the condition of each tree, potential impacts from construction, suitability for preservation, appraised values and tree protection recommendations was provided. A table summarizing information about each tree is below. Table 2: List of trees and appraised values 4 131 Sullivan Way, APN 503-28-138 Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2) The necessit y to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the propert y. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularl y on steep slopes. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beaut y, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safet y, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9) The necessit y to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the propert y when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10) The necessit y to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. 55 132 Sullivan Way, APN 503-28-138 Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2. Recommendations in the arborist report dated June 5, 2015 and addendum dated October 30, 2015, prepared by Katherine Naegele shall become conditions of approval. Where they differ from these conditions of approval, these conditions will take precedence. 3. The arborist reports dated June 5 and October 30, 2015 shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 4. The Project Data in Brief, Map with Tree Protection Locations, and Conditions of Approval from this report shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans. 5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Katherine Naegele, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 7. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 8. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 9. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be equal to 100% of the value of trees potentially impacted. c. Shall be $102,060 be for tree(s) 1, 4, 5, 21, 29 and 31 – 34. d. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. e. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. f. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. g. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 10. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. 66 133 Sullivan Way, APN 503-28-138 Attachment 3 d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 11. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the tree protection zone fence off around a tree, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting before performing work. 12. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and monthly thereafter. Following visits to the site, the Project Arborist shall provide the City with a report including photos documenting the progress of the project and noting any tree issues. 13. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within: a. 8 feet of trees 5 and 30 b. 12 feet of trees 1, 4, 21 and 29 14. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing. 15. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 16. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 17. Trees 23 – 28 and 30 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. 18. Trees permitted for removal shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. The value of the removed trees shall be calculated in accordance with the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal. 19. New trees equal to $11,320 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. 20. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 77 134 Sullivan Way, APN 503-28-138 Attachment 3 21. At least two new trees shall be planted in the front of the house. 22. The rest of the replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. 23. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 24. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 25. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant new trees, some or all of the replacement value for trees shall be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. 26. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and provide information on the condition of the trees. 27. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. 88 135 $WWDFKPHQW ^oo]v t ˙ W E æ -- 99 136 $WWDFKPHQW ^oo]vt˙ WEæ-- >Pvdv}˙ dW}}v&v]vP 1010 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 P:\21506-Niederman\Admin\Docs\Planning\Niederman-Letter of Justification-3-4-16.doc Page 1 of 4 4 March 2016 Community Development Department City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Letter of Justification for proposed residence at Sullivan Way (APN- 503-28-138) Attn: Planning Staff and Commission Our client, Mr. Joe Niederman, intends to build a new home in Saratoga. Mr. Neiderman grew up in a mid-century modern home and his preference is for a contemporary home that recalls many of those characteristics; clean geometric lines, open flowing spaces, lots of natural light, and the use of wood siding and stone. The proposed home reflects these requirements. After initial design plans were submitted for Planning review and story poles were installed, we were notified of concerns from several neighbors regarding privacy, building height, and compatibility of a two- story home design. We have since met with them, and viewed the story poles of our project from their lots. Design revisions have been made to address some of these concerns and are reflected in this latest design. We have considered the guidelines outlined in the City's Residential Design Handbook in the design of the home, and believe that the Planning Staff can make the "Design Review Findings" necessary to support design approval. The following information gives a general description of the project along with the compliance measures to validate reasons for support of this new residential project. Site Properties and Planning: The vacant lot is located at the end of a private drive off Sullivan Way. This is one of the few vacant lots in the area and offers great valley views to the south. Adjacent homes flank the site to the west, south, and east. The house to the east is currently under construction. The site is located in the R1-40 Residential zone and has many unusual properties. It is approximately 1/2 gross acre, however, half of the lot is over 30 % slope and is not suitable for development. A right of way easement to adjacent lot at 21154 Sullivan Way cuts through the center portion of the lot and separates the greater sloping undevelopable area from the remaining net area of 8,899 square feet. This right of way easement allows side access to our site; however, the front of the lot as defined by code is the downhill southern side of the lot. (See exhibit A, Site Analysis) In addition to these unusual properties, the location of the building pad is limited by the presence of many heritage oak trees and the requirement for a fire-truck turnaround space. Unfortunately, the turnaround space utilizes a majority of the flatter portion of the site. In determining the location for the building pad, consideration was given to saving as many of the larger healthier trees as possible. Provision for usable yard space and space for a small swimming pool were other determining factors. A hammerhead configuration was chosen for the turnaround as this takes up the least amount of space. Even with this, it left little space for a logical building pad, yard, and pool. (See exhibit B, Site Planning) 144 P:\21506-Niederman\Admin\Docs\Planning\Niederman-Letter of Justification-3-4-16.doc Page 2 of 4 Given these site limitations, we concluded that a two-story building home was the only solution to meet Mr. Niederman's program requirements. General