The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-23-2008 Planning Commission Packet C:\DOCUME~1\aayende\LOCALS~1\Temp\amaA7.tmp\Planning Commission Agenda 2008-07-23 19-00.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE : Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA T YPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Manny Cappello PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 9, 2008 ORAL COMMUNICATION: Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 17, 2008 REPORT OF APPEAL R IGHTS: 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). CONSENT C ALENDAR: PUBLIC HEARINGS: All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants 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. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION PDR#07-0012, Balakrishnan, 21789 Villa Oaks Lane, 503-78-036 - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately 1,179 square foot single-story addition to the existing 5,487 square foot home located at 21789 Villa Oaks Lane. The average slope of the lot is 12.3%. The total proposed floor area will be approximately 6,666 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 15,000 square feet. The lot size is approximately 144,184 square feet, and the site is located in the HR zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060 for homes that exceed 6,000 square feet and are over 18 feet in height. (Heather Bradley) 2. APPLICATION #MOD08-0002 (517-09-018) – CROWN CASTLE, 14410 BIG BASIN WAY - The applicant requests approval for a modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 1 C:\DOCUME~1\aayende\LOCALS~1\Temp\amaA7.tmp\Planning Commission Agenda 2008-07-23 19-00.doc wireless telecommunications facility for Metro PCS, consisting of three antennas enclosed in a 16 inch diameter radome, on the roof of an existing commercial building located at 14410 Big Basin Way. The existing Use Permit for the site is for an unmanned telecommunications Hub Facility to support wireless carriers. (Chris Riordan) 3. APPLICATION #ZOA08-0001 – Zoning Amendment; City of Saratoga; 13777 Fruitvale Avenue (389-43-025) - The proposed amendment includes rezoning three (3) legal non-conforming parcels located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district into the R-1-20,000 zoning district. Changing the zoning designation of the three (3) lots from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 will produce legal conforming status for the affected lots. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and will not affect the allowable density on the existing lots. (Michael Fossati) DIRECTORS ITEM: - COMMISSION ITEMS: - COMMUNICATIONS: - ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING: - Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 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 for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on July 17, 2008 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 2 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt, City Arborist Kate Bear, Assistant Planner Cynthia McCormick and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of June 25, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of June 25, 2008, were adopted with one correction to page 9. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Bob Wallace, Resident on Foothill Lane: • Explained that he had thought that tonight’s meeting was a Council meeting but he stayed anyway because of the good air conditioning, although he’s pretty sure his issue is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. • Reported that he lives off Comer Drive. • Added that Mr. Cherbone is working on funding a $200,000 plus retaining wall on property adjacent to Greg Reyes, who is worth more than $300 million and whose property is worth more than $22 million. • Questioned why the taxpayers should pay for this wealthy person’s retaining wall. Chair Cappello agreed that this issue is not something for the Commission but rather should be directed to Council, who will next meet one week from this evening in this same meeting place. 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 3, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Cappello announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #PDR07-0020 (503-69-025 (old); (503-69-040 (new)), SLOAN/MAIROSE, 22000 Via Regina: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new home and detached second dwelling unit. The proposed home will be approximately 6,917 square feet and will be less than 26 feet tall. The second dwelling unit will be less than 1,200 square feet. The gross lot size is 128,541 square feet and the site is zoned Hillside Residential. Exterior colors and materials consist of beige stucco and stone accent and tile roof material. Design Review is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. (Shweta Bhatt) Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new 6,917 square foot residence with a 2,921 square foot basement. The maximum height proposed is 25 feet, 10 inches but most of the roofline is at 17 feet, 11 inches in height. • Added that a secondary dwelling unit is also proposed that will be deed restricted as an affordable unit should it ever be rented. • Described the building materials as including earthtone stucco, stone, tile roofing and wood windows. • Distributed a materials board. • Stated that the home is articulated to minimize the bulk of the structure. • Informed that two ordinance-sized trees will be removed and replaced. Additionally, protective tree fencing and a bond would be required for all other trees on site. • Stated that a neighborhood meeting was held and signatures of support were received from the neighbors. No negative comments have been received. • Reported that a pedestrian/equestrian trail access along the southern boundary line and driveway would be recorded. The applicant has agreed to dedicate this easement to the City. • Recommended that the Planning Commission find this proposal to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and approve this project. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 3 Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Tom Sloan, Project Architect: • Distributed a rendering. • Thanked Planner Shweta Bhatt for her hard work. • Explained that the architectural design is that of a Tuscan farmhouse, which is represented by a variety of architectural massing elements on the most level part of the site. This style is typically found in country farmhouses in Europe. These structures have evolved over several generations, which is the look they were after. • Added that the house is situated on a gentle sloping saddle between some rolling hills. The house will appear as if growing out of the site in a very natural way. • Assured that there would be no evidence of cut or fill after the grading is completed on the site. • Said that the house employs a subdued palette of building materials that evoke the rustic character of a Tuscan farmhouse befitting this pastoral setting. • Added that earth hues and colors such as a patina limestone plaster walls, terra cotta tile roof, dark brown rough-hewn timbers, beams and rafters and a rugged fieldstone bond the home to its natural terrain. It will use a combination of single-story layers and greater setbacks to assure privacy. There is a tower to anchor the façade and a sunlight-filled courtyard. The subterranean garage is hidden from view. A separate guesthouse employs the same materials and craftsmanship. • Said that two non-native pines would be removed but all oaks retained. New olive trees will be planted. • Made a small correction to the green materials list from the stated recycled roofing tiles to a new roof tile with the same look. Chair Cappello asked why not use recycled materials for the roof. Mr. Tom Sloan said that shipping said materials takes many months and they hope to get this home constructed rather quickly. Additionally, recycled material is not very dependable and the cost is high. He assured that they would incorporate an authentic terra cotta blend of roof color tiles. Commissioner Kundtz asked how many wood-burning fireplaces. Mr. Tom Sloan replied zero. He explained that originally they planned on one in the living room but his client decided to use only gas fireplaces throughout. Commissioner Nagpal asked if anything would be growing on the trellis with the solar panels. Mr. Tom Sloan said there would be shrubs near the base. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the windows and doors are metal or wood clad. Mr. Tom Sloan explained that they are wood windows but are clad on the exterior with aluminum metal in a dark brown color. 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 4 Commissioner Rodgers asked if this applies to the garage door too. Mr. Tom Sloan said the garage door is wood. Commissioner Hlava verified the other green materials with Mr. Tom Sloan including the tankless water heater and photovoltaic panels. She suggested deleting the recycled clay roof tiles from the list. Mr. Tom Sloan agreed that the other materials are still proposed outside of the recycled roof tiles. Commissioner Kumar asked if the house would utilize dual zones for energy efficiency in heating and cooling. Mr. Tom Sloan advised that they have more than dual zones as they have five zones. They are using hydronic heating. Heating the floor with radiant heat is much more efficient and keeps the heat where people walk and live. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the front door is recessed. She asked if they have considered use of a wood door there. Mr. Tom Sloan explained that they are using a Canterra door, which is a metal steel door with glass. This is pretty high end. It will be an iron door in a dark bronze color. It is a very large iron door with an artisan created design. Commissioner Rodgers said that this door description sounds Tuscan-Spanish. Mr. Tom Sloan replied exactly. He added that there are just two companies around here that make them and he believes Canterra is the better of the two. