The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-24-13 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 2 April 10, 2013 Draft Minutes 4 APPLICATION ZOA12-0010; 14001 Chester Avenue (397-01- 006,007); HMH Inc/Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership - The applicant is requesting approval to rezone a 1.09-acre parcel (Parcel B) from Agricultural to R-1-40,000 and to apply AP/OS overlay zoning to both Parcels A & B consisting of 12.86 acres. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235. Staff Report 6 Attachment 1 - Resolution 10 Attachment 2 - R-1-40,000 and AP/OS Overlay Zoning Amendment 12 Attachment 2A - Exhibit A 13 APPLICATION ZOA13-0003; City of Saratoga - The proposed zoning amendment would modify allowed uses, building setbacks, landscape buffers, and heights of structures within the Commercial-Visitor (CV) and Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) zoning districts. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212 Staff Report - Building Heights 14 Att. 1 - Resolution of Draft Ordinance 19 Att. 2 - Draft Ordinance without underlines 25 Att. 3 - Sunnary of Comments 26 Att. 4 - Exhibits demonstrating perceived heights 31 Att. 5 - Communications regarding zoning amendments 33 Att. 6 - Noticing Maps 51 Att. 7 - Maps showing CN & CV zoning districts 55 1 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 24, 2013 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 2013 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC 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. The 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 under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF 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. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION ZOA12-0010; 14001 Chester Avenue (397-01-006,007); HMH Inc/Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership - The applicant is requesting approval to rezone a 1.09-acre parcel (Parcel B) from Agricultural to R-1-40,000 and to apply AP/OS overlay zoning to both Parcels A & B consisting of 12.86 acres. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 13-015 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance 1) applying R-1- 40,000 zoning to the adjusted 1.09-acre parcel located at 14001 Chester Avenue that will become effective upon recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment and 2) applying the Agricultural Preserve Open Space Overlay zoning to the entire 12.86 acre property to include all of Parcel A and Parcel B. 2. APPLICATION ZOA13-0003; City of Saratoga - The proposed zoning amendment would modify allowed uses, building setbacks, landscape buffers, and heights of structures within the Commercial-Visitor (CV) and Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) zoning districts. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution 13-015, recommending City Council to adopt the proposed zoning amendments. 2 DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 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). CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, 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 April 18, 2013 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. 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 3 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 10, 2013 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ABSENT Commissioner Almalech ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR RECESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 27, 2013 (5:0:1(Smullen)) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC 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. The 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 under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF 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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application MOD13-0002; 15253 Montalvo Road (517-18-026); Alfred and Kathy Murabito - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval of a new single-story detached 768 square foot secondary dwelling unit. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: Adopted Resolution Number 13-012 approving the project subject with the following changes. (6:0:0) 12. The Owner/applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City that restricts rental of the secondary dwelling unit to below market rate households. The terms and conditions of the agreement shall run with the land which is to be developed, shall be binding upon the successor in interest of the applicant, and shall be recorded in the Santa Clara County Recorder's office. 4 2. Application MOD13-0006 – 12858 Pheasant Ridge Rd. (366-57-004) Lim - The applicant is requesting design review approval for a modification to approved plans to increase the square footage of a detached structure from 751 square feet to 1,200 square feet. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 Action: Adopt Resolution No. 13-013 denying the project. (5(Bernald, Grover, Hlava, Smullen & Walia): 1(Zhao):0) DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 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). CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, 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 April 4, 2013 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. 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 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 24, 2013 Application: ZOA12-0010 – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Location: 14001 Chester Avenue Applicant/Owner: HMH Inc. / Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan SITE 14001 CHESTER AVENUE 6 14001 Chester Avenue Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 12.86-acre project site consists of two adjacent parcels (Parcels A & B) that are under common ownership. The existing uses on the property include a vineyard and a single-family home. The Public Works Department has tentatively approved a Lot Line Adjustment to relocate the property line separating both parcels so that Parcel B is reduced in size to 1.09 acres and would still include the single-family residence. The size of Parcel A would increase to 7.98-acres. No new parcels are being created. Five acres is the minimum parcel size in the Agricultural Zoning District, therefore the applicant is requesting to re-zone Parcel B from Agricultural to R-1-40,000. The applicant also includes an additional zoning amendment to apply Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay (AP/OS) zoning over the entire site (Parcels A & B). The re-zonings require review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and final review by the City Council. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 13-015 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance 1) applying R-1-40,000 zoning to the adjusted 1.09-acre parcel located at 14001 Chester Avenue that will become effective upon recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment and 2) apply Agricultural Preserve Open Space Overlay zoning to the entire 12.86 acre property to include all of Parcel A and Parcel B. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 12.86 acres Average Slope: Level Site General Plan Designation: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) Zoning Designation: Agricultural (A) Measure G Not Applicable 14001 Chester Avenue Existing Proposed Net Site Area Parcel A Parcel B 4.88 acres 7.98 acres 11.77 acres 1.09 acres Zoning Parcel A Parcel B Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural (AP/OS) R-1-40,000 (AP/OS) Existing Home Size Height 3,912 square feet 17.5 feet No changes are proposed PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Description: The 12.86-acre project site is located at 14001 Chester Avenue. The site consists of two separate adjacent legal parcels: Parcel A is 4.88-acres and is located at the intersection of Allendale and Chester Avenues and Parcel B is 11.77 acres and is located near the Page 2 of 4 7 14001 Chester Avenue intersection of Chester Avenue and Arcadia Palms Drive. The site is bounded by Allendale Avenue to the north, Chester Avenue to the East and single-family homes to the south and west. Existing properties zoned R-1-40,000 border the property along the west, east, and south. The uses on the site include a vineyard and a one story single-family home. The entire site is subject to an existing Williamson Act Contract. Lot Line Adjustment: The single-family home, landscaping and related site improvements comprise a 1.09-acre fenced area in the southeastern portion of Parcel B. The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment to relocate the existing lot line separating Parcel A and Parcel B so that the single-family home would be located on its own parcel that would be separated from the remainder of the site. Parcel A would increase to 11.77-acres and Parcel B (containing the residence) would be reduced to 1.09 acres. No new lots are being created. The Public Works Department and the City Surveyor have reviewed the application and have tentatively approved the Lot Line Adjustment pending the City Council’s decision on the rezoning request. If the rezoning is approved than the lot and existing residence will meet all the development standards for the R-1-40,000 district. R-1-40,000 Zoning Amendment: Both parcels have existing Agricultural (A) zoning. City Code Section 15-11-050 (Determination of Lot Size) specifies a minimum net site area of five acres for parcels within the Agricultural Zoning District. Because the adjusted Parcel B would be smaller than the five acre minimum the applicant is requesting that Parcel B be rezoned from Agricultural to R-1-40,000. The proposed R-1-40,000 zoning would be consistent with the existing zoning of the lots in the immediate vicinity as well as all the existing lots along Chester Avenue. Staff has also found evidence that the 12.86-acre project site had a previous zoning of R-1-40,000 and was rezoned to Agricultural in 1969. A copy of the ordinance applying R-1-40,000 zoning to Parcel B is included as Attachment #2. The underlying General Plan land use designation for the parcels is Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) which is consistent with R-1-40,000 district. Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay Zoning Amendment: The entire 12.86-acre project site is subject to the California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act. On January 1, 1972, the property owner entered into this agreement with the City of Saratoga to voluntarily restrict the land to agricultural and open-space uses. The vehicle for this agreement is a rolling term 10-year contract (unless either party files a “notice of nonrenewal” the contract is automatically renewed annually for an additional year). In return, the property is assessed at a rate consistent with its actual use, rather than potential market value. The AP-OS overlay promotes agricultural uses and per City Code Article 15-15 (Agricultural Preserve Open Space Overlay District) such zoning amendment is required for land on which Williamson Act contracts are executed. A copy of the ordinance applying AP/OS overlay zoning to the property is included as Attachment #2. The lot-line adjustment and the existence of the residence on the property would not violate the provisions of the Williamson Act Contract. Under the Contract, single-family dwellings for the property owner or lessee of the property are considered incidental to the agricultural use of the property and are compatible with the agricultural use of the land. Page 3 of 4 8 14001 Chester Avenue Page 4 of 4 NEIGHBOR CORRESPONDANCE Staff sent a notice to all adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the project site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. No public comments, either positive or negative, have been received at the time of the preparation of this Staff Report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Zoning Amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because they will involve no physical change to the environment, assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, impose greater land use restrictions on the properties than currently exist, will and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the zoning amendment may have a significant effect on the environment in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 and 15061(b)(3). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution recommending approval of R-1-40,000 and Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay Zoning Amendments 2. R-1-40,000 and Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay Zoning Amendment 9 RESOLUTION NO: 13-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN R-1-40,000 ZONING AMENDMENT AND AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE/OPEN SPACE OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14001 CHESTER AVENUE WHEREAS, the existing 12.86-acre project site consists of two adjacent separate legal parcels with Agricultural zoning, Parcel A is 4.88-acres and Parcel B is 7.98-acres; and WHEREAS, an existing one story single-family home is located on Parcel B and the applicant has applied for a lot-line adjustment to relocate the existing lot line separating the two parcels so that the adjusted lot line encompasses the single-family home and related site improvements thereby creating a 1.09-acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the minimum lot size in the Agricultural zoning district is five acres and the applicant has requested to rezone the adjusted 1.09-acre parcel to R-1-40,000 so that the parcel and site improvements would be consistent with all the development standards of the R-1-40,000 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the rezoning of the 1.09-acre parcel to R-1-40,000 would not become effective until the lot-line adjustment is approved by the City of Saratoga Public Works Department and recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office. WHEREAS, the lot-line adjustment would not create any new parcels, the adjusted Parcel A would be 11.77-acres and Parcel B would be 1.09-acres. WHEREAS, the entire 12.86 project site is subject to an existing Williamson Act Contract with the City of Saratoga and Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay (AP/OS) zoning is required pursuant to City Code Article 15-15 for land on which Williamson Act contracts are executed. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: State law requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on Zoning Ordinance amendments. On April 24, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff Report on the Project, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. Section 2: The proposed amendment is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. 10 Section 3: After careful consideration of the application, CEQA documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance and map of the City of Saratoga as depicted in Exhibit A, so that the 1.09-acre site shown as Parcel B would be zoned R-1-40,000 and the entire approximately 12.86-acre site consisting of both Parcel A and Parcel B would be subject to AP-OS overlay zoning. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 24th day of April 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission 11 Attachment #2 ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE APPLYING R-1-40,000 ZONING TO APN 397-01-007 AND AP/OS OVERLAY ZONING TO APN’S 397-01-006 AND 397-01-007 LOCATED AT 14001 CHESTER AVENUE Whereas, the City of Saratoga is applying R-1-40,000 zoning to an approximately 1.09-acre parcel (APN 397-01-007) and Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay (AP/OS) zoning to an approximately 12.86-acre parcel (APN’s 397-01-006 and 397-01-007), all parcels being located at 14001 Chester Avenue. This ordinance was introduced following a duly noticed public hearing on (insert date). The Planning Commission recommended adoption of this ordinance following a duly noticed public hearing held April 24, 2013. Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The City Zoning Map is hereby amended to add R-1-40,000 to the 1.09-acre parcel (APN 397-01-007) and Agricultural Preserve/Open Space (AP/OS) overlay zoning to the entire 12.86-acre parcel (APN 397-01-006 and 397-01-007) described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The R-1-40,000 zoning of 397-01-007 will become effective when the lot-line adjustment has been recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office. Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act The application of the R-1-40,000 and AP/OS overlay zoning to the specified properties are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it will impose greater land use restrictions on the property than currently exist, will involve no physical change to the environment, assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the overlay zoning may have a significant effect on the environment in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 and 15061(b)(3). Section 3. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly noticed public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the (insert date), and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the (insert date). COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ JILL HUNTER, CRYSTAL BOTHELIO MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 12 13 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 24, 2013 Application: ZOA13-0003 Location / APN: 13777 Fruitvale Ave. / 389-43-025 Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Michael Fossati SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed zoning amendment would modify allowed uses, building setbacks, landscape buffers, and heights of structures within the Commercial-Visitor (CV) and Commercial- Neighborhood (CN) zoning districts. A map showing the general locations of the CV and CN zoning districts is included as Attachment 7. PROJECT DETAILS Background At the January 25, 2013 City Council retreat, the Planning Commission requested City Council direction to review the height limits within the CV and CN zoning districts. At its February 6, 2013 meeting, the City Council approved the Commission’s request to review height limits. Following the retreat and City Council meeting, the Commission hosted two outreach workshops in February and March for neighboring property owners of those districts. The comments of those workshops were summarized and presented to the Planning Commission at a March 26, 2013 study session. Notes from those three meetings have been included as Attachment 2. During the study session, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft an ordinance to amend the following development standards: • Remove the allowance of ground level, multi-family dwellings from the CV and CN zoning districts. 14 . • Increase the maximum height limit for buildings in the CV district from 20 feet to 26 feet (and removing the existing height exceptions for appurtenances such as roof top equipment and roof screens) and increase the rear, side and front setbacks. • Maintain the building height limit in the CN district at 20 feet (includes maintaining height exceptions for appurtenances such as roof top equipment and roof screens). • Require landscape buffers for commercial properties abutting residential zones in the CV and CN districts as stated in the General Plan. Removal of ground level, multi-family residential dwellings. Sections 15-19.030(k) and 15-19.040(j) provide “alternative standards for multi-family dwellings” in the CV and CN districts. Repealing these sections would remove the allowance for 30-foot tall standalone multi-family buildings to be built with mixed-use developments. All existing multi-family dwellings in the CN and CV districts will become non-conforming uses and would need to adhere to Article 15-65 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) of the City Code unless the properties are re-zoned to Multi-Family. Additionally, Section 15-58.020(b) (Mixed-Use Development Standards) should be modified as follows: “Only commercial use(s) may be located on the ground floor in the C-V and C-N districts. Dwelling units(s) may be located on the ground floor in all other districts, where permitted, when not abutting a street. Dwelling unit(s) may be located in all other portions of the structure.” This amendment would still allow residential (as part of a mixed-use development) within the CV or CN zoning district, but the residential component would be required to be constructed above a ground floor, commercial use. Furthermore, any structure with a commercial use on the ground floor and residential on the floor above would be restricted to the height limit of the underlying zoning district. Increase the height limit and setbacks within the CV district. The Commission’s direction from the study session was to increase the CV height limit from 20 feet to 26 feet, with the provision that the increased height would be all-inclusive, meaning the height would take appurtenances into account, including, but not limited to, skylights, rooftop mechanical equipment and associated screening (currently these appurtenances are not subject to the height limit). Staff has prepared the following changes to Section 15-19.040 to reflect this direction: Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, skylights, rooftop mechanical equipment and associated screening, in a C-V district shall be twenty-six feet. The Commission also directed the building setbacks be increased to help maintain the same visual profile of the building as viewed from adjacent properties. Staff has prepared the following changes to Section 15-19.040 based on the Commission’s direction: 15 . Front setback area. The minimum front setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site abutting and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-1, HR, R-M or P-A district, the minimum front setback area shall be fifteen feet. For two-story structures, the second-story shall be setback an additional five feet from the front facing exterior wall of the first- story. Side and rear setback areas. The minimum side setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet for single-story structures. For two-story structures, the second-story shall be setback an additional foot for each foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure exceeds fourteen feet in height. and the minimum rear setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, subject to the following exceptions: (1) One foot shall be added to the minimum side setback area for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirty feet of the side lot line for such setback area exceeds fourteen feet in height. (2) One foot shall be added to the minimum rear setback area for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such setback area exceeds fourteen feet in height. (3) On a corner lot, the minimum exterior side setback area shall be twenty feet. Rear setback area. The minimum rear setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, plus two feet shall be added to the minimum rear setback area for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure exceeds fourteen feet in height. The Planning Commission requested exhibits demonstrating the setback changes and a “line-of-sight” perspective illustrating the change in perceived height with the increased rear setback. Staff has provided these exhibits as Attachment 4 of this staff report. Maintain the height limit for buildings in CN district The existing height limit within the CN zoning district is 20 feet. Properties in the CN zoning district include the Quito Shopping Center, Argonaut Shopping Center, Azule Crossing, and commercial properties located west of the intersection at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. The Planning Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of increasing building heights of that district, and a majority of Commissioner’s directed staff to prepare a recommendation to Council that maintains the existing height limit and the height exception for appurtenances (such as skylights, rooftop mechanical equipment and associated screening). 