Description of Proposed Design: The proposed design is a new 2-story home of 3,040 square feet and a partial basement. The lower level contains the main living spaces; kitchen, living room, dining room, office and garage, while the upper level contains the master bedroom suite, two bedrooms, bath and laundry room. The basement contains an additional bedroom, bath, rec room, and mechanical room. Integrating Structures with the Environment: The primary exterior siding materials are natural "Ipe" wood, stone, and plaster in earth tone colors, with dark roof colors, all of which blend easily with the surrounding natural environment. (See Materials Board and 3d Exterior Design Images) The building is merged into the hillside with an underground basement. The house follows the contours of the hillside, and yards are terraced to follow the natural grade. Retaining walls are stepped appropriately to minimize height and follow the contour of the land. Preservation of as many existing trees as possible also helps screen the structure and blend to the environment. The revised building design is also 30 inches lower into the hillside. (See Exhibit C, Sections) The landscape design is water efficient and provides replacement and screening trees. No lawns are proposed. The amount of impervious paving is reduced with the use of pervious pavers for the driveway and grass-crete for the fire truck turnaround. Existing runoff patterns are preserved and away from native trees and shrubs. Neighborhood Context: The road slopes downward to where the property is located at the end of this private drive off Sullivan Way. There are five homes situated at a higher street elevation than this lot and one house below. All of these homes are much older homes, which have a single-story appearance viewed from the front, and one is a two-story split-level home. Several homes appear to be rather close to the street and have non- conforming front yard setbacks. (See Exhibit D, Streetscape) Being located at the end of the street, the building frontage is only visible if one travels down to the end of the street, which in this case, involves only two other homes. The style of the proposed home is different from the older ranch style homes along the street, but it keeps within the neighborhood context in terms of its overall design, building massing, and setbacks. Eaves and rooflines are in scale with adjacent homes. L-shaped footprints with garage locations facing the street are similar characteristics. The overall alignment is in keeping with the street character. (See Exhibit E, Context) Minimize Perception of Bulk: While the proposed house is two-stories, the perception of mass is well managed, with simple smaller forms, wall planes that vary with depth, and the use of simple materials. The second story portions of the house are setback and broken up with horizontal rooflines and single story elements on the front and sides of the home to reduce the visual impact of the second story and the perception of height and bulk. 145 P:\21506-Niederman\Admin\Docs\Planning\Niederman-Letter of Justification-3-4-16.doc Page 3 of 4 Preservation of Protected Trees: Numerous oak trees occupy a large portion of the buildable area, and as such, it is necessary that several trees be removed in order to be able to situate the building; however, the more mature and nicer specimens have been retained. The olives trees along the westerly property line will be preserved also. We have worked closely with the Town Arborist, Kate Bear, to locate the building and retaining walls away from these trees, and have developed the landscape plan with appropriate replacement and screen trees. (See Exhibit A, Site Analysis) Avoiding Interference with Privacy: Homes on three adjacent properties are potentially impacted for privacy by this home. With respect to the home to the south, the proposed second story windows and decks face overlook the property below, which is screened by an existing row of cedar trees. These trees appear to be dead but are on the parcel below. A new row of evergreen trees is proposed on this lot to maintain privacy for the property to the south. On the west side, windows on this side of the home are minimized. There is only one upper floor window that faces the neighbor to the west. It is a bathroom window which setback 18 feet from the property line, and will have obscure glass. Furthermore, there is an existing row of mature olive trees along that side of the property, which provides screening between the two homes. Additional lower plantings are proposed to fill in gaps between the trees to provide a more solid landscape screen; therefore, privacy for the property to the west is not an issue. To the East, the neighbor expressed concerns about privacy between his bedroom windows and our upper floor bedroom windows. The upper floor bedrooms are setback 24 feet from the side and the windows are at angle to their other bedroom windows. There is a large heritage oak that screens the majority of the building from their home. Medium size evergreen trees are proposed to mitigate the privacy concern between the bedroom windows. Other windows that face out toward the east are either high clerestory windows or small windows in the bathroom, laundry room, and stairway; therefore, privacy for the property to the east should not be an issue. (See Exhibit F, Privacy Study) Preserving views and access to views: All of the homes along Sullivan Way enjoy at least 180-degree views of the valley. The proposed home does not impact the valley views to any of the neighboring residences apart from being partially visible above the treetops. In response to the neighbors concern about the overall height, citing visibility of our home above the treetops from their homes above, the house main level of the house has been sunken 2 feet from the existing grade along with further reductions in the plate height. The overall height of the building was reduced by 2'-6" inches from the initial design. This is demonstrated by story poles with netting placed at the two different heights, representing the initial height then the lowered height. (See Exhibit G, View of Building Height) The second story portion of the house varies between 22'-6" to 23-'9" in overall height, which is well below the maximum 26 foot height limit. Single story portions are between 9'-3" to 12'-3" in overall height. 146 P:\21506-Niederman\Admin\Docs\Planning\Niederman-Letter of Justification-3-4-16.doc Page 4 of 4 Design for Energy Efficiency: Main Living areas are located facing the southern direction. Large overhangs over covered porches create outdoor protected spaces and direct exterior lighting downward. High windows in most all rooms to provide the opportunity for natural cross ventilation of space, and reduce energy consumption. Solar panels are integrated and concealed within the flat roof design. Conclusion: It is the Clients' directive that this house be of very high quality design and construction, and enhance and respect Saratoga's community. We are confident that this home will increase the values of nearby properties and will be a benchmark for better design as other homes along Sullivan Way are re-built. We believe that the "Design Review Findings" can be made, and that Saratoga will be proud to include this home as a fine example of thoughtful design with respect to its Residential Design Guidelines. We respectfully ask for the Planning staff and Commission for support and approval of this project. Sincerely, LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc. Louie Leu, AIA Cc: Joe Niederman 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158