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that this is a design that pays homage to the Tuscan architecture as well as the pastoral setting of the site. • Expressed appreciation for the trail easement. • Said she has no trouble making the Design Review findings to support this project. Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a very attractive design and he too can make all the findings to support this application. Commissioner Zhao said that this is very beautiful and she can make all findings. Commissioner Kumar said he really likes the artist’s rendering and agrees this is a beautiful design. 6 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Hlava agreed that this is a beautiful house and it is easy to make the Design Review findings. She stated that she likes the use of lots of green features, especially recycled materials and zoned heating. She added that the proposed door is the better way to go as it lasts longer. Commissioner Rodgers said that this home is a very authentic Tuscan architecture that will be delightful and blend into the hillside. She said that the door would be lovely and she would love to see it when it is installed. She added that she could make all findings in support. Chair Cappello commended staff and the applicant. He thanked the applicant for going to the expense of installing story poles. This step is important in the hillside area to show how it will look from a wide area even outside the noticing distance. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer made revisions to the draft resolution as follows: • Last line on Condition #2, “…be recorded, in a form satisfactory to the City on the deed.” • Add the word “prior” to the Community Development Director approval. • Modify, “…maximum extent possible reasonably feasible.” Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to construct a new 6,917 square foot home and 1,200 square foot secondary dwelling unit on property located at 22000 Via Regina, with conditions as modified, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #APTR08-0006 (389-13-033) ELLINGBOE, 18644 Paseo Lado: The applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit application to remove three boxelder trees. The trees become infested with boxelder bugs on a yearly basis when the bugs feed on the fruits of the trees. The bugs do not harm the trees but overwinter in the house and create a nuisance. (Kate Bear) Ms. Kate Bear, City Arborist, presented the staff report as follows: • Distributed a copy of the resolution and an email received from a neighbor. • Provided two edits. On page 3, replace alders with boxelders. On the resolution, “…criteria overall.” • Reported that this applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit for 18644 Paseo Lado. • Advised that the applicant wants to remove three boxelder trees due to bugs that do not harm the tree but are a nuisance. • Added that the trees are in good health and provide shade. 7 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 6 • Informed that a letter signed by nine neighbors has been provided. They are in support of removing and replacing these trees with eight new trees. • Said that an email was received from a neighbor who supports the removal but is concerned about the replacement location. She wants to be sure that they don’t interfere with her future plans to install solar panels. • Reported that staff is recommending denial of this request to be consistent with the General Plan. • Advised that the trees are healthy and not causing damage. • Explained that the request for removal does not meet all criteria as the trees are: o Not in eminent danger of falling. o Do not interfere with utilities. o In reasonably good health. o Do not threaten damage to the house. o As the lot is flat, there is no erosion concern. • Stated that removal of the trees would create a significant impact on the property with respect to shade and landscaping. The house would no longer be shaded by the backyard trees and will not be screened from the neighbors. • Said that the trees are in reasonably good health and the site can support this number of trees. • Advised that there are alternatives to removing the trees available that do not require spraying inside of the house. • Reported that they can spray the trees in two ways using two different chemicals. One method of spraying would prevent fruit. The other method involves spraying the trunk and lower branches to kill the bugs when they emerge from the eggs. • Stated that removal of these trees is in conflict with the intent of the ordinance to protect and preserve mature and healthy trees. • Added that the request does meet the criteria in terms of health and safety as spraying may have health risks. She added that the trees and their bugs also have an impact on the owner’s enjoyment of their property. • Recommended denial. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the use of spray to preclude the fruit must occur annually. City Arborist Kate Bear replied yes. Commissioner Kundtz asked how toxic and/or much of a health hazard does this spraying pose. City Arborist Kate Bear said that the spraying must occur annually. Spraying is not supposed to occur if the wind is more than 10 miles per hour as there is a possibility of spray drifting if winds are above 10 miles per hour. Commissioner Nagpal asked City Arborist Kate Bear to verify that there is no impact from spraying if the directions are followed. 8 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 7 City Arborist Kate Bear reported that both chemicals have “caution” on the label. Any time one uses chemicals anywhere you risk a health risk. She added that these chemicals are used on the trees not in the house. Commissioner Rodgers said that typically one stays away from the chemical until it is dry. She asked if they are less toxic once dry. City Arborist Kate Bear said that all chemicals have some toxicity. She added that the toxicity is minimal or it would not be approved for use. Commissioner Rodgers asked if treatment could get rid of bugs and break the cycle of annual infestation. Would sealing up the house keep them out without the need to spray annually? City Arborist Kate Bear said that it might be adequate to take steps to seal the house from bugs without using chemicals but she does not know for sure. Her recommendation is to seal up the house and use the chemicals. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there are other trees with bugs. City Arborist Kate Bear said that bugs usually harm trees. In this case, the trees are fine and the impact is on the homeowner. Commissioner Kundtz asked about the mistletoe growing on these trees. City Arborist Kate Bear said that all of the trees have mistletoe growing on them. They are a parasitic plant usually infesting a tree after birds drop a seed onto it. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the perceived impact on privacy and shade, as there are quite a few trees on this property. City Arborist Kate Bear said that these three trees help provide significant cooling of the home. Commissioner Kumar asked if the removal of the male boxelder at the front of the property might stop the three female boxelder trees from producing fruit. City Arborist Kate Bear said she was not sure. She added that she did a lot of reading and has learned that some boxelder trees have bisexual flowers. However, theoretically it should work. Commissioner Kumar asked if this might be grounds for approval. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she is trying to keep trees without the need to spray in the house. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all or some of the findings must be made. 9 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 8 City Arborist Kate Bear said that not all are required but overall many should be met. Commissioner Rodgers asked what is involved in spraying. City Arborist Kate Bear said that it depends upon the chemical used. One process requires one spraying per year when the tree is in full bloom or flower. It is the more expensive option. The other process requires between one to three trunk sprayings per year although it is less expensive. Commissioner Rodgers asked what is the cost. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she does not know current costs, as her knowledge of such costs is about 15 years out of date. Commissioner Kumar asked if this decision is at the discretion of this Commission. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said yes. He said the Commission should look at all of the criteria and weigh them before deciding overall what is the appropriate decision for the trees. Commissioner Zhao asked what the downside might be if these trees were to be replaced with other mature trees. City Arborist Kate Bear said that replacement trees are typically young trees. Commissioner Zhao asked what is the value of the three trees. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she didn’t establish a value. She added that usually one 24- inch box replacement tree is required for every tree removed. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the criteria requiring good forestry practices is for this property specifically or the City in general. City Arborist Kate Bear explained that good practices might include considering if trees are too close and if additional trees can be planted without being overcrowded. These trees should be kept because they are mature trees. Commissioner Nagpal asked City Arborist Kate Bear if these trees needed to be removed in order to accommodate an addition to the residence, would the request still be denied. City Arborist Kate Bear replied no. Their removal and replacement would be allowed to accommodate an addition. Commissioner Nagpal asked why this is different. Are the criteria different? She expressed concern that if this tree removal were necessary for an addition, this owner would not be required to keep these trees. 