16 . Landscape buffer The City’s General Plan requires “new commercial developments located adjacent to or across from an established single-family or multi-family residential use incorporate appropriate landscape buffers that are at least equal to the setback of the adjacent residential district”. Staff has prepared the following change to Section 15-19.020(f) to implement this policy, (9) Where a commercial development is to be located adjacent to or across from an established single-family or multi-family residential use, appropriate landscape buffers shall be required that are at least equal to the setbacks of the adjacent residential district. Noticing Notice of the April 24, 2013 public hearing was published in a newspaper having general circulation in the City no later than ten days prior to this meeting. Furthermore, a notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the C-V and C-N zoning districts. Comments Staff received written comments (letters and e-mails) expressing opinions on the proposed ordinance. The majority of the comments received support the proposed changes with the exception of increasing the height limit in the CV district. Comments are attached in the order that they were received. These communications, including comments made from the associated workshops and study session, have been included as Attachment 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed amendments to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15305 - Minor Alteration to Land Use Limitations, 15308 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, and also exempt under CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) - the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment and where, as here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment would not change the land use or density, with the exception of removing stand alone, Multi-Family Dwellings from a conditionally permitted use process. The intensity would not increase because, per the existing code, structures up to 30 feet tall are currently allowed in the applicable zoning districts. The proposed amendment would only allow structures to be no taller than 26 feet. RECOMMENDATION Given the several distinct policy questions associated with height limits within the CV and CN zoning districts, staff is recommending that individual motions for each proposed change be considered by the Commission. Staff will incorporate each recommendation approved by a majority of Commissioners into the version of Resolution No. 13-015 Exhibit A that is forwarded to the City Council for approval. 17 . Motion 1: Remove the allowance of ground level, multi-family dwellings from the CV and CN zoning districts and shown in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 13-015. Motion 2: Increase the maximum height limit for all buildings in the CV district to 26 feet (with no height exception for appurtenances), and increase the rear, side and front setbacks and shown in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 13-015. Motion 3: Maintain the building height limit in the CN district at 20 feet (includes maintaining exceptions for appurtenances). Motion 4: Require landscape buffers for commercial properties abutting residential zones in the CV and CN districts as stated in the General Plan and shown in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 13-015. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution with draft ordinance 2. Draft ordinance language (without underline and strikeout) 3. Summary of comments from outreach meetings and the study session. 4. Exhibits demonstrating setbacks and perceived heights of buildings 5. Communications regarding zoning amendment 6. Noticing Maps 7. Map showing locations of the CV and CN districts 18 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: 13-015 Application ZOA13-0003 City of Saratoga The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The proposed zoning amendment would modify the Mixed-Use Development Standards and the uses and heights for structures located in the Commercial-Visitor (CV) and Commercial- Neighborhood (CN) zoning districts. II. Planning Commission Review On April 24, 2013 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff Report on the Project, correspondence, presentations from the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. III. Environmental Review The proposed amendments to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15305 - Minor Alteration to Land Use Limitations, 15308 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, and also exempt under CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) - the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment and where, as here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment would not change the land use or density, with the exception of removing stand alone, Multi- Family Dwellings from a conditionally permitted use process. The intensity would not increase because, per the existing code, structures up to 30 feet tall are currently allowed in the applicable zoning districts. The proposed amendment would only allow structures to be no taller than 26 feet. IV. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Recommendation After careful consideration of the staff report and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance allowing the modification of uses and heights for structures located in the CV and CN zoning districts as shown in Exhibit A. 19 2 ZOA13-0003 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 24th day of April 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance 20 3 ZOA13-0003 Exhibit A ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 15-19 AND 15-58 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Findings 1. The City of Saratoga wishes to amend Article 15-19 and Article 15-58 of the City Code. 2. Amendments in this ordinance affect provisions of the City’s zoning regulations in Chapter 15 of the Code. These amendments were considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga and the Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2013, recommends adoption of these amendments to Chapter 15 as set forth below. 3. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on May 15, 2013 and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing, introduced this ordinance. Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is amended as set forth below. Text to be added is indicated in double- underlined font (e.g., double-underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged by this ordinance. Article 15-19 - C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS City Code Section 15-19.020 – General Regulations (f) Screening, landscaping, and fencing. (9) Where a commercial development is to be located adjacent to or across from an established single-family or multi-family residential use, appropriate landscape buffers shall be required that are at least equal to the setbacks of the adjacent residential district. City Code Section 15-19.030 - C-N district regulations. (k) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multi-family dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth 21 4 ZOA13-0003 in Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. Repealed City Code Section 15-19.040 – C-V district regulations (f) Front setback area. The minimum front setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site abutting and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-1, HR, R-M or P-A district, the minimum front setback area shall be fifteen feet. For two-story structures, the second-story shall be setback an additional five feet from the front facing exterior wall of the first-story. (g) Side and rear setback areas. The minimum side setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet for single-story structures. For two-story structures, the second-story shall be setback an additional foot for each foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure exceeds fourteen feet in height. and the minimum rear setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, subject to the following exceptions: (1) One foot shall be added to the minimum side setback area for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirty feet of the side lot line for such setback area exceeds fourteen feet in height. (2) One foot shall be added to the minimum rear setback area for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such setback area exceeds fourteen feet in height. (3) On a corner lot, the minimum exterior side setback area shall be twenty feet. (h) Rear setback area. The minimum rear setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, plus two feet shall be added to the minimum rear setback area for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure exceeds fourteen feet in height. (h)(i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, skylights, rooftop mechanical equipment and associated screening, in a C-V district shall be twenty twenty-six feet. 22 5 ZOA13-0003 (i)(j) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) An area not less than ten feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. (2) A use not conducted within a completely enclosed structure shall be screened by a solid wall or fence, vine-covered fence or compact evergreen hedge (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height. This requirement shall not apply to off-street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, garden shops, and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j)(k) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multi-family dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. Repealed Article 15-58 – MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 15-58.020 - Development standards. (b) Only commercial use(s) may be located on the ground floor in the C-V and C-N districts. Dwelling units(s) may be located on the ground floor in all other districts when not abutting a public street. Dwelling unit(s) may be located in all other portions of the structure. Section 2. Severance Clause The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance 23 6 ZOA13-0003 regardless of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The proposed amendments to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15305 - Minor Alteration to Land Use Limitations, 15308 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, and also exempt under CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) - the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the _____ day of ______, 2013, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the (Insert Date). COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ Jill Hunter Crystal Bothelio MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 24 Article 15-19 - C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 15-19.020 – General Regulations (f) Screening, landscaping, and fencing. (9) Where a commercial development is to be located adjacent to or across from an established single-family or multi-family residential use, appropriate landscape buffers shall be required that are at least equal to the setbacks of the adjacent residential district. 15-19.040 – C-V district regulations (f) Front setback area. The minimum front setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site abutting and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-1, HR, R-M or P-A district, the minimum front setback area shall be fifteen feet. For two-story structures, the second-story shall be setback an additional five feet from the front facing exterior wall of the first-story. (g) Side setback area. The minimum side setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet for single-story structures. For two-story structures, the second-story shall be setback an additional foot for each foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure exceeds fourteen feet in height. (h) Rear setback area. The minimum rear setback area of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, plus two feet shall be added to the minimum rear setback area for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure exceeds fourteen feet in height. (i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, skylights, rooftop mechanical equipment and associated screening, in a C-V district shall be twenty-six feet. Article 15-58 – MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 15-58.020 - Development standards. (b) Only commercial use(s) may be located on the ground floor in the C-V and C-N districts. Dwelling units(s) may be located on the ground floor in all other districts when not abutting a public street. 25 P:\ordinances,zoning\cv-cn height limits\022613 meeting notes February 26, 2013 Workshop Minutes 1. Concerns on size of building (i.e. Timesquare project – 12230 Sara Sun) 2. Concerns that Quito Village will be over-developed (i.e. 3-story mixed use) 3. Should stay at 20’ height limit 4. Recognize of setting a precedent regarding construction 5. By increasing commercial height, commercial property values will increase but residential property values will decrease. 6. Take multi-family heights down to 26 ft. 7. Commercial – If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” 8. Not city’s responsibility to “pencil out” a commercial project. 9. Investor’s job to do “due diligence” 10. Develop within limits 11. 26 feet enable 2-story commercial, which equals more density, more traffic, etc. 12. 26’ can enable 30’ tall building when AC equipment is counted with parapet. 13. There is a variety of building heights in the Gateway. 14. There is inequality in the building heights. 15. What is the side setback standard? 16. If a home can be built at 26’ why can’t commercial? 17. Increase setbacks to 1.5’ for each foot in commercial building height 18. The real issue is use of the property & intensity with its impact. 19. City should not change rules to “bail out” land owners. 20. City isn’t interested in standardizing heights 21. Depends on who pushes “hard enough” on what height can be reached. 22. Opposed to increasing heights in Gateway 23. Heights were researched/studied for a number of months. 24. Residents count on “Gateway Guidelines” 25. Saratoga has a high quality of life because it’s based on our character. 26. Zoning guidelines (existing) have served us well. 27. Townhomes in rear (@30’) are not intruding because they are hidden. 28. Saratoga Square development was a “good meeting of minds” and is working. 29. What about redevelopment potential of properties with low heights. 30. Ripple effect of increased density & intensity of use. 31. Townhouse development could have less traffic then intense commercial. 32. Bring heights down to lowest available. 33. When you change heights, you change priorities. 34. Every project should be considered, but priorities should be recognized. 35. When you approve one with exception, others will come. 36. Doesn’t want to see tall buildings from their backyard. 37. Developers seem to have rights (i.e. guidelines) that private property owners don’t seem to have. Community shouldn’t have to object. 38. A fence “exception” doesn’t get the same type of credibility as a big commercial development. Why is that? 26 P:\ordinances,zoning\cv-cn height limits\022613 meeting notes 39. Seems that community interests are not being adequately represented. 27 P:\ordinances, zoning\cv-cn height limits\031213 meeting notes March 12, 2013 Workshop Minutes 1. City of Cupertino allows 30’ tall buildings @ story 3 story buildings. 2. Do not want anymore densities. Want space for the trees. Want to see the mountains. 3. The existing zoning allows 30’ for multi-family residential 20’ for commercial. 4. Do we want to incentivize a builder to build residential? 5. Bought house in Saratoga for a certain reason because of the character. We want it to remain. 6. Is the issue 1-story vs. 2-story? 7. Concerned about tall townhomes so close to S.F. 8. What happened to the landscaping behind Gene’s. 9. 30’ feet high multifamily is too high. 10. Cupertino was ruined by developers, don’t want the same for Saratoga. 11. Against raising limit in Saratoga 12. Change zoning ordinance to restrict height to 20’ in Quito. 13. Can the PC recommend a 20’ height limit to City Council? 14. No residential in commercial 15. No variances @ Quito 16. Multifamily should not be higher than commercial. 17. Don’t reduce the amount of commercial 18. Gateway & Quito have different character. 19. You can’t build 2-story @ 20’ 20. Gateway commercial should be allowed to be as tall as residential behind. 21. Want to make business work so we don’t lose to residential. 22. All neighborhoods want the lowest limits. 23. Heights control density/density of use. Density brings traffic. 