10 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 9 City Arborist Kate Bear said that if the remodel offers an increased and/or better use of their home, they would be allowed to plant replacement trees elsewhere on the property. The replacement value is different. Commissioner Nagpal asked if these trees were to be replaced at an appraised value would that be a better option. City Arborist Kate Bear replied sure. However, that still results in younger replacement trees, which are smaller trees. She added that smaller trees, however, become established quicker than do larger trees. Commissioner Kumar pointed out that all of the trees have mistletoe activity on them. He asked for a health rating between one and 10. He said that the male tree appears to be in bad condition. City Arborist Kate Bear agreed that the male tree appears to be in poorer health than do the three female trees. She added that the applicant did not want to remove the male tree. The female trees can be rated as being between 60 to 70 percent healthy. Commissioner Kumar asked if they could be treated for mistletoe. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she did not think the trees have been treated for mistletoe. She explained that birds drop seeds that transmit mistletoe. Commissioner Zhao asked if the property could support more trees if the applicant wishes to plant more than three. City Arborist Kate Bear reminded that the applicant is proposing replacing the three removed trees with eight new ones. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Lori Ellingboe, Appellant and Property Owner: • Thanked the Commissioners for their site visit. • Explained that when she purchased this property a year ago it was because of the trees and not with the intent of cutting down any trees. • Said that the trees are gorgeous and it is not easy to find land like she has got. • Tearfully stated that she is stunned to be before this Commission seeking permission to remove these trees. • Advised that she is not remodeling. • Said that she wanted a backyard for her two boys to play in. • Reported that it has been a constant problem with the boxelder bugs. • Informed that she has learned that the previous owners used to spray monthly to control the bugs. • Stated that her friends often ask her, “Aren’t you disgusted!’ • Said that her nanny is disgusted because she does not spray constantly for the bugs. 11 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 10 • Added that an electrician told her that the insulation in her attic was disgusting. • Said that it is only reluctantly that she comes before this Commission requesting permission to remove these trees. • Stated that it is her intention to keep the male boxelder tree in front alive as long as she can. She added that, in fact, this afternoon it was trimmed to try to minimize the mistletoe. • Reported that she knows for a fact that the mistletoe was removed before, as it was not there when she viewed the property. • Advised that even if you kill the mistletoe there is still damage because their roots bore into the branches. The only permanent remedy for the mistletoe is to get rid of those branches that once had some mistletoe growing on them. • Said that twice a year there are bugs all over the back wall. • Reported that her kids were using the dustbuster to get them picked up. • Stated that although the windows are fairly new and double paned, bugs still get in and can be found around the frame. • Said that she has gone through an education process in learning about this tree. • Stressed her belief that trees are a value and were also a reason for buying this property. • Added that there is still a lot of food for these bugs even if sprayed. • Reported that the father of the previous family that moved out is dealing with brain cancer. • Said that her stated options were to leave the bugs or spray frequently. • Said that all her neighbors signed a petition in support of removal of these trees over spraying. Only two neighbors did not sign and their properties are rentals and she could not contact the owners. • Pointed out that her neighbors and her are the impacted homeowners. • Said that one neighbor has asked for a maple to be planted nearest her, as she is allergic to oaks. • Said that they cannot use their backyard whether covered with bugs or due to the chemical used to control those bugs. • Questioned the fairness in allowing removal of these trees to support an addition and not because of the bugs. • Stated that she has consulted with an arborist on appropriate replacement trees. • Offered the rhetorical question, ‘has the City’s Arborist ever recommended that someone plant a boxelder?” • Answered her own question by stating that she does not believe that any arborist would recommend planting boxelder trees. • Said that spraying is not a perfect solution. • Reiterated that she cannot use her own backyard. • Reported finding bugs even in her medicine cabinet. • Declared these bugs to be invasive and a significant nuisance. Commissioner Hlava expressed concern over the location of a proposed cherry tree that would be close enough to a fence shared with a neighbor as to represent a potential nuisance for that neighbor as the tree matures. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said that the plan provided is in error and the cherry tree in question already exists in that location. 12 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 11 Commissioner Hlava said that trees proposed include a magnolia to shade the patio and a persimmon and two maples. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said she also proposes an avocado. Commissioner Hlava said there are also a new pistache and a new Japanese maple near the house. She asked how large that tree would get. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said it would grow to between 10 and 12 feet as a mature tree. Commissioner Hlava said there are also a tangerine tree and a Chinese elm. Is there enough sun? Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied that she thought so. Commissioner Kundtz reminded the applicant of Mrs. Wyckoff’s concern about shade impacts on her future use of solar panels. He asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if she had spoken with her neighbor and is she willing to work with her. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied yes. She advised that the pistache and persimmon trees grow to between 30 and 40 feet, which should not block her sun. She added that if, or when, the male boxelder fails she plans to install a camphor tree in its place. Commissioner Kundtz reiterated his question as to whether Ms. Lori Ellingboe would work with her neighbor to reach agreement. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied absolutely, she is my neighbor. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if the pictures of the boxelder bugs she provided were taken on her property. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied no, they were generated from a website. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe how long she has lived in this home and what she has tried to control the bugs. Ms. Lori Ellingboe: • Replied that she has lived in her home for one year. • Said that she learned from her research that UC Davis recommends that one uses a dustbuster to vacuum these bugs up and they have done so. • Added that she has gone to Orchard Supply for spray. • Said that they keep the debris picked up where they nest, as mulch is an ideal home for boxelder bugs. Commissioner Kumar asked how many times she had sprayed. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said twice, once in March and again in April. 13 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Kumar asked if she could use her yard after spraying. Ms. Lori Ellingboe: • Said that they stay out for at least two days after spraying. • Added that the common recommendation for dealing with the boxelder tree and its nuisance bugs is either to tolerate the bugs or remove the trees. • Pointed out that the spray is rated “caution” and so was DDT at one time when it was first issued but what we know now could change later. • Stated that she does not want to spray. • Reiterated that she is in an awkward position. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this is a very difficult thing but this Commission has to make tough findings to preserve its tree canopy. She asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if she would be willing to put in more mature trees and also which proposed trees are evergreen versus deciduous. Ms Lori Ellingboe said that all the trees in the back are deciduous. Commissioner Nagpal asked her if she would put in more mature replacement trees. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied yes. She added that it is her understanding that 24-inch box trees are actually healthier within a couple years than are trees that are larger when planted. She said that adding mature trees is better than spraying these trees. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if the bugs are around all year. Ms. Lori Ellingboe: • Said that she didn’t see them last fall but she had just moved into the house in July and the previous owners had sprayed consistently. • Added that it was really in March and April of this year when the bugs crawled out of the insulation of the roof after overwintering inside the house. • Advised that when the bugs come out they flock against the heat of the back wall of the house and that is when the yard looks like it’s moving there are so many bugs. • Said that she was taken aback as she was not expecting this. Commissioner Zhao sought clarification that this bug infestation lasts for a couple of months a year. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said that she does not know yet but rather will see how it is in the fall now that it’s been a year since the trees were sprayed. Mr. Straun Edwards, Resident on Baylor Avenue: • Said that he was the consulting arborist for Ms. Lori Ellingboe. • Reported that the boxelder bug has two generations per year, one in the spring and the other in the fall. That results in between three and four months of infestation. 14 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 13 • Said that the common recommendation is removal. • Pointed out that spraying is damaging to other plants if not covered. • Added that timing for the spraying is critical. The tree must bee at full bloom at the time of spraying and it might take two to three times to get ideal application. There is no guarantee of 100 percent control. • Advised that the residents of this neighborhood are green and prefer removal and replacement over regular spraying. • Reiterated that there is no real alternative to removal. • Added that Ms. Ellingboe wants to retain the mail boxelder in order to retain its screening impact. Commissioner Nagpal said that the City’s Arborist says there are other alternatives. Mr. Straun Edwards: • Said that he has not seen a lot of boxelders. • Reiterated that spraying will not achieve 100 percent control. • Said the spraying is more often used to keep olive trees from fruiting. • Added that these boxelders are at varying levels of health. • Advised that boxelders are a fast growing but short lived tree. • Opined that for him, allowing removal is a “no brainer.” Commissioner Nagpal clarified Mr. Straun Edwards’ position to be that there are alternatives but none are 100 percent effective. Mr. Straun Edwards said that the alternatives are to spray the tree and/or to spray the bugs. Commissioner Zhao asked how old the boxelder trees are. Mr. Straun Edwards said that the mail boxelder has five or six years left. Chair Cappello asked if the spray, Florel, is used for the trunk spraying. Mr. Straun Edwards said that a different chemical is used as a contact spray to kill the actual bugs. Chair Cappello asked if this spray was effective Mr. Straun Edwards said fairly. He added that the bugs are not just on the trees but rather they are all over. Trunk spraying would have to happen monthly. He added that he does not like to spray and has not seen a massive infestation such as this. Mr. Tom Stanis, Resident on Paseo Lado: • Reported that he bought his home adjacent to Lori Ellingboe’s at about the same time. • Added that they also have an infestation of these bugs. • Said that they moved in when his wife was pregnant and his son was born on June 19th. He was more than one month early and spent time in the neonatal intensive care unit. 15 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 14 • Stated that spraying these trees would occur within feet of his baby’s nursery and he does not want to subject his baby to that exposure. • Said that his child should not be put at risk over three trees. • Added that a large maple tree on his lot adequately screens and shades the area that would be impacted by the removal of these trees. • Stated that there are no windows on the sides of these houses in this neighborhood so no privacy impacts exist. • Said that on the issue of new smaller versus larger trees, it is his understanding that smaller trees are larger than any large tree planted by the third year. Ms. Sue Mallory, Resident on Kirkdale Drive: • Said that she is a 40-year resident. • Explained that she is here the evening for consideration of the next agenda item but felt compelled to speak on this appeal. • Stated her support for the granting of this appeal, as she would rather have healthy people without spraying. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Director John Livingstone: • Said that he needed to make two clarifications. • Said that for an addition that requires tree removal, those requests are considered on a case specific basis. • Added that if a large specimen oak was to be removed to accommodate an addition, it might not be approved. However, in this situation with boxelders, perhaps it would be allowed. • Advised that the adult boxelder bugs have wings and can fly so just trunk spraying cannot stop them. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Commission’s decision would be final. City Arborist Kate Bear said that their decision could be appealed to Council. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the City has a nuisance tree list. City Arborist Kate Bear replied no. There is just a list of trees to avoid around pavement. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that from the descriptions provided by the applicant and her neighbors, this has public health impacts. • Stated that repeated spraying is a bad idea. • Added that the applicant is not being allowed the economic enjoyment of her property. She has a pretty backyard but one cannot imagine her having a picnic there when bugs are all around. • Said that Finding 2, the threat of damage, can be made, as these bugs are nesting/laying eggs in insulation, which creates damage. It seems that these bugs do damage. 16 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 15 • Said that a conflict with the intent of the ordinance does not apply here. Having a huge bug infestation twice a year, with many of the bugs living in the walls and insulation of the house helps meet the criteria to allow removal of these trees. • Agreed that it is Kate Bear’s job as City Arborist to save trees in Saratoga but this is a time to make an exception. • Said that with Lori Ellingboe’s plan for planting new trees, she can make the overall intent to allow the removal of these three trees. Commissioner Kumar: • Stated his agreement. • Said that Findings 8 and 9 can be made as can Condition 2 (damage to property). • Said that it is not healthy for the kids living in this house. • Agreed that the owner cannot enjoy her property with these bugs. • Stated that the most important criteria is Finding 8. • Pointed out that this house is next door to a home with a newborn. • Stressed that he does not want a health hazard with spraying. • Agreed that this is a City that loves its tree and wants to keep them to the maximum extent possible. • Reminded that Lori Ellingboe cares just as much for trees on her property and is reluctantly requesting removal. This is a drastic measure for her. • Stated his support of upholding the appeal. Commissioner Zhao: • Stated that she also agrees. • Suggested an addition to the resolution requiring that the applicant work with the City Arborist on the proposed replacement trees. • Stressed her concerns over public health issues per Findings 8 and 9. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he also supports the appeal. • Reminded that this decision can also be appealed to Council so he suggested that Ms. Lori Ellingboe make contact with Mrs. Wyckoff to make sure any concerns are satisfied. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that she is a big proponent of trees. • Expressed disagreement with the health and safety issue. • Said that the biggest reason to allow the removal is the damage caused by these bugs coming into the house. • Questioned whether all alternatives have been adequately explored although she does recognize that some effort was made. • Said that given the circumstances here she can support this appeal. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed that using anecdotal evidence doesn’t support the health and safety impacts. • Stressed the value of trees in Saratoga. • Stated that spraying for bugs is a smaller issue for her than perhaps for other people. 17 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 16 • Suggested that it might be time to think about creating a list of nuisance trees. • Said that this is a beautiful yard and supported having this owner work with Kate Bear on the replanting of trees. Chair Cappello: • Advised that he agrees with staff and will not support the appeal. • Added that spraying will minimize the impact of the bugs. Commissioner Hlava discussed a number of findings for editing to support the removal. Chair Cappello took a straw vote and it was 5-2 in support of granting the appeal. Commissioner Hlava said it appears there is an overall consensus that Findings 8 and 9 can be made in support. She suggested going with how Kate Bear wrote them. She also suggested removing the word “not” from Finding 2 and changing Section 1 to read, “Approve” rather than “Deny.” City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Provided the following language, “Replacement trees shall be planted as shown on Attachment 4, subject to revisions required by the City Arborist and in a manner that would not shade the solar potential on the adjacent property.” • Added the standard attorney indemnification language. • Added the standard condition requiring the applicant to sign off on the conditions of approval. Commissioner Kumar asked if some language regarding the enjoyment of the property should be added somewhere. Commissioner Nagpal said that the minutes would reflect that position. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned the denial of a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of three boxelder trees on property located at 18644 Paseo Lado, as modified, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Cappello and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #PSP08-0002 (386-57-022) WASHINGTON MUTUAL, 12200 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct and display two identical building identification signs. The 2’4” x 8’5” signs are approximately 19.68 18 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 17 square feet each for a total area of 39.36 square feet. The signs will replace, and be smaller than, two existing signs. The signs are illuminated and will identify a bank. (Cynthia McCormick) Ms. Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Distributed a revised resolution. • Described the request as being for two internally illuminated signs that identify a bank at Park Saratoga Shopping Center. • Said that the two signs are identical and smaller than existing signs at 19.68 square feet each. They are mounted flush against the wall and include the blue and yellow WAMU corporate logo and text reading “WAMU.” • Said that this request is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hlava asked if there is a change of brand as the reason for these new signs. Planner Cynthia McCormick said that it is part of a tenant improvement. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is going to be some improvement of landscaping with this tenant improvement. Planner Cynthia McCormick suggested asking the applicant to respond. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Jeffery Jenson, Sign Company Representative: • Agreed that the landscaping needs work. • Added that if improvements to the landscaping are conditioned, they are fine with that. • Said that the size of the lettering is increasing in size but remains under 16-inches. • Reported that this is a new marketing logo and represents their current corporate identity. Chair Cappello asked if the logo and lettering would be backlit. Mr. Jeffery Jenson said yes. Mr. Jeff Walker, Resident on Seagull Way: • Said that he likes this proposed signage. • Asked if the one sign facing residential properties is illuminated. If so, he asked that said illumination be turned off by 9 or 10 p.m. using a timer. • Said that in this day, it is better to measure illumination by lumens rather that wattage since LED lighting is what is being used. Commissioner Kundtz asked if there is a versateller located at the back. Planner Cynthia McCormick said that the ATM is located inside the building. 19 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 18 Commissioner Kundtz said he respects the neighbor’s comment about lighting. Commissioner Kumar said that lighting is proposed for the west side (along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road). Commissioner Nagpal supported having no illumination on the sign facing residences. Ms. Sue Mallory, Resident on Kirkdale Drive: • Said that when she heard illumination was proposed she was concerned. • Read a letter from her husband, John “Jack” Mallory, who is attending another meeting this evening. He questions why lighting is necessary, why it is necessary at the back facing residences, and whether it is consistent with the Northwest Saratoga Community District Guidelines. He thanked the Commission for considering his comments. • Read another letter from a neighbor, Mike Ziegel, on Atrium Drive. He states that if the sign at the back were lighted it would have a negative effect on the townhome neighbors. He wrote that all-night lighting of signs is not required. Mr. Jeffery Jenson said that all comments made could be taken care of by turning off lights after business hours. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the sign facing the residences is illuminated. Mr. Jeffery Jenson replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if an alternative to internal illumination had been considered such as a gooseneck lighting fixture. Mr. Jeffery Jenson replied no. He said that there is no reason it should be illuminated at all on the east side but is more functional if illuminated on the Saratoga-Sunnyvale side. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jeffery Jenson if he were okay without illumination on the east elevation sign. Mr. Jeffery Jenson said he is just the sign representative. Commissioner Kundtz said that not illuminating the sign that is facing residences after hours would be sensitive. Commissioner Rodgers said there is a sign to the east and one to the west. Is there no sign facing north? Mr. Jeffery Jenson said that the blue awning was recently removed at the rear facing east. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that there is a large wall separating the shopping center from the adjacent residences. She said if the ATM were located inside, it would appear that the entry has to be lit. 20 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 19 Chair Cappello called for a break at 9:23 p.m. to allow staff an opportunity to go back to the office and get the tenant improvement plans to more clearly depict the proposed ATM entry. Chair Cappello reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m. and reminded that there was a question about exterior lighting. Director John Livingstone said that the ATM is located inside the east entrance. On the exterior elevation there is no added lighting just a card swipe to access the interior and interior lighting. Commissioner Nagpal said that in that case having an unlit sign at the back would not impact entry lighting. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal said she agrees with the residents that the east elevation sign should not include illumination. Commissioner Hlava agreed and supported conditioning additional landscaping. Commissioner Kundtz agreed with both Commissioners but added that the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road facing sign should be illuminated. Commissioner Rodgers said she is fine with the illuminated sign off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as being necessary but turned off at night. She also supported requiring enhanced landscaping. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval for two new building identification signs (Washington Mutual) for a total sign area of 39.36 square feet on property located at 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, with modifications as follows: • The east facing sign shall not include illumination; and • Adding a condition requiring the installation and maintenance of additional landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. 21 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 20 COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Hlava advised receipt of a letter from the priest of St. Michael’s Church thanking the Commission for the time spent on their project. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:34 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 22 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. & Location: 07/0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane Type of Application: Design Review to construct an addition to an existing single- story residence Applicant/Owner: Balakrishnan Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner Meeting Date: July 23, 2008 APN: 503-78-036 Department Head:_____________ John F. Livingstone, AICP 21789 Villa Oaks Lane 23 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 10/17/07 Application complete: 06/20/08 Notice published: 07/09/08 Mailing completed: 07/03/08 Posting completed: 07/17/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately 1,179 square foot single-story addition to the existing 5,487 square foot home located at 21789 Villa Oaks Lane. The average slope of the lot is 12.3%. The total proposed floor area will be approximately 6,666 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 15,000 square feet. The lot size is approximately 144,184 square feet, and the site is located in the HR zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060 for homes that exceed 6,000 square feet and are over 18 feet in height. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this design review application by adopting the attached resolution with conditions. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval for this project. 24 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane PROJECT DATA ZONING: HR (Hillside Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable. PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 144,184 gross, 134,165 net (less access easement) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 12.3%. GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal (foundation work only) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family dwellings. PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS The addition will match the existing colors and materials of the house which includes light beige stucco walls, white trim and architectural details. Materials include a flat concrete tile roof in a medium brown color. A color and material photo board will be available at the public hearing. 25 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane PROJECT DATA Proposal Code Requirements Site Coverage Residence Driveway Walks Covered Porch/Patio TOTAL 6,278 sq. ft. 2,630 sq. ft. 240 sq. ft. 1,328 sq. ft. 10,476 sq. ft. (7.8%) Maximum Allowable: 25% or 15,000 sq. ft. whichever is less: 15,000 sq. ft. max. Floor Area Existing Residence Addition TOTAL 5,487 sq. ft. 1,179 sq. ft. 6,666 sq. ft. 7,130 sq. ft.1 Setbacks Front yard Rear Yard Right Side Left Side 55 ft. 103 ft. 43 ft. 138 ft. 35 ft.2 100 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. Height in feet Lowest elevation Highest elevation Average Elevation Topmost elevation Maximum height 597 ft. 598.5 ft. 597.75 ft. 618.5 ft. 20.75 ft. Maximum height = 643.2 ft. elevation 26 ft. 1The allowable floor area is reduced for the average site slope of 12.3% and is based on the net site area minus the trail and scenic easements. 2These setbacks are consistent with the requirements of the HR Zoning District for lots created after May 15, 1992 and the original Design Review application for the residence, DR-96-014. 26 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately 1,179 square foot single-story addition to the existing 5,487 square foot residence. Planning Commission approval is required because the total floor area will exceed 6,000 square feet and the proposed height will exceed 18 feet. Project Design Characteristics The proposed addition will consist of a guest room, sauna, game room, wine room and covered patio. The style of the addition will match the existing house, which is approximately 10 years old. The addition will match the existing colors and materials including light beige stucco walls and white trim and architectural details. Materials include a flat concrete tile roof in a medium brown. An existing color and material photo board will be available at the public hearing. Fencing The existing fencing on the property does not comply with the hillside district fencing regulations contained within Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-29, which limit the area of enclosure to 4,000 square feet. The Planning Commission can grant exceptions to the hillside district fencing regulations in regard to the maximum enclosed area. However, Staff would have to notice a fence exception as a separate application for review at a future public hearing date. Additionally, an existing wrought iron fence intersects a 15-foot wide pedestrian- equestrian trail easement that crosses the site near the western property boundary. Because the improved trail is located outside of this fenced area it is possible for the applicant to relocate the easement to coincide with the physical improvements without any impact to the use of the trail. Staff has included two conditions of approval within the attached resolution pertaining to the fence issues. The first condition requires the applicant to bring the perimeter fencing into compliance with the hillside district fencing regulations prior to the Final Building permit. They may choose to apply for a fence exception and/or wait until the new fence regulations take effect in order to permit their existing fence and bring it into compliance with the future hillside fencing regulations. The second condition requires the applicant to either remove the fence from the pedestrian-equestrian trail easement or relocate the easement. The relocation would be processed by the Public Works Department and would involve abandoning the existing easement and recording a new easement. Correspondence and Neighbor Review Staff has received Neighbor Notification forms from five neighboring property owners. All responses were favorable, however one neighbor expressed concern with the condition of the road and the potential impacts from construction vehicles and equipment. Staff has included a condition of approval within the attached resolution requiring the 27 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane applicant to prepare a staging plan to show where vehicles and equipment will be parked during construction to ensure that no vehicles will be parked in the public right-of-way. Geotechnical/Grading The project has obtained a geotechnical clearance. The project proposes only minimal amounts of grading to construct the foundation for the addition. Arborist Review There are no trees within the area of the proposed addition or within the assumed construction zone, therefore no Arborist review was required. Landscaping No additional landscaping is proposed. Green Building Techniques The applicants propose using double pane energy efficient windows in the addition, as well as photo-sensitive exterior lighting and an energy efficient air conditioning unit. Please refer to the applicant’s project description in Attachment 3 for further reference. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below: · Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The addition will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. All mature trees will be retained as part of the project. The addition is located far from any neighboring structures and will be compatible with the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. · Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – 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. The addition is architecturally compatible with the existing residence and is situated on a level portion of the site where no mature trees or landscaping would be impacted. As conditioned the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that all of the existing trees along the property lines will be retained as 28 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane part of this project. The proposed addition will be constructed in a level portion of the lot on the east side of the existing residence with a large setback from neighboring properties. The home is situated with substantial setbacks and consideration is given to the neighbor’s views and privacy by keeping the structure single story. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Minimal grading and topographical changes are proposed for the addition and all of trees on the site will remain. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project is consistent with this finding in that no native or Heritage trees will be removed and no trees will be impacted by the proposed construction. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. This project conforms to the maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the addition will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the façade. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed addition is compatible in terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be constructed of high quality materials and will be in keeping with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed addition would conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Neighbor Notification forms 3. Applicant’s project description 4. Photos of the existing house and neighborhood 5. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 6. Applicant’s Plans, Exhibit "A" 29 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane RESOLUTION NO. ____ Application No. PDR07-0012 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Balakrishnan; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane Approval of a one-story addition to an existing one-story residence with attached garage WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct an addition to an existing residence with a total floor area of 6,666 square feet. The residence will not be more that 26 ft. in height and will be situated on a 134,165 (net) square foot lot located at 21789 Villa Oaks Lane, which is located in the HR district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes construction of a single story addition to an existing single-family residence is Categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for construction of a single family home in an urban area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in the Saratoga General Plan have been determined: · Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The addition will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. All mature trees will be retained as part of the project. The addition is located far from any neighboring structures and will be compatible with the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. · Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – 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. The addition is architecturally compatible with the existing residence and is situated on a level portion of the site where no mature trees or landscaping would be impacted. As conditioned the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga 30 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City’s Residential Design Handbook have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that all of the existing trees along the property lines will be retained as part of this project. The proposed addition will be constructed in a level portion of the lot on the east side of the existing residence with a large setback from neighboring properties. The home is situated with substantial setbacks and consideration is given to the neighbor’s views and privacy by keeping the structure single story. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Minimal grading and topographical changes are proposed for the addition and all of trees on the site will remain. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project is consistent with this finding in that no native or Heritage trees will be removed and no trees will be impacted by the proposed construction. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. This project conforms to the maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the addition will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the façade. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed addition is compatible in terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be constructed of high quality materials and will be in keeping with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed addition would conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. . Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number PDR07-0012 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. 31 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on “Exhibit A” (incorporated by reference, date stamped January 31, 2008). 2. Any proposed changes-including but not limited to façade design and materials – to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 3. The applicant shall bring the fencing on site into compliance with the hillside district fencing requirements contained within Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-29.020 prior to issuance of the Final Building permit. 4. The applicant shall remove the existing wrought iron fence within the pedestrian- equestrian trial easement or relocate the easement prior to Final Building Permit approval. 