24. The services we went are all on the 1st story. We don’t need 2-story commercial. 25. 20’, all 3 neighborhoods, all uses. 26. If it dincentives commercial. 27. One shoe doesn’t fit the whole community. 28. How do we not get there again? 29. Lower height to 20’. No residential in commercial district. 30. Density is an issue not just height 31. Review development based on design & use not specific height 32. Review how we measure height of buildings 33. Design that runs well with the neighborhood may make higher heights ok, should not be rigid. 34. Maybe consider FAR for density issues. 35. If you want 26’ to be flexible, then we can’t say “no” to a site that is overdeveloped. 36. Make code restrictive to maintain. 37. Create ordinance dealing with multi-family residential 38. Safety should be acknowledged 28 P:\ordinances, zoning\cv-cn height limits\031213 meeting notes 39. Keep multi-family residential out of commercial & professional office. 29 March 26, 2013 Meeting Minutes 1. Multi-family 2. Stand alone residential removed from commercial districts (remove) – All Commissioners 3. CV – Add landscape buffer requirement from GP into Zoning 4. Setback – 14’ structure height @ 30’ setback, every one foot in height will increase rear setback by two feet. 5. -14’ structure height @ 10’ setback, every one food in height will increase side setback by one foot for two-story (side) (illustration) - 10’ in the 1st story & 15’ as the 2nd story. (front) - 26’ with everything mixed use, no residential on ground floor. 6. CN – 20’ 30 54’ rear setback36’ rear setbackCN – 20’ heightCV – 26’ height35’ 2‐story rear setback25’ landscape buffer10’ 1ststory side setback22’ 2ndstory side setback at 26’26’Setback Exhibit25’ 1‐story rear setback31 Perceived Height ExhibitAs Viewed From the Rear of a Residential PropertyR1 ‐26’ house (35’ rear setback)CV ‐26’ building (54’ rear setback)CN ‐20’ building (36’ rear setback)13’ 9”11’ 9”11’ 2”Measured in SketchUp with the camera placed 25’ back from the fence and 5’ 6” high to replicate average eye level.32 Thursday, March 14, 2013 To: The Planning Commission and Planning Department of the city of Saratoga From: TimeSpace Square LLC, the owner of 12250 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd, Saratoga, CA 95070, with CV zoning RE: Opinion and Suggestion on height limit of CV zoning 1. Recent 10-20 years, Property value in Saratoga area has increased significantly, it’s probably 5-10 times higher than 30-50 years ago. The property value increase is mainly becau se land value increase. If constructing one story building on such expensive land is not financially feasible. This may explain why the related area has no much change for long time, other than some newly built residential townhouses with 30’ height limit. 2. The currently CV zoning is allowed the building height limit to be 20’, which is hard to build marketable 2 story commercial space with the minimum 10’ of interior height, with additional 2’ for each story for running ducts, pipes for mechanic units and structural beams, as such, plus a minimum 1’ or 2’ for sloped roof (pitched/mansard) for nice appearance, that add to a total of 25’- 26’ minimum height for a reasonable 2 story commercial building. 33 3. In order to encourage owner user or commercial developer to improve the commercial property with CV zoning, revitalize the related commercial area and make the area more appealing and attractive, the height limit change to a minimum of 25’-26’ is very critical. 4. Currently, the height limit is 30’ if constructing multi-family residential homes on CV zoning. If changing the height limit of commercial space to 30’, the same height limit as the multi- family residential homes, is very reasonable by the following reasons: a/. It’s fair to either commercial or residential buildings on CV zoning and it will not change any privacy and view to the residential properties adjacent to CV zoning; b/. It gives more flexibility to design of commercial space on roof style and variance, and appealing to neighborhood. 5. To our understanding, current consideration of height limit change should not affect any density, meaning density should have no change, thus should not cause any higher density and subsequent security concern. The only possible concern of height limit increase will affect privacy and view of adjacent residential properties. Therefore, we suggest that to protect privacy and view of residential properties adjacent to commercial building , setback requirement to the commercial building should be increased proportionally or even larger. For example, if height limit of CV zoning is changed from 20’ to 30’, for every 1 feet increase, the setback requirement can increase by 1.5 feet, so if a 30’ tall commercial building is adjacent to a residential property 34 in the back, the rear setback requirement should be 45 ’, assuming the previous rear setback is 30’ for a 20’ tall commercial building. Thus, the privacy and view of residential properties behind the commercial property will be protected or even better. By doing so, it protects both interests of residential properties and commercial properties, promotes the commercial area revitalization, thus maximizes benefit of the whole community. Yorke Lee The managing member of TimeSpace Square LLC, 35 1 Michael Fossati From:nancy jamello <nancy@nancyjamello.com> Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:40 AM To:Michael Fossati Subject:Re: Planning Commission Study Session - City of Saratoga Dear Michael, Thank you for taking the time to keep us informed. Quito Village is an important part of our neighborhood and it is different than the other commercial zones. Quito used to be thriving and fun to go to, many of us went there for lots of things. The new owner has been a real disaster and it could be true that if we were to simply lower his height limit he might give up and sell... but I believe no one wants housing there no mater want. The night of the meeting some said this better than I can but I think you understand the situation. Thanks for you help, Nancy Portugal Jamello 18548 Paseo Pueblo 408 374 2672 On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Michael Fossati <mfossati@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Dear Residents – Thank you for your continued participation in review of the building height limits within the Commercial- Visitor (CV) and Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) zoning. The Planning Commission will be conducting a study session at 5:00pm on Tuesday March 26th at the Prospect Center - Friendship Hall. Please follow the link below for more details (which will be available by the end of day on March 21st). http://www.saratoga.ca.us/cityhall/comms/planning/index.asp If you have any questions or comments, please contact Michael Fossati at the phone number and e-mail address below. Thank you, Michael Fossati Planner 36 1 Michael Fossati From:Marcia Fariss <marcia@gizmology.com> Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:40 PM To:Michael Fossati Subject:PC Study Session 3-26 Michael, Thank you for the notification of the PC Study Session on March 26. Unfortunately, I am already "booked" for the 5 PM time slot and will not be able to attend. However, the consensus view expressed at the Quito Village Shopping Center sums up my opinion. That is, keep the 20' commercial height limit and reduce the 30' height limit for multi‐family construction down to 20' also. In that vein, it would not hurt to lower the mixed use limit to 20' also, primarily because all 3 areas being considered are basically in residential communities. To say that we should continue the current mixed use and multi‐family residential limits simply because there is precedence, is "a cop out", to use the vernacular. The General Plan and Founders of Saratoga intended for this City to be a semi‐rural, low density, low intensity community. There is no excuse for surrendering our City to developers' pressures. Thank you, Marcia 37 From: Teresa Mills [mailto:mills_teresa@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:59 AM To: Planning; James Lindsay Subject: Commercial Height Limits for C-N and C-V All, I already spoke at the public outreach