5. A fencing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval showing all fencing on site in compliance with hillside district fencing regulations contained within Article 15-29.020 prior to Final Zone Clearance 6. The applicant shall submit a staging plan to the Community Development Director for review and approval showing where vehicles and equipment will be parked during construction to ensure that no vehicles will be parked in the public right-of-way prior to issuance of the Final Building Permit. 7. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials Board dated June 17, 2007. 8. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 9. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans.” 10. Any proposed landscape shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 11. 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. 32 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane 12. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. 13. 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. 14. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover, if applicable, shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 15. A storm water retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices on file with the City. If all storm water cannot be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the Approved Plans and subject to prior City review and approval. Storm water runoff from the project site (if any after compliance with this paragraph) shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. PUBLIC WORKS 16. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any improvements in any portion of the public right of way or of a public easement. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Saratoga Fire District. CITY ATTORNEY 18. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively “City”) from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City’s processing and/or approval of the subject application. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 33 Application No. PDR 07-0012; 21789 Villa Oaks Lane Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of July 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________________ Manny Cappello, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ________________________________________________ John F. Livingstone, AICP, Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. __________________________________ _________________________ Property Owner Date 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ZOA08-0001 – Zoning Amendment Type of Application: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for 20500 Lomita Ave., 20568 Lomita Ave. and 20550 Lomita Ave. Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner Meeting Date: July 23, 2008 APN: 517-12-020 Department Head: 517-12-021 John Livingstone, AICP 517-12-022 20500, 20568, and 20550 Lomita Avenue 81 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: N/A Application complete: N/A Notice published: 07/09/08 Mailing completed: 06/30/08 Posting completed: 07/17/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendment includes rezoning three (3) legal non-conforming parcels located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district into the R-1-20,000 zoning district. Changing the zoning designation of the three (3) lots from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 will produce legal conforming status for the affected lots. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and will not affect the allowable density on the existing lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council the proposed amendment by adopting the attached Resolution. 82 Application No. GPA-8-0001 3 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density (RLD) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 20500 Lomita Avenue – 29,199 sq. ft. 20568 Lomita Avenue – 20,744 sq. ft. 20550 Lomita Avenue – 23,450 sq. ft. SLOPE: Not Applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305, “Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations”, Class 5 of Article 19, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This exemption allows minor alterations in land use limitations in areas which do not result in any changes in land use or density. REPORT SUMMARY: In late 2006 and early 2007, the Saratoga Planning Commission recommended and City Council approved a zoning amendment for three (3) parcels within the City of Saratoga. The amendment was to change the zoning of 20500 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-020), 20568 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-021), and 20550 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-022) from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000. Once the decision was made by City Council to approve a zoning amendment, the amendment must be published or posted no later than 15 days following the approval. Unfortunately, the zoning amendment was not properly posted after the City Council action was taken, nullifying its approval. As such, the City of Saratoga has re-initiated the zoning amendment before the Planning Commission for a recommendation of approval. All three (3) parcels are currently non-conforming because they are below the minimum required lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Changing the zoning designation for these three (3) parcels from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 would create legal conforming lots. Parcels located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district are required to be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. in size. The three (3) parcels in discussion meet this requirement. Furthermore, the zoning change from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 will be consistent with the General Plan (GP) designation of Residential Low Density (RLD), which is the GP district the parcels are currently located in. 83 Application No. GPA-8-0001 4 ZONING AMENDMENTS FINDINGS: Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Article 15-85 provides direction for projects that amend the Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations. Specific findings are not required. Section 65800 of the California Government Code gives cities the power to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. In addition, sound planning practice would avoid approving amendments that create or continue non-conforming sites or uses. Rezoning the three (3) subject sites from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 would correct the non-conforming status of these lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this amendment categorically exempt from CEQA and recommend approval of the proposed amendment and rezoning by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Map of three (3) parcels affected by Zoning Amendment (Exhibit A) 3. Letter sent to property owners at 20500 Lomita Avenue, 20568 Lomita Avenue, & 20550 Lomita Avenue. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 84 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. XXX APPLICATION NO. ZAO08-0001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF PARCELS 517-12-020, 517-12-021, AND 517-12-022 FROM R-1-40,000 TO R-1-20,000 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has initiated a Zoning Amendment to change the zoning designation of Assessors parcels 517-12-020, 517-12-021 and 517-12-022 from R-1-40,000 to R- 1-20,000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding this amendment; and WHEREAS, the subject Zoning Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305, “Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations”. This exemption allows for minor alterations in land use limitations, which do not result in any changes in land use or density; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Amendment would change the land use designation on these parcels in the City as illustrated in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby recommends approval to the City Council of a Zoning Amendment reclassifying the Zoning District designation from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 for the three (3) parcels known as Assessors parcels 517-12-020, 517-12-021 and 517-12-022 and shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 23rd day of July 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ________________________________ Manny Capello, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ________________________________ John Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission 85 LO MITAST.AVE.AVE.OAKALOHALN.PL.VICKERYBUTAN O CODY TERR. AVE. CALLE AUDREY SMITH LN. VINERD.VI CKERYS T . M O NTALV O O AKS LN. HILL 51712022 51712021 51712020 ¯ 0 150 300 450 60075Feet 20500 Lomita Ave -- 517-12-02020568 Lomita Ave -- 517-12-02120550 Lomita Ave -- 517-12-022 From: R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 Legend Proposed ZA parcels Exhibit "A" - Zoning Amendment 86 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 Attachment 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 23rd day of July, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: ZOA08-0001 / 20500 Lomita Avenue, 20568 Lomita Avenue, and 20550 Lomita Avenue APPLICANT/OWNER: City of Saratoga / Varies APN: 517-12-020, 517-12-021, 517-12-022 DESCRIPTION: The proposed project includes amending the zoning designation of three (3) parcels from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000. (Michael Fossati) All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, July 14, 2008. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Michael Fossati Assistant Planner (408) 868-1212 87 Attachment 4 June 20, 2008 Via US Mail Michael and Kathleen Nolan 20500 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, Ca 94070 RE: Zoning Amendment Change from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nolan, The City of Saratoga initiated the adoption of a Zoning Amendment on February 7, 2007 for three (3) parcels that were legally non-conforming and inconsistent with their respective Zoning district. The amendments were approved at that time by City Council. Although the amendments were approved, the City found a discrepancy in the noticing timeline. This discrepancy nullified the approvals received by City Council. The City has re-initiated the Zoning Amendment for those same three (3) parcels. 20500 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-020) is one of those parcels affected. Your non-conforming status is due to the size of the lot. 20500 Lomita Avenue is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Minimum lot size requirements for properties located in this district are 40,000 square ft. 20500 Lomita Avenue is approximately 29,199 sq. ft., making that property legally non-conforming. Changing the zoning designation for 20500 Lomita from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 would create a legal conforming status for your lot. Parcels located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district are required to be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. in size. Changing the zoning of 20500 Lomita will change the development standards allowed. Please see the table below regarding those changes. R-1-40,000 (existing) R-1-20,000 (proposed) Maximum Site Coverage 35% allowed 45% allowed Front Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. Side Setback (interior lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor) 25 ft. (2nd Floor) 15 ft. (1st Floor) 20 ft. (2nd Floor) Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 88 Zoning Amendment Letter June 20, 2008 Page 2 Side Setback (corner lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor / interior) 25 ft. (2nd Floor / interior) 25 ft. (1st Floor / exterior) 30 ft. (2nd Floor / exterior) 15 ft. (1st Floor / interior) 20 ft. (2nd Floor / interior) 25 ft. (1st Floor / exterior) 30 ft. (2nd Floor / exterior) Rear Setback (corner lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor) 20 ft. (2nd Floor) 15 ft. (1st Floor) 15 ft. (2nd Floor) Rear Setback (interior lot) 50 ft. (1st Floor) 60 ft. (2nd Floor) 35 ft. (1st Floor) 45 ft. (2nd Floor) The City of Saratoga will be sending a notice of public hearing to property owners within 500 ft. of the boundaries of properties that are the subject of this amendment. The public hearing will be held as part of a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 23, 2008. If Planning Commission recommends approval at that public hearing to the City Council to adopt the Zoning Amendment, an additional public hearing will be scheduled during a future City Council meeting. City Council approval is required to allow a Zoning Amendment. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the contents of this letter, please contact me at (408) 868-1212 or mfossati@saratoga.ca.us. Sincerely, Michael Fossati Assistant Planner City of Saratoga Enclosure: Map of three (3) parcels affected by the Zoning Amendment 89 Zoning Amendment Letter June 20, 2008 Page 3 June 20, 2008 Via US Mail John and Zoe Saunders 20550 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, Ca 94070 RE: Zoning Amendment Change from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Saunders, The City of Saratoga initiated the adoption of a Zoning Amendment on February 7, 2007 for three (3) parcels that were legally non-conforming and inconsistent with their respective Zoning district. The amendments were approved at that time by City Council. Although the amendments were approved, the City found a discrepancy in the noticing timeline. This discrepancy nullified the approvals received by City Council. The City has re-initiated the Zoning Amendment for those same three (3) parcels. 20550 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-020) is one of those parcels affected. Your non-conforming status is due to the size of the lot. 20550 Lomita Avenue is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Minimum lot size requirements for properties located in this district are 40,000 sq. ft. 20550 Lomita Avenue is approximately 23,450 sq. ft., making that property legally non-conforming. Changing the zoning designation for 20550 Lomita from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 would create a legal conforming status for your lot. Parcels located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district are required to be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. in size. Changing the zoning of 20550 Lomita will change the development standards allowed. Please see the table below regarding those changes. R-1-40,000 (existing) R-1-20,000 (proposed) Maximum Site Coverage 35% allowed 45% allowed Front Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. Side Setback (interior lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor) 25 ft. (2nd Floor) 15 ft. (1st Floor) 20 ft. (2nd Floor) Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 90 Zoning Amendment Letter June 20, 2008 Page 4 Side Setback (corner lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor / interior) 25 ft. (2nd Floor / interior) 25 ft. (1st Floor / exterior) 30 ft. (2nd Floor / exterior) 15 ft. (1st Floor / interior) 20 ft. (2nd Floor / interior) 25 ft. (1st Floor / exterior) 30 ft. (2nd Floor / exterior) Rear Setback (corner lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor) 20 ft. (2nd Floor) 15 ft. (1st Floor) 15 ft. (2nd Floor) Rear Setback (interior lot) 50 ft. (1st Floor) 60 ft. (2nd Floor) 35 ft. (1st Floor) 45 ft. (2nd Floor) The City of Saratoga will be sending a notice of public hearing to property owners within 500 ft. of the boundaries of properties that are the subject of this amendment. The public hearing will be held as part of a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 23, 2008. If Planning Commission recommends approval at that public hearing to the City Council to adopt the Zoning Amendment, an additional public hearing will be scheduled during a future City Council meeting. City Council approval is required to allow a Zoning Amendment. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the contents of this letter, please contact me at (408) 868-1212 or mfossati@saratoga.ca.us. Sincerely, Michael Fossati Assistant Planner City of Saratoga Enclosure: Map of three (3) parcels affected by the Zoning Amendment 91 Zoning Amendment Letter June 20, 2008 Page 5 June 20, 2008 Via US Mail Anne Cramer & Matthew Bonn 20568 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, Ca 94070 RE: Zoning Amendment Change from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 Dear Ms. Cramer & Mr. Bonn, The City of Saratoga initiated the adoption of a Zoning Amendment on February 7, 2007 for three (3) parcels that were legally non-conforming and inconsistent with their respective Zoning district. The amendments were approved at that time by City Council. Although the amendments were approved, the City found a discrepancy in the noticing timeline. This discrepancy nullified the approvals received by City Council. The City has re-initiated the Zoning Amendment for those same three (3) parcels. 20568 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-021) is one of those parcels affected. Your non-conforming status is due to the size of the lot. 20568 Lomita Avenue is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Minimum lot size requirements for properties located in this district are 40,000 sq. ft. 20568 Lomita Avenue is approximately 20,744 sq. ft., making that property legally non-conforming. Changing the zoning designation for 20568 Lomita from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 would create legal conforming status for your lot. Parcels located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district are required to be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. in size. Changing the zoning of 20568 Lomita will change the development standards allowed. Please see the table below regarding those changes. R-1-40,000 (existing) R-1-20,000 (proposed) Maximum Site Coverage 35% allowed 45% allowed Front Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. Side Setback (interior lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor) 25 ft. (2nd Floor) 15 ft. (1st Floor) 20 ft. (2nd Floor) Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 92 Zoning Amendment Letter June 20, 2008 Page 6 Side Setback (corner lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor / interior) 25 ft. (2nd Floor / interior) 25 ft. (1st Floor / exterior) 30 ft. (2nd Floor / exterior) 15 ft. (1st Floor / interior) 20 ft. (2nd Floor / interior) 25 ft. (1st Floor / exterior) 30 ft. (2nd Floor / exterior) Rear Setback (corner lot) 20 ft. (1st Floor) 20 ft. (2nd Floor) 15 ft. (1st Floor) 15 ft. (2nd Floor) Rear Setback (interior lot) 50 ft. (1st Floor) 60 ft. (2nd Floor) 35 ft. (1st Floor) 45 ft. (2nd Floor) The City of Saratoga will be sending a notice of public hearing to property owners within 500 ft. of the boundaries of properties that are the subject of this amendment. The public hearing will be held as part of a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 23, 2008. If Planning Commission recommends approval at that public hearing to the City Council to adopt the Zoning Amendment, an additional public hearing will be scheduled during a future City Council meeting. City Council approval is required to allow a Zoning Amendment. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the contents of this letter, please contact me at (408) 868-1212 or mfossati@saratoga.ca.us. Sincerely, Michael Fossati Assistant Planner City of Saratoga Enclosure: Map of three (3) parcels affected by the Zoning Amendment 93