meeting, but I'm just following up with a brief written opinion. If you truly want to discourage multi-family residential being built, the best course of action is to have the same height limit for both commercial and multi-family: 20'. Ideally, the option to replace commercial buildings with multi-family buildings should not exist at all. The setback for multi-family buildings should remain at 25' and the commercial setback should remain at 30' since 5' of that setback is allowed to be paved. The goal of the ordinances in this city has alway been to preserve the natural beauty of our hills. However, there is no point in maintaining the beauty of the hills if you then allow development which blocks the views of those very same hills. Currently, we can just barely see the hills over the buildings at Quito Village. If the height limit is raised, those buildings will eventually be rebuilt and our view will be lost. In theory, yes, the height limit for the neighbourhood is 26'. In practice, the height of the surrounding homes is only 18'. Therefore, I see no reason why the commercial property or multi-family height limit should be 26'. As far back as 1964 the City Council's aim was to "keep low-density residential communities with only those commercial facilities necessary to serve our own citizens" (City Council report, 1964). Fast forward to today and our City's website states that "Saratoga has a small town feel which allows them to escape the hustle of Silicon Valley". This small town feel is a direct result of this history of low-density development. We have very little commercial space so we need to protect the space we currently have. Yes, a lot of the commercial space at Quito Village is currently empty, but that is a direct result of the owner of the property, not because businesses did not want to be there because the buildings are too short. Starbucks has moved in and none of the existing stores have problems with the height. We need Quito Village, but we don't need taller buildings. Sincerely, Teresa Mills 38 From: jasletra@aol.com [mailto:jasletra@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:22 AM To: James Lindsay; Planning Cc: Dave Anderson; City Hall Subject: Commercial and multi unit height limits Hello, James- There may have been some problem with notification because I do not believe I received notice about tonight’s meeting. In general, you and Michael and the Planning Commission staff have been going out of your way to notify me of things that might be of interest, and I appreciate that. At any rate, would you or someone else please read the following out loud at the Planning Commission meeting tonight, as I have a commitment and cannot attend: Dear Planning Commission Members, First, thank you very much for the two community meetings you have held about the height limit question and the many hours each of you has spent listening to resident comments and opinion. As you know, both meetings were well attended and many residents spoke at each meeting. As you also know, with the exception of one resident, who was equivocal, every other resident who spoke favored maintaining the 20 ft. commercial height limit in the three commercial zoning districts in question, and also favored reducing the stand alone multi unit residential height limits in those zoning districts, with 20 fit. being the consensus objective. I will not belabor you by repeating my comments from those meetings except to emphasize one thing. As a practical matter, the difference between 20 ft. and 26 ft. is the difference between one story and two stories; a second story means doubling the density and intensity of use which will result in increased traffic, noise, pressure on our schools and, perhaps, crime rates, while accompanied by a decrease in surrounding residential property values. None of these results are favorable for current Saratoga residents. While the height limit questions are straightforward, there is a related and serious problem that I believe is not well understood. In these three commercial zoning districts, 100% residential development is not allowed and projects that are 100% commercial are clearly permittedSar. “Mixed-use” is problematic. To most of us, “mixed-use” means a building that is commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor or a building that is commercial in front and residential behind. In Saratoga, however, mixed-use has also been interpreted to mean separate commercial and residential buildings within the same project. That is the only reason that the multi unit residential height limit is relevant in a commercial district. The problem is that it could cause our community to lose a substantial portion of our already extremely limited 39 retail space. For example, at Quito Center, if someone proposed a tiny commercial kiosk-type commercial building and then covering the rest of the property with residential units, that would qualify as mixed-use according to the way Saratoga has interpreted the term. The problem is particularly serious because residential development in Saratoga is, in general, substantially more profitable than commercial development and those market forces do not appear as if they will change any time soon. In my opinion, the City needs to add a standard stating that, in the three zoning districts in question; a minimum of 75% of the developed floor space of any project must be commercial rather than residential. That standard would also be excellent on a city-side basis, provided that it applied to one story mixed-use developments and that multi story mixed-use developments were required to be a minimum of 50% commercial (as a percentage of developed floor space). Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Schwartz San Marcos Road CC: Dave Anderson Saratoga City Council Jeffrey A. Schwartz 1610 La Pradera Dr. Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 379-9400 Work (408) 529-4077 Cell jasletra@aol.com 40 SIDNEY T. KAUFMANN 19677 SARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA CA 95070 April 10, 2013 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Michael Fossati, Planner Under Application ZOA13-0003, the Planning Commission has directed City staff to amend Article 15-19 of the zoning ordinance to complete the following: (a) remove the allowance of ground level, multi-family dwellings from the CV and CN zoning districts; and (b) increase the height limit for Commercial and Mixed-Use to 26’ in the CV zoning district. The Planning Commission has announced a public hearing on 24 April 2013 to review the application and direction. The purpose of my letter is express my opposition to and disappointment in the Planning Commission’s decisions on this project. I and my wife have lived in Saratoga for 40 years. We were attracted to the community for the same reasons most (if not all) families were similarly attracted to Saratoga – the residential nature of the community. The fundamental question I asked myself about this project, and would further extend to the City, is “WHY?” The City website describes Saratoga as follows: “Tucked away in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California, Saratoga is a lovely residential community with a small-town feel. The City is well known for its excellent schools, fine dining, unique shops, and distinctive cultural institutions. Saratoga offers a high quality of life to its residents and a chance to escape the hustle of Silicon Valley.” Simply put, the above description is consistent with my perspective of the City. The changes noted in the application are NOT consistent with this description of the City. By the direction described in the Notice of Public Hearing, the City has violated the trust extended by its residents. We, the residents, have little recourse other than that of expressing our opposition. To that end, and with the strongest terms possible consistent with courteous behavior, I vehemently condemn your violation of our trust. Respectfully, Sidney T. Kaufmann STK:dd 41 42 43 1 Michael Fossati From:City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:24 AM To:Michael Fossati Cc:James Lindsay; Debbie Bretschneider Subject:FW: Opposition to Raising Height Limits Hi Michael, Can you please attach this letter and any others you receive to your staff report on height limits as written communications? Crystal Bothelio City Clerk | City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone/Fax: 408.868.1269 | Email: ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us Web: www.saratoga.ca.us Interested in serving on a City Commission? Visit www.saratoga.ca.us/comvac to learn about getting involved! From: City Council Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:21 AM To: Chuck Page; Jill Hunter; Howard Miller; Manny Cappello; Dave Anderson; City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio]; Emily Lo Subject: FW: Opposition to Raising Height Limits From: f k Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:20:53 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Planning Cc: City Council Subject: Opposition to Raising Height Limits To Honorable Planning Commission Members: I would like to register my opposition to raising height limits in the Commercial-Visitor and Commercial-Neighborhood zoning districts. Please add this communication to the official list of opponents regarding this issue. Thank you, Fleur Kettmann 19406 Vineyard Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 (resident in Saratoga for 25 years) 44 45 1 Michael Fossati From:Abigail Ayende on behalf of Planning Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:26 PM To:DL - Planning Commission Cc:Michael Fossati Subject:FW: Subject: Planning Commission Hearing on April 24 From: Mallory58@aol.com [mailto:Mallory58@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:16 PM To: Planning Subject: Subject: Planning Commission Hearing on April 24 Subject: Planning Commission Hearing on April 24 Dear Saratoga Planning Commission with copies to City Council, We are writing regarding your Public Hearing on Wednesday 24th as we will not be able to attend your meeting. The notice we received lists three items to be covered: 1. Remove the allowance of ground level, multi-family dwellings from the CV and CN zoning district. We agree with this recommendation. 2. Increase the height limit for Commercial and Mixed-Use to 26 feet in the CV zoning district. We disagree with this recommendation for the following reasons a. The 2003 Gateway Plan approved by the city in spite of the existence of taller buildings nearby. The neighbors and others in the city have depended on the city to follow its guidelines. b. The two public hearings at the Prospect Center and Quito endorsed the 20 feet height limitation by almost 100% c. The city character and zoning traditions of city of Saratoga. d. Major impact on the neighbors by increasing the heights e. Increasing the commercial height limits requires an environmental impact statement and it has not been done. 3. Leave the height limit for Commercial and Mixed-Use to 20 feet in the CN zoning district. We agree with this recommendation We submit these comments as 45 year residents who care about our city have actively supported our city on the City Council, Hakone Gardens, Saratoga Historical Foundation, Homeowner Association, Organizing Saratoga July 4th, Saratoga Foothill, Club, Saratoga Men’s Club, Saratoga Book Go Round, Citizen of the Year committee, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce volunteer, Wreaths Across America at the Madronia Cemetery, Gateway Task Force, Committee to Save the North Campus, and the Valley Institute for Theater Arts. Sincerely, Sue and Jack Mallory 12258 Kirkdale Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 46 1 Michael Fossati Subject:FW: building height limits From: Peggy Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:03:57 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council Subject: building height limits Good day City Counsel, April 17th. 2013 I am writing to you as a resident of Saratoga for 33 years and a local Real Estate Broker, with regards to your current position on changing the Height Limit for Commercial and Mixed use areas. For many reasons I oppose any changes to the current height limitations in Saratoga. We residential citizens have been paying extra in our lives for the privilege of living in our semi‐rural environment. We chose not to live in high density communities by paying more for our highly valued land and do not wish have the extra nuisances that would come from the additional density that would be created by raising the heights of buildings in any of the cities commercial or mixed use areas. Changing to higher density in these area’s will diminish the existing and further values of the residential homes that surround them, and add additional chaos to all the residents of Saratoga, with more traffic and will be a burden on our school systems and fire and safety systems. Our community has never been about its commercial zones. I would hope that residential home values and quality of life for Saratogan’s would be the primary focus of our city officials and our planning commission . Your proposed plan to change the height limits in not just a local neighborhood issue. This issue effects the entire community, please do not make these changes without asking all in the community for their input. Regards, Margaret Lynne 21075 Bank Mill Lane, Saratoga,Ca. 408‐741‐1386 47 1 Michael Fossati From:Abigail Ayende on behalf of Planning Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:16 AM To:DL - Planning Commission Cc:Michael Fossati Subject:FW: April 24 Public Hearing on increasing height limit for Commercial and Mixed-Use to 26' in the CV zoning district From: Gene Wu [mailto:cgenewu@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:00 PM To: Planning Subject: April 24 Public Hearing on increasing height limit for Commercial and Mixed-Use to 26' in the CV zoning district Dear members of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, My family have always enjoyed the quiet and un-congested neighborhood since we moved to Saratoga 27 years ago. I would appreciate that you could share with the citizens of Saratoga the motivation of increasing the height limit for Commercial and Mixed-Use to 26' in the CV zoning district located along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. It seems to me that this decision is not helping to keep Saratoga quiet and un- congested. Thank you for your attention. Gene Wu 48 1 Michael Fossati From:Abigail Ayende on behalf of Planning Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:16 AM To:DL - Planning Commission Cc:Michael Fossati Subject:FW: Height Changes ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Cheriel Jensen [mailto:cherieljensen@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:54 PM To: Planning Subject: Height Changes April 17, 2013 Dear Saratoga Planning Commissioners, Please do not increase the height limit in either the Saratoga CV or the CN Zoning Districts. You heard from the people so far notified. (Notification was extrememly limited though the whole city will be impacted.) Residents came out in substantial numbers and to a person did not want the increased height. You are charged with reflecting the wishes of the residents if the city. You now know the wishes. In addition. no housing should be allowed in our commercial areas. We have so little commercial land it should all be reserved for commercial to serve the residents. If the height is changed, as proposed, the following environmental issues must be addressed: The increased traffic generated by the proposed change and the additional loss of time by residents stuck in traffic, The loss of air quality resulting from the increased use of fuel to heat the buildings and the increased traffic and congestion, Because we have few jobs in Saratoga the increased traffic should be assessed for the whole area, not just Saratoga, The increased noise environment due to the increased traffic, The loss of space for trees and resulting heat, Assessment of the loss of long views of our hills, Assessment of the loss of neighborhood views, The potential crowding of our schools. This proposal should simply be rejected. Yours truly 49 2 Cheriel Jensen 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA 50 51 52 53 54 3/12/13District LocationsQuito VillageArgonaut CenterGatewaySaratoga-SunnyvaleRoad55